VoP doesn't suck

[visigani]

VoP players don't get magic items. They get "magic items" in the form of relics.

And a relic can be whatever you want it to be.... you just don't call it magic.

"The Fingerbones of the 12 Fingered Saint" that lets you do... whatever three times per day is entirely legit for a VoP player to have and to use.

Just don't call it magic.

THE BOOK EXPLICITLY STATES RELICS HAVE NO PRICE AND ARE NOT MAGIC. Thus your vestments of the thrice pierced samaritan that looks like nothing more than some raggedy shirt gives you dr 10/piercing would be just fine.

But... BUT WHAT ABOUT COMPONENTS...

Any reason you can't have relic substitute components?

"The Sand of Sashimi" is useless to any but those with the vow of poverty feat, and cannot be traded... it's so much useless dust if it is. Yet, for those who make the pilgrimmage to Sashimi and weep or pray for the many pilgrims that lost their lives on that terrible road... or sacrifice X number of days assisting pilgrims on said road... may take a single handful of dust and use that dust in place of expensive spell components. Each handful provides an equivalent amount of "gold" equal to the characters level times X.

Do you have to make items specifically for Vow of Poverty Players? For the most part, yes.

The Saint's Thighbone, Fingerbone, and Burial Shroud sure look like a weapon, an amulet, and a cloak to me.

A weapon that acts as a holy disruption light mace no less.

Vow of Poverty even has some interestingly breakable rules.

For example, if you're a vow of poverty kensai you might want to take note of the fact that you can have a relic weapon, a quarterstaff for example that receives various benefits for being a relic... benefits from the various abilities vow of poverty confers upon it... and can then be enhanced further by being a kensai.

Any weapon a vow of poverty character wields is defacto a +1 Magic weapon and thus qualifies for kensai improvement.

{Scrubbed}

[limejuicepowder]

I'm not familiar enough with relics to know, but do they (as a whole) give a character access to the laundry list of abilities considered essential to high level play? Things like flight, protection from stun, death effects, some of the more deadly status effects, etc? If they don't, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing people of VoP's worth. And that's not even mentioning the enormous level of flexibility that magic items give to any character, regardless of class.

Also, I'm guessing by the name "relic" that they are (RAI) rare items. The notion that VoP is good as long as the DM hands you a pile of extremely specialized and rare items, just to make up for shortcomings, is unpalatable to some.

[eggynack]

First of all, I'd hardly call it stupid to not want to use a feat that's as ridiculously DM dependent as that. Your entire plan is for your DM to just drop a pile of unique items in your lap. It seems like a really bad plan. Second of all, even if you can do this, you're still not covering all the ground you traditionally do with items. Are there relics outside of these eight? Do any of those let you fly? Do any of those act as a belt of battle? With a combination of what you get from VoP and relics, can you do everything on this list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851)? I suspect that the answer to all of these is no.

Third and finally, I'm pretty sure that you're just wrong. Voluntary poverty specifies magic items, yes, but the feat itself does not. The feat just says, "You must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions," and then there's a list of stuff that's not relics. These are all very clearly material possessions, so you can't use them. Maybe you can pass off some of these fingers as things that aren't material possessions, but I doubt it. So, in conclusion, you're wrong. You might want to have future threads not call a bunch of absolutely correct people stupid too, just as advice. Maybe, "Hey, has anyone thought about relics as a way to bypass VoP before?" Just tossing it out there.

[ArcturusV]

The problem with the "Relic" cheat:

The Vow of Poverty feat itself says: "you must not own or use any material possession" and then lists exceptions. Nothing that a Relic is would fit the exception... Except perhaps (though it may not) fit for the Saint's Thighbone, as it is mimicking a Simple Weapon (Mace) which your vow allows.

The reason why they say it "sucks" though isn't so much lacking things like a Cloak of Resistance (Which the Vow actually covers with it's bonuses), but because it limits you from having useful "utility" stuff. Vow of Poverty is quite fine at giving you +X to Y. What it's not good at is giving you things like... the ability to fly. Or Teleport, or get Miss Chances, etc. Things that aren't direct "I get +2 to a check" as opposed to new capabilities.

That's why it's often mentioned things like... the Druid is good at Vow of Poverty. Okay I can't own an item that will let me fly? I turn into an Eagle. I can't own material possessions? I can just pick a leave off the ground and use it as my magic focus. I can't have a good weapon? Well I can just turn into a bear and rip someone's face off.

Similarly with a Sorcerer, as you can own a spell component pouch (All you need for your magic, unlike a wizard and his spellbook), and just rock out that way.

As opposed to the Monk, who the feat and images suggest is the ideal "Vow of Poverty" character, who lacks a lot of these utilities. Other than it's limited per day Dimension Door. But suddenly you throw say, a Vow of Poverty Monk against a Demon? He's dead. Helpless and dead as the Demon will just fly over head and nuke him with hellfire over and over.

[nedz]

Well the same argument can be made with Artefacts, since they are priceless also.

One issue is that the Player gets no choice about these items — they get what they're given and have to like it or lump it.

The real problem with your argument is that it requires Rule 0 to work. Rule 0 things are outside of RAW, by definition. This is a well known fallacy (Oberoni I think) which states that if you have to fix it then it is broken. The fallacy being: claiming that a rule isn't broken because it can be fixed. Rule 0 is a fix.

[The Insanity]

I'm not stupid. :smallannoyed:

[nedz]

I'm not stupid. :smallannoyed:

I seem to be missing some context here ?
Did you post this in the right thread ? :smallconfused:

[The Insanity]

The OP called me stupid.

[The Grue]

I seem to be missing some context here ?
Did you post this in the right thread ? :smallconfused:

I think the context is the title of this thread.

[visigani]

Artifacts are specifically stated as being magic items.


Here's what you may own as a vow of poverty character:

You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick. You may wear simple clothes (usually just a homespun robe, possibly also including a hat and sandals) with no magical properties. You may carry enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag. You may carry and use a spell component pouch.

Every single one of those items can be made into a relic, or used as one. All of them. Even the food.

You could make a relic sling crafted from the skin of an elven priestess by a balor that casts affliction on those struck by its ammunition. Ammunition you get from a non-magic relic bag that was used to collect the tears of a thousand orphaned children and now any stone you place into the pouch comes out with the ability to overcome the DR of any evil creature you strike.

You ARE dependent on the DM to craft relics for your character.. but so what? Relic weapons and armor will be (on average) more powerful than what you can make for yourself because you get enhancement bonuses for free and is always considered good aligned.

However, none of this is "rule zero" because it states explicitly in the book that DMs place relics as they do treasure.

DM Dave uses standard treasure rules to create an item... Sandals that let you fly and teleport at will.. calls them a relic and places them in the treasure chest with all the other stuff, and checks off X amount of gold that the VoP would otherwise get.

[Crake]

Artifacts are specifically stated as being magic items.


Here's what you may own as a vow of poverty character:

You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick. You may wear simple clothes (usually just a homespun robe, possibly also including a hat and sandals) with no magical properties. You may carry enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag. You may carry and use a spell component pouch.

Every single one of those items can be made into a relic, or used as one. All of them. Even the food.

You could make a relic sling crafted from the skin of an elven priestess by a balor that casts affliction on those struck by its ammunition. Ammunition you get from a non-magic relic bag that was used to collect the tears of a thousand orphaned children and now any stone you place into the pouch comes out with the ability to overcome the DR of any evil creature you strike.

You ARE dependent on the DM to craft relics for your character.. but so what? Relic weapons and armor will be (on average) more powerful than what you can make for yourself because you get enhancement bonuses for free and is always considered good aligned.

However, none of this is "rule zero" because it states explicitly in the book that DMs place relics as they do treasure.

DM Dave uses standard treasure rules to create an item... Sandals that let you fly and teleport at will.. calls them a relic and places them in the treasure chest with all the other stuff, and checks off X amount of gold that the VoP would otherwise get.

Which relic rules are you using that says they aren't magical and don't have a gp value? I know at the very least the ones in complete divine (which were carried over to MiC) are quite clearly magical and have gp values, so you can't be talking about those?

Edit: wait nevermind, you're talking about relics from the book of exalted deeds, correct?

[Big Fau]

Which relic rules are you using that says they aren't magical and don't have a gp value? I know at the very least the ones in complete divine (which were carried over to MiC) are quite clearly magical and have gp values, so you can't be talking about those?

Edit: wait nevermind, you're talking about relics from the book of exalted deeds, correct?

The Relic rules from the BoED were overridden by the Relic rules in Complete Divine (IIRC, I forget which came first). And even if they didn't, the CD Relic rules were reprinted in the MiC anyway.

Visigani's "strategy" is invalid because we have actual rules for Relics. Relics are merely specific magic items that are limited in quantity (and quality, but that's a different story).

[Brookshw]

I find it odd that you consider it lazy dming if the guy who spends hours a week prepping a game doesn't spend additional time home brewing items specifically for you to compensate for the draw backs of a feat you willingly chose:smallconfused:

[molten_dragon]

DM Dave uses standard treasure rules to create an item... Sandals that let you fly and teleport at will.. calls them a relic and places them in the treasure chest with all the other stuff, and checks off X amount of gold that the VoP would otherwise get.

Or maybe instead DM Dave decides he doesn't like you trying to weasel your way out of the restrictions VoP imposes, and gives you no relics at all. Ever.

That's the problem with things that rely on the DM to work.

[Karnith]

That's the problem with things that rely on the DM to work.
Also, "the DM can make custom magic items that compensate for VoP's weakness, therefore VoP isn't bad" is an argument that can be used for pretty much any weak option in the game. Substitute "VoP" in the previous sentence for "monk," "commoner," "sword and boarding," or whatever.

That the DM can "fix" an option's weakness doesn't mean that the option isn't weak. In fact, the DM going out of his way to compensate is a pretty convincing argument that it is.

[TuggyNE]

I, and many other people, may indeed be stupid. I will cheerfully admit I have overlooked many things. But… I'm really not convinced that VoP naysayers are nearly so feckless as you seem to think, visigani.


"The Fingerbones of the 12 Fingered Saint" that lets you do... whatever three times per day is entirely legit for a VoP player to have and to use.
[…]
Do you have to make items specifically for Vow of Poverty Players? For the most part, yes.
[…]
{Scrubbed}

So, let's see if we can sum this up. If you use obsolete rules for extremely rare items of enormous individual significance, homebrew new ones with wild abandon, and somehow arrange for half a dozen or more of these priceless relics to show up in time for the VoP character to use them to fly, or hit people harder, or whatever other specific thing they need… then apparently you are "not a lazy DM", and this character is no more dependent on your good graces than any other perfectly ordinary character, since that's nothing more than the bare minimum a DM should do.

I think a lot of DMs would seriously consider banning VoP in that case, if it requires that much handwaving and effort. :smallsigh: I mean, really, serious problem with suspension of disbelief here!

[Andvare]

Also, "the DM can make custom magic items that compensate for VoP's weakness, therefore VoP isn't bad" is an argument that can be used for pretty much any weak option in the game. Substitute "VoP" in the previous sentence for "monk," "commoner," "sword and boarding," or whatever.

That the DM can "fix" an option's weakness doesn't mean that the option isn't weak. In fact, the DM going out of his way to compensate is a pretty convincing argument that it is.

It doesn't need balancing, because the DM can fix it.
What was the name of that fallacy again?

[Big Fau]

To sum up Visigani's point: VoP doesn't suck because Oberoni Fallacy Relics.

For everyone else's point: lolwut?

[visigani]

Or maybe instead DM Dave decides he doesn't like you trying to weasel your way out of the restrictions VoP imposes, and gives you no relics at all. Ever.

That's the problem with things that rely on the DM to work.

So you're telling me, with a straight face, that in the EXACT SAME BOOK... AND IN THE VERY NEXT CHAPTER... they "accidentally" provided rules that allow the DM to provide player characters with non-magic, non-priced items?

They just tossed that in there "because" and I'm using that as a means to "weasel my way out of" Vow of Poverty" restrictions?
{Scrubbed}

[nedz]

The OP called me stupid.


I think the context is the title of this thread.

No personally though, it's just rhetoric. Possibly not very good rhetoric since he's alienated people, but I think it was just done for effect. YMMV, obviously.

Ed: I seem to have been ninja'd, well more like Warmaged. :smallsigh:

[Big Fau]

So you're telling me, with a straight face, that in the EXACT SAME BOOK... AND IN THE VERY NEXT CHAPTER... they "accidentally" provided rules that allow the DM to provide player characters with non-magic, non-priced items?

They just tossed that in there "because" and I'm using that as a means to "weasel my way out of" Vow of Poverty" restrictions?

{Scrubbed}.

First off, stop the flaming.

Secondly, show me the stats for the BoED Relics. Cause I can pull up the stats for the ones in CD/the MiC. The BoED Relic rules weren't even real rules, they were a suggested alternative to artifacts and have no concrete rules.

WotC realized this, and printed CD with the actual Relic rules.

[Psyren]

Oh look, another (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310179) visigani (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310084) thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309962)


I find it odd that you consider it lazy dming if the guy who spends hours a week prepping a game doesn't spend additional time home brewing items specifically for you to compensate for the draw backs of a feat you willingly chose:smallconfused:

You are here solely for my amusement, didn't you know?

What do you mean "other players" and "internally consistent campaign setting?" Who cares about that stuff?

[visigani]

First off, stop the flaming.

Secondly, show me the stats for the BoED Relics. Cause I can pull up the stats for the ones in CD/the MiC. The BoED Relic rules weren't even real rules, they were a suggested alternative to artifacts and have no concrete rules.

WotC realized this, and printed CD with the actual Relic rules.

For example: Saint’s Thighbone: The bone of a saint known for battling
the undead, this powerful relic acts as a holy disruption light mace,
though it has no enhancement bonus.
Caster Level Equivalent: 14th; Market Price Equivalent:
32,305 gp.

You're talking about two distinctly different types of items that share a title. Because, if you'll note, artifacts are *also* described as being "relics".

Artifacts
Artifacts are extremely powerful. Rather than merely another form of magic equipment, they are the sorts of legendary relics that whole campaigns can be based on.

With one such "legendary relic" being: The Saint’s Mace
This relic appears to be a simple, well-used cudgel, but its simple appearance hides great power. The saint’s mace has a +5 enhancement bonus and functions as a heavy mace with the holy, lawful, and disruption special abilities. The wielder can project searing light from the mace at will, at caster level 20th.

Look familiar?

The Book of Exalted Deeds is a book about variant player characters that contains rules for those variant player characters. This is why, for example, "Afflictions" to my knowledge aren't described anywhere else.

So what I'm hearing is that a published variant rule for equipment is being used in conjunction with a published variant rule for a style of player character... and you're crying foul?

[Karnith]

Even if you can use the BoED relics on a VoP character, you're still dependent on the DM making and handing out custom relics to compensate for the many weaknesses, because the ones printed in BoED are really, really bad, and VoP characters can't use most of them anyway.

And at the point that you're dependent on the DM giving you a bunch of custom magic items to stop your mechanical choices from crippling your character, you've conceded that said mechanical choices are weak. Again, the DM "fixing" weak options (with rules changes, extra treasure, etc.) doesn't make the options not weak.

[visigani]

Even if you can use the BoED relics on a VoP character, you're still dependent on the DM making and handing out custom relics to compensate for the many weaknesses, because the ones printed in BoED are really, really bad, and VoP characters can't use most of them anyway.

And at the point that you're dependent on the DM giving you a bunch of custom magic items to stop your mechanical choices from crippling your character, you've conceded that said mechanical choices are weak. Again, the DM "fixing" weak options (with rules changes, extra treasure, etc.) doesn't make the options not weak.

So, the player expecting the DM to place treasure in treasure that suits the player character is selfish and obscene and all kinds of wrong?

Are you kidding me? Am I on the same boards that "optimize" based on the assumption the DM will give the player any feat/spell/whatever they want at any time for any reason because someone wrote it down somewhere no matter how bizarre and contrived the justification?

But giving a VoP treasure based on rules provided in the same book is WILDLY unfair and cruel to the DM.

...Yeah.

[Red Fel]

Visigani, if I understand your position, it is thus:

1. Vow of Poverty, from BoED, prevents you from owning objects of worth.
2. Relics, as described in BoED, are not objects of worth, and can have myriad functions.
3. Someone with Vow of Poverty may therefore own relics.

Is this correct?

The two key flaws that have been pointed out in this thread, as I understand them, are:

1. Relics have since been re-statted in more current books, and the BoED definition no longer applies. Under the new definition, they are objects of worth, and thus do not comport with Vow of Poverty.
2. Even assuming that relics did comport with Vow of Poverty, you remain entirely dependent upon your DM to provide you with relics, at his discretion.

As I look at your responses, I do not believe that you have responded to the first counterpoint. With regard to the second, your position appears to be that it is the DM's responsibility to provide a VoP character with relics, for whatever reason. I think the rest of the posters argue, and I happen to agree, that this is not the case; the DM is not obligated to provide you with rewards tailored to your character choice.

My questions to you, narrowly tailored, are these:

1. How do you respond to the argument that relics have been re-statted since BoED, such that the BoED definition no longer applies?
2. Why is the DM obligated to provide a VoP character with relics, such that the DM is "stupid" or "lazy" for failure to do so?

[Saintheart]

Hmmmmmm.

This is on a bit of a tangent, and I admit it probably sounds like a bit of a plug for my Runecaster handbook, but it's a subject of interest to me.

Anyway...I wonder if rune magic (CH. 3, FRCS) gets around the VoP restrictions? If someone's run the analysis before, please tell me, but here's my take.

Vow of Poverty: "You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons ... you may wear simple clothes with no magical properties. You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf -- you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff ... may not 'borrow' a ... magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff."

Rune magic: "If you have the Inscribe Rune feat] any divine spell you have prepared can instead be cast as a rune. A rune is a temporary magical writing similar to a scroll. ... the act of writing triggers the prepared spell, whether or not the Craft check is successful." To trigger a rune and thereby make yourself the target of the spell in the rune, you just have to touch it, and you don't have to be the maker of the rune in order to trigger it. Triggering the rune is how you use it.

Possibly, because of the way runes work, a rune-carved item falls through the cracks. A rune placed on an item does not make that item a magic item as such - it is only the rune that is a magic item; Inscribe Rune itself is explicitly an feat by RAW. It is possible to handle an item without triggering a rune, too. Indeed the rune is nothing but a spell "cast as" a rune, by the RAW on Rune Magic.

For example, inscribing a rune of [I]Greater Magic Weapon on a plain old longsword does not make the sword a magic item. The magic item is the rune, which the VoP is (arguably; see further on) forbidden from using. He isn't forbidden to use the sword, or indeed the sword with a spell cast on it - VoP's RAW says you can receive a spell cast for your benefit. He is not, by RAW, forbidden from carrying a magic item -- i.e. the rune borne by the weapon. He also is never "borrowing" the magic item from anyone else because he never uses it unless he touches it.

At a stretch you could possibly say that, since a rune is a spell "cast as" a rune, it is a spell received for your benefit, and therefore capable of being used.

Permanent runes are well-capable of abuse in that they allow you to very efficiently store all your buffs as at-will runes (in effect). It's particularly good in combination with hour/level or Persisted spells. For a VoP to take advantage of this, he just gets the Runecaster of the party (or indeed a Runecaster cohort, which is even more powerful) to carve runes up and down his simple weapon, then get the Runecaster to activate the runes which buff the weapon, then hand the weapon back to the VoP. No magic item being used; the VoP never touches the runes and thus never uses them, and the sword remains a plain old ordinary longsword.

Possibly the same trick can be used depending on whether you consider clothes "with no magical properties" amounts to something inherent in the gear, for example a Robe of Protection +1 or so forth, just as a Longsword +1 is a longsword with a magical property being the enhancement bonus of +1. A rune painted, drawn, etc, on the clothes then can be activated by the party Runecaster the same way - e.g. Mage Armor and so on, so long as the spell affects only objects. Again it seems to slip neatly between VoP's restrictions.

And lastly, if your Runecaster cohort is just content to make runes which he then presses against you -- triggering a rune is touch-activated -- then you can still have the benefit of diverse spells buffing you all day long without you having to carry a single magic item.

Thoughts?

[nedz]

Can you sell Runes — i.e. do they have a value ?
I suspect that the answer to that is yes.

If so then you can benefit from a Rune someone else activates, but not own or carry them.

[Telonius]

So, the player expecting the DM to place treasure in treasure that suits the player character is selfish and obscene and all kinds of wrong?
Not obscene, but not something you can expect to happen in every case. Some DMs (probably not a majority, but they do exist) use the random treasure tables in the DMG. Some expect the players to handle their own purchases or crafting.


Are you kidding me? Am I on the same boards that "optimize" based on the assumption the DM will give the player any feat/spell/whatever they want at any time for any reason because someone wrote it down somewhere no matter how bizarre and contrived the justification?
Yes. Almost all of the optimization advice around here starts out with a few simple questions. Among those is, "What sourcebooks are allowed?" When that's determined, the advice almost exclusively has to follow what's in the sourcebooks allowed. The advice assumes that the characters themselves can create or buy what they need, with a minimum of custom magic item creation and homebrewing. All of the custom stuff is, by the rules themselves, dependent on the DM allowing it. (When you get down to it, so is everything else; but there's DM-dependent, and then there's DM-dependent). That's the reason that some infamous combinations (creating partially-charged wands for a Monk, for example) are looked down on so much.

And in the rules for Relics, there's a specific call-out: relics cannot be manufactured, bought, or sold. (Side note ... can't be bought or sold? Now that's interesting...) There is literally no way for a character to make one of these things. You can expect one about as much as you can expect an Artifact.


But giving a VoP treasure based on rules provided in the same book is WILDLY unfair and cruel to the DM.

...Yeah.

Again, not cruel, but ... not going to happen all the time, in every case.

[angry_bear]

BOED is one of those books that relies on the GM using it as the main focus of the campaign. If it's that book, maybe the Complete X books, and core; it's decent. If you throw in more than that though, it quickly becomes subpar... Which is putting it nicely to be honest.

I don't really want to call you on expecting the GM to include Relics and Artifacts with loot, since most optimization relies on the GM catering to their players in the same way. I will point out that if a GM does that for a VoP character in a mid to high powered game, then expect the other party to be even more powerful, since he'll be doing the same for them.

[Saintheart]

Can you sell Runes — i.e. do they have a value ?
I suspect that the answer to that is yes.

If so then you can benefit from a Rune someone else activates, but not own or carry them.

Inscribe Rune says a rune has a "price"; Runecasters have a "base price" -- but these values are given solely for the purposes solely of crafting, i.e. in defining the cost of materials required to create them. The very phrase "market price" in relation to runes, though, was errata'd out of the FRCS by PGtF, which leaves an interesting discrepancy in that you could argue they never reach the market and therefore have no value of themselves beyond defining how much GP is required to make one. So there may still be an eye of the needle to exploit.

[Psyren]

Not obscene, but not something you can expect to happen in every case. Some DMs (probably not a majority, but they do exist) use the random treasure tables in the DMG. Some expect the players to handle their own purchases or crafting.

Adventure Paths/modules often have fixed treasure too, or at least a set of treasure that falls within a certain range (e.g. 25% consumables/potions.) And a relic, by definition, is not the kind of thing you would find lying around anyway.

[Karnith]

So, the player expecting the DM to place treasure in treasure that suits the player character is selfish and obscene and all kinds of wrong?
No, but the player should prepare to be disappointed.

[Talya]

While I completely disagree with the original premise of this thread -- VOP is demonstrably suboptimal and Oberoni fallacy arguments don't prove otherwise -- I've always liked vow of poverty. I hate the massive equipment reliance in both table-top and computer RPGs, and the concept is appealling, regardless of the execution. I've played a few VoP characters in an effort to make them work. (Conclusion - VOP is overpowered in low magic settings, and has only a slightly negative balance effect on Druids in regular settings, which given the power of druids, is probably a good thing).

I'm currently playing a VOP druid in a forgotten realms based game, though, and the OP was still quite useful to me. Somehow I'd forgotten about BoED relics. My DM in this game likes providing personalized rewards, and actually told me privately that he finds the VOP character problematic because he was having a hard time coming up with suitable rewards for my druid.

So while I entirely disagree with the OP, he has provided me with something to tell my DM, which is kinda cool.

[visigani]

Visigani, if I understand your position, it is thus:

1. Vow of Poverty, from BoED, prevents you from owning objects of worth.
2. Relics, as described in BoED, are not objects of worth, and can have myriad functions.
3. Someone with Vow of Poverty may therefore own relics.

Is this correct?

The two key flaws that have been pointed out in this thread, as I understand them, are:

1. Relics have since been re-statted in more current books, and the BoED definition no longer applies. Under the new definition, they are objects of worth, and thus do not comport with Vow of Poverty.
2. Even assuming that relics did comport with Vow of Poverty, you remain entirely dependent upon your DM to provide you with relics, at his discretion.

As I look at your responses, I do not believe that you have responded to the first counterpoint. With regard to the second, your position appears to be that it is the DM's responsibility to provide a VoP character with relics, for whatever reason. I think the rest of the posters argue, and I happen to agree, that this is not the case; the DM is not obligated to provide you with rewards tailored to your character choice.

My questions to you, narrowly tailored, are these:

1. How do you respond to the argument that relics have been re-statted since BoED, such that the BoED definition no longer applies?
2. Why is the DM obligated to provide a VoP character with relics, such that the DM is "stupid" or "lazy" for failure to do so?


1. The Relics you're talking about are an entirely different set of items... You don't see, for example, any lifesized statues in the new "restatted" relics. Nor do the old relics require feats or spell slots. The Relics in the Book of Exalted Deeds are effectively variant items in a book that is about variant player characters. Conceivably they're two different types of relics. Call it what you like, but whereas the original relics found in the BoED *explicitly* state repeatedly they are not magic items, they cannot be bought, manufactured, or sold. Conversely the very first thing the new relics state is that they are magic items, and they can be bought... and they can be sold.. and it provides the information you need for player characters to make them.

I don't think I'm terribly out of line in stating that these relics (no more than the Artifacts that state that they too, are "relics" share anything more than an unfortunate naming coincidence, because in each case we're talking about three wildly distinct items.... that are all described as being relics.

2. Why would the DM be obligated to provide magic swords to fighters, scrolls to wizards, and lutes to bards? I mean why not just provide piles and piles of gold. Truth is... why is he required to even provide monsters to fight? Or NPCs to interact with?

He's not obligated to do ANY of that. But he does if he wants his player characters to come back. If a player makes a VOP character he does so *with the express consent of the DM*. This means the DM acknowledges the requirements of having a VoP player in the party and the book provides a means for DMs to satisfy player needs.

Like virtually every other book in the entire game does.

[PersonMan]

If a player makes a VOP character he does so *with the express consent of the DM*. This means the DM acknowledges the requirements of having a VoP player in the party and the book provides a means for DMs to satisfy player needs.

Emphasis mine.

This is wrong. If a DM says 'sure, use VoP' it means they're ok with you using VoP. Nothing else. If you show up and expect a bunch of custom loot, when he was thinking 'he's using VoP therefore won't get treasure of any kind because he's voluntarily living in poverty' then you can't say "well you told me you would give me custom loot!" because he never did. Reading more meaning into what people say is a good way to make a ton of assumptions, which can clash with someone else's assumptions and is really just poor communication. I can't just ask 'can I be a Warrior?' and assume that, if the DM says yes, he acknowledges that I should totally be getting artifact-level gear all the time.

As for 'why does the DM even need to give swords, etc.' because that kind of loot is normal. As in, a large number of enemies are likely to have them. If you want to use only enemies without such treasure, you are significantly restricted.

Oh, and because the game assumes that PCs will get treasure. The game does not, however, assume VoP character will get relics. Unless you can show me where the passage that says 'a character with Vow of Poverty can make great use of relics because they won't be using magic items so the item slots used by relics will always be open' or similar?

---

In theory, I could just say 'the commoner doesn't suck, the rules for Artifacts are in the same book, obviously a commoner is meant to be using a full set of them at all times' with the same logic you're using, namely "A and B are in the same book, therefore they're meant to be used together!"

[Big Fau]

1. The Relics you're talking about are an entirely different set of items... You don't see, for example, any lifesized statues in the new "restatted" relics. Nor do the old relics require feats or spell slots. The Relics in the Book of Exalted Deeds are effectively variant items in a book that is about variant player characters. Conceivably they're two different types of relics.

Negative. WotC's reprint policy means that CD/MiC Relic rules take priority, and that any relic presented in the BoED is simply one that does not require the True Believer feat or the ability to cast spells.

[Khatoblepas]

So, the player expecting the DM to place treasure in treasure that suits the player character is selfish and obscene and all kinds of wrong?

Are you kidding me? Am I on the same boards that "optimize" based on the assumption the DM will give the player any feat/spell/whatever they want at any time for any reason because someone wrote it down somewhere no matter how bizarre and contrived the justification?

No. Expecting the DM to give you a custom "relic" based on outdated rules that is somehow not a magical item is outside the scope of optimisation. You could ask a DM to do anything, from giving Fighters magical wings to making Wizards take Intelligence damage from writing spells down. But optimisation is based on the rules. By the rules, and only by the rules, which are the things people use in theoretical discussions about the applicability of the rules, a VoP character can not use any relic but those described in the BoED. There are no rules that say: There are Bloodsoaked Sandals of Flying Made From a Saint's Kidneys or A Saint's Stomach of Teleportation. So, without the solid rules that would give VoP characters an edge, you cannot guarantee that any DM would make these in the game. If it is in a book, however, you can say, theoretically, that it is part of the rules. Let's say you're right and a VoP char could use BoED relics. Only those relics in the BoED can be used, RAW.

Those relics fail to make VoP suck less.

But sure, with the right DM, you can have a Monk covered in holy bodyparts that makes Vow of Poverty less completely worthless. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that a DM will give you a Slice of Saint, so we cannot recommend Vow of Poverty in the same way, say, we recommend an Ancestral Relic, which puts item improvement directly into the hands of the player.

Generally, for optimisation purposes, the more control a player has over their abilities, the "better" it is, optimisation wise. Wizards are gear independant, because all they need is a spellbook and time to research and scribe spells. They get 2 spells per level, and can MAKE time for themselves. So, optimisation wise, they great. Druids, as well, come prepackaged as owning machines. They don't need any gear to make them better.

Vow of Poverty Characters, on the other hand, are VERY gear dependant, ironically enough, because they require the DM to supply them with specialised gear that makes up for their shortcomings. This makes VoP less of a sure bet, so we can't recommend it.

In general, anything that makes a character less DM dependent, is GOOD.
Anything that makes a character more DM dependent, is BAD.

So Artificers, who can make magical items? GOOD! They shine regardless of the DM.
Monks, who struggle to do the basic things without a lot of help from the DM? BAD! Because their performance relies on the DM being nice to them.

Ancestral Relic, which allows a player to dump useless trash loot into their favorite bit of equipment? GOOD! It frees them from the whims of the DM.
Vow of Poverty, which forces the player to beg the DM for obscure custom relics? BAD! Because it cannot fend for itself except under very niche circumstances (like the Druid, who normally does not need gear at all.)

Optimisation assumes a theoretical "dummy" DM, who plays by the rules and nothing else. The absolute median DM. If the rules say you cannot buy these relics, you can't buy them, but nor are you given them. Ergo, you must make the best character you can within the rules supplied by WoTC. It seems ridiculous, but it works. Just like the best laid scenario by a DM falls apart when players play, the best laid character falls apart when played by a human DM. What optimisation does, and aims to do, is reach a kind of objective baseline. Druids are one of the most powerful classes... but not if they spend their entire campaign bound in irons. Monks are one of the weakest classes... but not if the DM gives them special DBZ powers. But these are edge cases, and we can't use them in discussions about objective power.

[visigani]

Adventure Paths/modules often have fixed treasure too, or at least a set of treasure that falls within a certain range (e.g. 25% consumables/potions.) And a relic, by definition, is not the kind of thing you would find lying around anyway.

And do you see Pistis Sophia mentioned in a lot of modules? More to the point one of the best things about relics is that you don't need a whole lot of them for a character.

This is because the character improves themselves.

You give him a relic tunic with X property... and he will provide the armor bonuses.

Give him a relic stick with X property... and he will provide the weapon bonuses.

And these improve over level.

Unlike a player that must constantly invest gold, exp, and so forth into items... the VoPs items effectively level up with him.

You might have to get creative.. but there's all kinds of ways to contend with all kinds of things.

Need a spellbook? Write your spells on your clothes, scar it into your body... or be an eidetic spellcaster and spell mastery...

[Big Fau]

Good optimizers also don't call an entire forum/gaming community stupid for disagreeing.


Need a spellbook? Write your spells on your clothes, scar it into your body... or be an eidetic spellcaster and spell mastery...

The only one of those that works is the Eidetic Spellcaster ACF, and even that isn't reliable due to being Dragon content (something that is commonly banned).

For the others you physically cannot do that without paying the GP costs for scribing a spell; none of those options allow you to bypass that (even the tattoo variant spellbook from CArc requires you to pay up).

[Psyren]

In theory, I could just say 'the commoner doesn't suck, the rules for Artifacts are in the same book, obviously a commoner is meant to be using a full set of them at all times' with the same logic you're using, namely "A and B are in the same book, therefore they're meant to be used together!"

This amused me greatly :smallbiggrin:

[qwertyu63]

Negative. WotC's reprint policy means that CD/MiC Relic rules take priority, and that any relic presented in the BoED is simply one that does not require the True Believer feat or the ability to cast spells.

Wouldn't the easier answer be to say two different things can have the same name? It's happened before in the game (Touch of Healing: the spell and Touch of Healing: the feat come to mind).

[Brookshw]

This amused me greatly :smallbiggrin:

Amused you? Heck, he just wrote my next BBEG for me :smallbiggrin:

[Big Fau]

Wouldn't the easier answer be to say two different things can have the same name? It's happened before in the game (Touch of Healing: the spell and Touch of Healing: the feat come to mind).

Two different things can have the same name, of course, but the function of Relics in the BoED is to replicate magic items. CD/MiC Relics do just that, if slightly differently, and the differences between the two is how they function within an AMF (which, incidentally, shuts down VoP completely).

The feat and spell you mentioned are drastically different mechanics and function in different ways. Relics, no matter the source, are items that have special abilities. There are set rules for them, and no guidelines for creating either (unlike with custom magic items such as Runestaves, Wands, Wondrous Items, Intelligent items, Legacy Items, and so forth).

[Red Fel]

1. The Relics you're talking about are an entirely different set of items... You don't see, for example, any lifesized statues in the new "restatted" relics. Nor do the old relics require feats or spell slots. The Relics in the Book of Exalted Deeds are effectively variant items in a book that is about variant player characters. Conceivably they're two different types of relics. Call it what you like, but whereas the original relics found in the BoED *explicitly* state repeatedly they are not magic items, they cannot be bought, manufactured, or sold. Conversely the very first thing the new relics state is that they are magic items, and they can be bought... and they can be sold.. and it provides the information you need for player characters to make them.

I don't think I'm terribly out of line in stating that these relics (no more than the Artifacts that state that they too, are "relics" share anything more than an unfortunate naming coincidence, because in each case we're talking about three wildly distinct items.... that are all described as being relics.

2. Why would the DM be obligated to provide magic swords to fighters, scrolls to wizards, and lutes to bards? I mean why not just provide piles and piles of gold. Truth is... why is he required to even provide monsters to fight? Or NPCs to interact with?

He's not obligated to do ANY of that. But he does if he wants his player characters to come back. If a player makes a VOP character he does so *with the express consent of the DM*. This means the DM acknowledges the requirements of having a VoP player in the party and the book provides a means for DMs to satisfy player needs.

Like virtually every other book in the entire game does.

Okay. Let's address these rationally.

Your logic with the first issue seems to be:

1. When things are defined differently, they are different things.
2. Relics in BoED were not magic items and could not be sold. Subsequent relics were magic items and could be sold.
3. Because later relics were defined differently, they are a different class of item.

Your logic is sound, but your major premise is flawed. It assumes that creating a new definition for a term does not eliminate the old one.

For example, let us look at an apple. Much like a BoED relic, which you define as (1) not a magic item, and (2) not able to be bought or sold, an apple is (1) a fruit, which is (2) red, green, or yellow. If Merriam Webster published a dictionary tomorrow that said "Apple: n. An unusual purple cloud formation common to the Arctic," it has created a new definition; an apple under the revised definition is (1) a cloud, which is (2) purple. By your logic, because the new definition is thus distinct from the old one, there are now two definitions of apple; one that is a red, green, or yellow fruit, and one that is a purple cloud. Yet the dictionary has not created a new definition of apple to coexist with the old one; the new definition replaces the old one. The old one is now simply a "red, green, or yellow fruit," without a proper term. Similarly, here, the definition of a relic has been completely replaced, not supplemented.

With regard to your second issue, I quite agree: Why is a DM obligated to provide magic items, swords, spellbooks, and so forth? I might even go so far as to say a DM has no obligation to provide loot of any kind; his only real obligation is to help weave an adventure for the players, and even the definition of that obligation is subject to debate.

But let us assume that the DM has an obligation to provide for the basics of a class' core mechanics. This means that casters must have a way to acquire spell components, and melees must have a way to acquire weapons. (Monks should acquire, I dunno, some of those neat fist-bandage things.) These are integral to the class' mechanics; a Cleric cannot turn without a holy symbol, a caster cannot use many spells without components, a Fighter cannot Weapon Focus without a weapon. Fine.

But Vow of Poverty isn't a core class mechanic. It's a bonus. If you take the Mounted Combat feat, is the DM obligated to provide you with a horse? If you take Point Blank Shot, is the DM obligated to provide you with a ranged weapon? It's certainly courteous, but not mandatory.

Suppose my Fighter took Weapon Proficiency (Ancient Sword of Unspeakable Power), where the ASUP is an artifact requiring a special weapon proficiency to wield without bursting into flame. Is the DM now required to bring the ASUP into the game to satisfy this poor feat choice? No.

I will acknowledge that the DM's obligation to provide gear and goods, or even opportunity for the players to obtain them on their own, is limited. But even if there is an obligation, it does not extend to the reasoning you offer.

[Ignominia]

Lets say, for sake of argument, that the relics printed in BoED are in fact SEPERATE from the Relics in CD and MiC...

There are two things that are tripping me up, (and maybe I misunderstand, so correct me if Im wrong..)

1)In the VOP description it states that you can own or use material possessions with the following exceptions:

ORDINARY (neither masterwork or magic) weapons...
SIMPLE clothes with no magical properties...

2) in the description of relics it states "Relics are not magic items in the TRADITIONAL sense."

Which, and again, correct me if im wrong, means that they are IN FACT magic items? Just of a different sort? Much like Artifacts. Or how Shadow Magic isn't magic in the traditional sense...and is it fair to simply ignore ORDINARY and SIMPLE? I feel like a relic is anything but ordinary...

And, now that I dig deeper, what about the values assigned to the Relic? That indicated that regardless of whether or not it can be bought or sold, it has value, and its valued the same as a magic item?

[Big Fau]

And, now that I dig deeper, what about the values assigned to the Relic? That indicated that regardless of whether or not it can be bought or sold, it has value, and its valued the same as a magic item?

This is also another snag: VoP characters cannot own any item other than ordinary simple weapons, clothing, or food. The relics in the BoED are anything but ordinary, and have a "price" that differs from ordinary versions of those items.

Even if you adhere to the clause that they cannot be bought or sold, they still have a value that exceeds what VoP allows and are not given a specific exception for VoP.

[visigani]

Two different things can have the same name, of course, but the function of Relics in the BoED is to replicate magic items. CD/MiC Relics do just that, if slightly differently, and the differences between the two is how they function within an AMF (which, incidentally, shuts down VoP completely).

The feat and spell you mentioned are drastically different mechanics and function in different ways. Relics, no matter the source, are items that have special abilities. There are set rules for them, and no guidelines for creating either (unlike with custom magic items such as Runestaves, Wands, Wondrous Items, Intelligent items, Legacy Items, and so forth).

So one replicates magic items... and the others ARE magic items... but they're really just the same thing, you know?

*facepalm*

[Kevka Palazzo]

This is also another snag: VoP characters cannot own any item other than ordinary simple weapons, clothing, or food. The relics in the BoED are anything but ordinary, and have a "price" that differs from ordinary versions of those items.

Even if you adhere to the clause that they cannot be bought or sold, they still have a value that exceeds what VoP allows and are not given a specific exception for VoP.

I've never been involved in a debate about VoP (or the BoED for that matter). All I know about the BoED is that apparently a group of dwarves twinked out in BoED Vows literally walked through the World's Largest Dungeon as claws and blades shattered against their exalted flesh.

But after following the whole thread, this is the comment that convinced me that VoP is a suboptimal feat choice.

[visigani]

This is also another snag: VoP characters cannot own any item other than ordinary simple weapons, clothing, or food. The relics in the BoED are anything but ordinary, and have a "price" that differs from ordinary versions of those items.

Even if you adhere to the clause that they cannot be bought or sold, they still have a value that exceeds what VoP allows and are not given a specific exception for VoP.

Ordinary is defined in the feat as neither masterwork nor magical (did you intentionally ignore that?) weapons. Simple clothing, items, and food. Next?

[Karnith]

I've never been involved in a debate about VoP (or the BoED for that matter). All I know about the BoED is that apparently a group of dwarves twinked out in BoED Vows literally walked through the World's Largest Dungeon as claws and blades shattered against their exalted flesh.
VoP is a respectable choice in campaigns/situations like WLD, where there is essentially no opportunity to buy magic items and item drops are limited and crappy. In those circumstances it doesn't really cost you anything but the feats themselves.

[Kevka Palazzo]

VoP is a respectable choice in campaigns/situations like WLD, where there is essentially no opportunity to buy magic items and item drops are limited and crappy. You really don't lose anything but your feats by taking it in those circumstances.

That makes sense.

Don't the Vows also come with some benefits, though? From what I understand that's how the aforementioned dwarves managed to survive.

I haven't ever read BoED myself (neither it nor the BoVD really interested me that much), so I have no idea.

[visigani]

{Scrubbed}

[nedz]

I've never been involved in a debate about VoP (or the BoED for that matter). All I know about the BoED is that apparently a group of dwarves twinked out in BoED Vows literally walked through the World's Largest Dungeon as claws and blades shattered against their exalted flesh.

But after following the whole thread, this is the comment that convinced me that VoP is a suboptimal feat choice.

Well VoP is OK to Good for characters which don't require equipment, but since they're generally full casters (Druid, Sorcerer, etc.) it's a bit academic.

Also, one thing which hasn't been said
Priceless != 0gp
Good luck on finding a DM who thinks otherwise.

[Psyren]

Lets say, for sake of argument, that the relics printed in BoED are in fact SEPERATE from the Relics in CD and MiC...

There are two things that are tripping me up, (and maybe I misunderstand, so correct me if Im wrong..)

1)In the VOP description it states that you can own or use material possessions with the following exceptions:

ORDINARY (neither masterwork or magic) weapons...
SIMPLE clothes with no magical properties...

2) in the description of relics it states "Relics are not magic items in the TRADITIONAL sense."

Which, and again, correct me if im wrong, means that they are IN FACT magic items? Just of a different sort? Much like Artifacts. Or how Shadow Magic isn't magic in the traditional sense...and is it fair to simply ignore ORDINARY and SIMPLE? I feel like a relic is anything but ordinary...

And, now that I dig deeper, what about the values assigned to the Relic? That indicated that regardless of whether or not it can be bought or sold, it has value, and its valued the same as a magic item?

No answer to this vizzy?

[Ignominia]

[QUOTE=visigani;16274600]Ordinary is defined in the feat as neither masterwork nor magical (did you intentionally ignore that?)[QUOTE]

If we are getting into this level of pedantry, how do you respond to the "not magic in the traditional sense" and the VoP feat stating "that you may not use magical items of ANY SORT"

I think its the wording of a Relics description that is the cause of the confusion. I don't believe that Relics are NOT magic items. "Not magic items in the traditional sense" can have only one interpretation can it not?

If a Relic is not a magic item in the traditional sense, than that means it IS IN FACT A MAGIC ITEM, just a different TYPE of magic item.

And the VoP feat goes on to say you can not use magic items of ANY SORT.

Am I wrong?

[RFLS]

No answer to this vizzy?

Nope. He's managed to call us stupid, so we'll surely see the error of our ways.

Tangentially, there is a "report" button that I think I'm going to make use of right now...

[Karnith]

Don't the Vows also come with some benefits, though?
They do, but a lot of them aren't very good. Vow of Poverty has the most; it gives a bunch of numerical bonuses (such as to AC, ability scores, damage, and so on), exalted bonus feats, and some other effects like minor damage reduction, endure elements, and mind shielding. At most levels, Vow of Poverty gives benefits roughly equal to the corresponding level's recommended wealth. Unfortunately, the benefits of VoP don't cover a lot of the bases that you'd normally cover with equipment, such as flight, teleportation, immunities, and so on, and hence VoP characters tend to fall behind starting at mid-levels, as the non-numerical things that they're missing out on start to matter. VoP isn't always bad (it's pretty workable on Druids and the Incarnum classes), but for characters who lack versatile class features it can be crippling.

Then there's Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace, which prevent you from fighting normally (no killing, no lethal damage, and some other things). In exchange, your nonlethal options become more potent (in the form of higher save DCs), and with Vow of Peace you radiate a calming aura that prevents creatures from fighting around you, and more spectacularly can cause weapons to shatter when used against you.

The other Vows are not very good; most of them give you extremely situational bonuses at the cost of more restrictions on your actions. Vow of Purity, for example, gives you a +4 bonus on Fortitude saves against disease and death effects in exchange for never intentionally touching dead flesh.

[Telonius]

{Scrubbed}

Absolutely! VoP will not suck, if the DM takes quite a few precautions, makes custom items not listed as generally available, ignores sourcebooks that supersede the regular rules of publication updates, and heavily uses Rule 0 to make the game fun for the VoP person. Nobody is arguing that it's impossible for that to happen. In fact, if somebody in my campaign really, really wants to use Vow of Poverty, I'd do just that, because I'd want them to have as much fun as everybody else at the table. I'd do the same for a Truenamer, a Samurai, a Warrior, or a Commoner.

Why would I do that? Because, if we're going by what the books says that sort of character can do, without my intervention, a character with that class will suck compared to other characters with different classes. A Wizard will have no such problem (unless the player has no idea what they're doing when selecting spells). Neither will a Cleric or a Druid. Those classes will be awesome compared to the others, unless I take direct action to make it not as awesome.

It's an imbalance in the game. Of course it's fixable, with houserules and custom items. There are a number of primary caster nerfs (and boosts to melee) I use in any game I run. But with what you're saying, it sounds an awful lot like you mean that those nerfs and boosts aren't actually necessary, and that Vow of Poverty is just fine and balanced as it's written. That's just not the case.

[nedz]

Then there's Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace, which prevent you from fighting normally (no killing, no lethal damage, and some other things). In exchange, your nonlethal options become more potent (in the form of higher save DCs), and with Vow of Peace you radiate a calming aura that prevents creatures from fighting around you, and more spectacularly can cause weapons to shatter when used against you.

VoNV is particularly good on a Beguiler, whose spells do non-lethal damage at most. VoPeace is quite useful also for them, but would be beyond rubbish on a Bard due to the Calm Emotions countering their Music.

[Psyren]

VoNV is fine. VoPe is terrible because it turns you into party nanny and invites all manner of DM-screw. "Did you remember to drink your waterskin through a strainer?"

[ryu]

VoNV is fine. VoPe is terrible because it turns you into party nanny and invites all manner of DM-screw. "Did you remember to drink your waterskin through a strainer?"

Wasn't it stipulated that you had to intentionally touch the dead skin instead of doing so due to absentmindedness or trickery?

[Karnith]

Wasn't it stipulated that you had to intentionally touch the dead skin instead of doing so due to absentmindedness or trickery?
That's Vow of Purity, while Psyren is talking about Vow of Peace, which has this totally cool passage which is in no way ripe for DM abuse:

If you break your vow as a result of magical compulsion or otherwise unwittingly, you lose the benefit of this feat until you perform a suitable penance and receive an atonement spell. (Characters who have taken a Vow of Peace are known to drink water through a strainer in order to avoid accidentally swallowing, and thereby causing harm to, a small insect.)
That's right, whenever you harm any creature, even down to the smallest insect, you have to do penance and get an atonement spell. Better watch where you step!

[nedz]

That's Vow of Purity, while Psyren is talking about Vow of Peace, which has this totally cool passage which [Redacted]

IRL there are religions which practice that.

[ryu]

That's Vow of Purity, while Psyren is talking about Vow of Peace, which has this totally cool passage which is in no way insane and obnoxious:

Okay now that is just silly. Although if I were the player I would demand percentile roll to see if I swallowed an insect rather than just assuming it happened and odds are probably deeply in my favor.

[Boci]

There's also the copy paste of "if you break the vow unintentionally" being very inappropriate for vow of chastity.


Okay now that is just silly. Although if I were the player I would demand percentile roll to see if I swallowed an insect rather than just assuming it happened and odds are probably deeply in my favor.

I'd would even allow that. Its not covered by RAW, and a DM can hardly fall back on "I'm just fleshing out my world properly" when the trivial detail will negatively impact only your character.

[Kevka Palazzo]

There's also the copy paste of "if you break the vow unintentionally" being very inappropriate for vow of chastity.

In like a "blaming the victim" kind of inappropriate? Because yeesh.

[Theoboldi]

There's also the copy paste of "if you break the vow unintentionally" being very inappropriate for vow of chastity.

:smalleek:

I really shouldn't have laughed at that. But there is something darkly funny about it.

[molten_dragon]

So you're telling me, with a straight face, that in the EXACT SAME BOOK... AND IN THE VERY NEXT CHAPTER... they "accidentally" provided rules that allow the DM to provide player characters with non-magic, non-priced items?

I don't see why that's so hard to believe. It's not like there aren't tons of examples of things that WotC didn't think through well. Are you suggesting that things like the tainted sorcerer's ever-increasing taint score (and spellcasting ability modifier), candles of invocation and infinite wish loops, and the horror that is the planar shepherd prestige class were all intentional?


They just tossed that in there "because" and I'm using that as a means to "weasel my way out of" Vow of Poverty" restrictions?

That's your argument?

Yep. It violates RAI for vow of poverty pretty badly.

Hell, by your RAW-only definition, someone with VoP could freely use any psionic items they want, since those aren't magic items.


I stand by my initial argument. People are just stupid.

Having to resort to personal attacks and insults is a good sign of someone that's losing an argument.

[RFLS]

:smalleek:

I really shouldn't have laughed at that. But there is something darkly funny about it.

Unless you have an insane, contrived circumstance, it's rape. It's not funny.

[Karnith]

IRL there are religions which practice that.
Sorry, I've edited my post to (hopefully) better reflect what I wanted to say. I didn't mean that putting a strainer on a waterskin is insane or obnoxious, but that requiring that level of detail as a mechanical part of the game ("So Mr. DM, did I step on a bug during this move action?"), and having it with basically no point but to screw the player, is.

[Boci]

In like a "blaming the victim" kind of inappropriate? Because yeesh.

Yes. It adds weight to the vows requiring careful behavior to avoid accidentally touching dead flesh or ingesting drugs, so whilst I'm not 100% in favour of that clause I can see why its there, but they needed a different wording for vow of chastity (or to remove it entirely), no questions about that.

[Theoboldi]

Unless you have an insane, contrived circumstance, it's rape. It's not funny.

I am not laughing about how being raped is a violation of the oath, I am laughing about how this very dark idea came about by terrible wording.

[Ignominia]

I don't see why that's so hard to believe. It's not like there aren't tons of examples of things that WotC didn't think through well. Are you suggesting that things like the tainted sorcerer's ever-increasing taint score (and spellcasting ability modifier), candles of invocation and infinite wish loops, and the horror that is the planar shepherd prestige class were all intentional?



Yep. It violates RAI for vow of poverty pretty badly.

Hell, by your RAW-only definition, someone with VoP could freely use any psionic items they want, since those aren't magic items.



Having to resort to personal attacks and insults is a good sign of someone that's losing an argument.

Ok, Ive been trying to make this point, but have so far failed. But Molten_dragon just knocked it out of the park...

VoP using psionics items because the "aren't magic". We can ALL agree that this is ridiculous right? Visigani? You can see that as well? Would it be safe to say that psionics items aren't magic items "in the traditional sense?"

How are Relics any different?

[RFLS]

EDIT: Ninja-edited.

[123456789blaaa]

Unless you have an insane, contrived circumstance, it's rape. It's not funny.

The humor comes from how the designers blundered. It's the same reason typos can be so funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LsZDunGF0s).

EDIT: Darn pony ninja's :smallsigh:

[Theoboldi]

Edit: Ninja-edited-edited.

[lsfreak]

I'm surprised no one brought up earlier that the DM IS obligated to provide loot. This is what the rules about WBL, selling items, and community wealth are about. This is made explicit in MIC, where it is stated on page 231 "you should allow characters with sufficient funds to equip themselves as they desire" within WBL.

Not providing this is houseruling.

[3WhiteFox3]

I'm surprised no one brought up earlier that the DM IS obligated to provide loot. This is what the rules about WBL, selling items, and community wealth are about. This is made explicit in MIC, where it is stated on page 231 "you should allow characters with sufficient funds to equip themselves as they desire" within WBL.

Not providing this is houseruling.

VoP is a specific exception to the general rule of WBL.

[Ravenica]

Yup he's obligated to provide loot, he's not obligated to create custom Non-traditional magic items though.

[molten_dragon]

Unless you have an insane, contrived circumstance, it's rape. It's not funny.

Let's not start that argument please.

[Psyren]

IRL there are religions which practice that.

And that is what it came from. But what they failed to keep in mind is that people that impose restrictions like that are typically secluded hermits, not adventurers.


There's also the copy paste of "if you break the vow unintentionally" being very inappropriate for vow of chastity.

Well, it's not like Incubi ask nicely or anything :smalltongue:

[Big Fau]

Yup he's obligated to provide loot, he's not obligated to create custom Non-traditional magic items though.

Especially when there are no guidelines for doing so.

[molten_dragon]

I'm surprised no one brought up earlier that the DM IS obligated to provide loot. This is what the rules about WBL, selling items, and community wealth are about. This is made explicit in MIC, where it is stated on page 231 "you should allow characters with sufficient funds to equip themselves as they desire" within WBL.

Not providing this is houseruling.

Yes, but he's not obligated to provide a specific type of loot. Nor can relics be bought and sold, negating the clause about allowing characters with sufficient funds to equip themselves as they desire.

Plus VoP characters are required to donate their loot to starving orphans and junk.

[nedz]

Yup he's obligated to provide loot, he's not obligated to create custom Non-traditional magic items though.

Well he could run you through lots of Treasure: No encounters or give you some loot and then have an NPC rogue relieve you of it but that tends to become old.

[lsfreak]

Sorry, I agree that the DM is under no obligation to provide weird loot to circumvent VoP's weaknesses. Visigani said earlier in the thread that the DM is not obligated to provide loot to anyone, so providing weird build-specific RAI- and RAW-violating loot to the VoP character is no different than providing loot for anyone else. Which is simply not true.

[ArcturusV]

Actually the Vow of Poverty mentions (in sort of a roundabout way) that the DM is still obligated to provide loot for the character. Just the character isn't allowed to just give what would be his share to his allies. Instead he's supposed to give it all to charity, etc.

"Here you go Mr. Hobo, I know you're starving, have a +2 Longsword!"

But yeah. His argument seems to hinge on not only providing Relics (Which may or may not be reasonable), but also creating Custom Relics when there are no rules for Custom Relics (As opposed to rules for Custom Magic Items, etc). And even then you're limited to the Vow's possessions limiter. Which at best means the only "relic" you could really have is a simple weapon. So you might get away with that. You might also be able to skate with food as a magic item, if there was some holy food relic. But there isn't. And even the mace is kind of a corner case where I could see a DM ruling either way. As the thighbone is not going to be "masterwork", and a judgment call on RAI for "Magic".

[The Insanity]

In my games VoP works like this:
The character gives all his possessions and gold to charities. Anything that he earns through adventuring (or otherwise) must be given up to a worthy cause, like feeding the hungry or sheltering the homeless. None of his earnings can go to his benefit.
As a reward the character gains effects of magic items. The effect's price is the same as the price of an item that gives that effect, but the money actually goes to charity.
So basically he gains magical equipment, but it can't be stolen or sundered and if dispelled it can be reactivated with a free action.
By being super Good and paying a feat the character effectively can have any magic item without having the risk of losing it.

[molten_dragon]

Actually the Vow of Poverty mentions (in sort of a roundabout way) that the DM is still obligated to provide loot for the character. Just the character isn't allowed to just give what would be his share to his allies. Instead he's supposed to give it all to charity, etc.

"Here you go Mr. Hobo, I know you're starving, have a +2 Longsword!"

Note to self, hobos and starving orphans aren't easily able to defend themselves. Follow VoP character around and steal his charitable donations from the people he donates them to after he leaves.

[visigani]

Relics are built by the DM like any other magic item. This argument has turned hilarious because of the lengths...

"Oh... oh muh gawd... oh muh GAWD... HE EXPECTS THE DM TO PROVIDE TREASURE THE PLAYER CAN USE?!?!?!?! How DARE he! And... *gasp* it's "strange custom content from beyond the realms of madness!"..."

this group has gone to to maintain their belief that VoP must suck... because if it doesn't... can we trust anything to be real?

Meanwhile everyone is telling themselves Dragonwrought Kobolds begin play as epic dragons or somesuch nonsense... because like, they're "True Dragons".

[Andvare]

Oberoni Fallacy was the one I was thinking of.
Or "it ain't broken because I can fix it via rule 0".

While no mentioning of rule 0 was ever made by the OP, it still requires a heavy GM hand in fixing loot to suit the character, and in the process violating the RAI (and RAW).

[TheDarkSaint]

"Here you go Mr. Hobo, I know you're starving, have a +2 Longsword!"



This is why we get Murder Hobos. This is why we can't have nice things.

[nedz]

Exalted Eric is under arrest.
Exalted Eric: "Why am I under arrest, what have I done ?"
Constable: "It has been brought to our attention that wherever you go you leave a trail of bodies behind you"

[Red Fel]

Relics are built by the DM like any other magic item. This argument has turned hilarious because of the lengths...

"Oh... oh muh gawd... oh muh GAWD... HE EXPECTS THE DM TO PROVIDE TREASURE THE PLAYER CAN USE?!?!?!?! How DARE he! And... *gasp* it's "strange custom content from beyond the realms of madness!"..."

this group has gone to to maintain their belief that VoP must suck... because if it doesn't... can we trust anything to be real?

Meanwhile everyone is telling themselves Dragonwrought Kobolds begin play as epic dragons or somesuch nonsense... because like, they're "True Dragons".

I thought your argument was - repeatedly - that Relics were not like any other magic item.

As a side note, I find your resorting to ad hominem attacks to undermine the integrity of your argument.

Or did you have something constructive to add?

[Kennisiou]

No, guys, it's true though! Also, monk isn't weak either. One time I DM'd for an anything goes campaign and we had a full list of tier 1 and beyond builds and then one player who insisted on rolling monk and would not be dissuaded. I gave him a bunch of magic items that let him expend stunning fist attempts to duplicate important spell effects as extraordinary abilities and then made enemies use dispelling and antimagic auras more frequently so he'd have opportunity for his extraordinary flight and teleporting and the like to be useful! It's the least I as the DM could do because he was so far behind the rest of the party!

Monks aren't weak, they just require a DM who's willing to put in more than the bare minimum of effort.

[ArcturusV]

It's also dependent on you having a very particular "table culture".

For example... there are groups who all they do is run published adventure modules (Seen quite a few in my day). You will never find a Relic drop in a published adventure module. Hell, in a published adventure module you probably aren't going to find various weapons that most optimizers like to rely upon. You're never going to find that Magic Spiked Chain in the loot, or magic Armor with Armor Spikes that are also enchanted separately. Heck, sometimes you don't even find magic Great Swords.

But basically there is just one unique sort of table culture you're counting on existing. One where:

A) Your DM is very comfortable with taking extra time out of his week to homebrew stuff that he didn't expect to need.

B) Your DM is willing to take a look at your Vow of Poverty character, and not think "Well... he knew what he was getting into..." but want to provide you a "Not really but maybe" legal loophole around your vow... Ruining the RAI of it as your Vow Character then has all the effects of Magical Loot while also having the static bonuses of the Vow, making him strictly better than a normal character when the idea is, by RAI "you're not going to be as good as a normal character, but here are some small things to make it less painful".

C) Your fellow players won't claim "your" relics out of the loot, because why wouldn't they if they're effectively magic items that aren't magic items, and they probably guess because they aren't magic items, that they have some other corner bonus. Which they do, by being AMF immune, can't be Dispeled, etc. There's a good reason they might want to take the Relics instead of giving them to the Vower.

[Big Fau]

Relics are built by the DM like any other magic item. This argument has turned hilarious because of the lengths...

"Oh... oh muh gawd... oh muh GAWD... HE EXPECTS THE DM TO PROVIDE TREASURE THE PLAYER CAN USE?!?!?!?! How DARE he! And... *gasp* it's "strange custom content from beyond the realms of madness!"..."

this group has gone to to maintain their belief that VoP must suck... because if it doesn't... can we trust anything to be real?

Meanwhile everyone is telling themselves Dragonwrought Kobolds begin play as epic dragons or somesuch nonsense... because like, they're "True Dragons".

As of now, your argument has descended into "conceited elitist troll" and it has become clear that there is no reasoning with you.

[crayzz]

There's also the copy paste of "if you break the vow unintentionally" being very inappropriate for vow of chastity.

As dark as that is, there is precedent in Greek mythology. Medusa was cursed by Athena because she was raped (by Poseidon no less (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medusa#Medusa_in_classical_mythology)).

Still, I wouldn't be cool with a DM using that to punish a player.

[JaronK]

If you want to actually have magic items (or simulations thereof) with VoP, then you do have some options. The most obvious is the Apostle of Peace, which requires VoP and yet says you can have defensive magic items. How you define defensive is up to you. It's a weird PrC that way.

Option 2 is to take the vow after using one off magic items, such as Tomes that boost your stats.

JaronK

[molten_dragon]

Relics are built by the DM like any other magic item.

Maybe you play in very different games than the rest of us. Most DM's I've played with rarely give out custom magic items. You get something that's already created, either in one of the splatbooks, or in the module that the DM is running.


"Oh... oh muh gawd... oh muh GAWD... HE EXPECTS THE DM TO PROVIDE TREASURE THE PLAYER CAN USE?!?!?!?!

The intention of VoP is that the player can't use treasure.


this group has gone to to maintain their belief that VoP must suck... because if it doesn't... can we trust anything to be real?

I don't think you get the point that people are trying to make. Allowing a VoP character to use relics when RAI says you probably shouldn't does not mean VoP is a good choice. Especially not if you're assuming the DM's going to make you custom relics that aren't printed anywhere to make up for VoP's failings. The fact that the DM can fix something so it doesn't suck does not mean it doesn't suck, because the DM can do that with literally anything.

No one's trying to tell you not to take VoP if you want to, or that your DM can't give you relics if he wants. If that's the way you want to play, go for it. But don't try to use that as evidence that VoP is great.

And maybe try being a little nicer huh? People are more apt to listen to other people's arguments when those other people aren't being rude to them.

[Lanson]

Specific trumps General. VoP requires that you use no magic items. BoED Relics say they are not like normal magic items, ergo, they are still magic items, and will break VoP because they are not specifically called out as working with VoP. People here are trying to provide you with valid, understandable debates as to why Relics don't work in this circumstance. There is no need to get aggressive.

[lsfreak]

As of now, your argument has descended into "conceited elitist troll" and it has become clear that there is no reasoning with you.

At least the last who fit that profile had the brief and shining moment of entertainment where he seriously argued probability was a scientific conspiracy.

@Visigani: you continue to use the DM as a way of circumventing the rules printed in the game. If it requires the DM to okay something because it's not printed as-is in the rules, your argument falls into Oberoni Fallacy and will be ignored no matter how loudly or condescendingly you scream it.

[Saidoro]

If you want to actually have magic items (or simulations thereof) with VoP, then you do have some options. The most obvious is the Apostle of Peace, which requires VoP and yet says you can have defensive magic items. How you define defensive is up to you. It's a weird PrC that way.
This sword of goblin slaying is totally defensive, dead goblins can't hurt me!

[Fax Celestis]

"Here you go Mr. Hobo, I know you're starving, have a +2 Longsword!"


Give a man a longsword +2 and you will feed him for 75.9 years. Teach a man to adventure and you will feed him nothing for a very short and violent life.

(seriously, a longsword +2 is worth 8315GP. Three common meals a day is priced at 3SP. 8315 GP/.3 SP/day=~27716 days, 27716 days/365 days=~75.9 years.)

[Kevka Palazzo]

Give a man a longsword +2 and you will feed him for 75.9 years. Teach a man to adventure and you will feed him nothing for a very short and violent life.

Sounds exactly like something that happened when I was playing Adventurer, Conqueror, King.

DM: After a week of recruitment, a homeless man walks up looking for a job.
Me: You look useless, I think I'd rather not risk you stealing my XP.
Hobo: (in terrible "Russian" accent) I train bears.
Other PC: You're hired! Have this longsword and other adventuring gear!
Me: :facepalm:

[Jade_Tarem]

visigani, I'm going to tell you a little story, and I want you to remember it forever because it will help you.

My PoliSci professor at college once told us that he didn't like parties. Why, you ask? Well, he wasn't against them in principle, but *he* didn't go to any because the first two questions you get from anyone you meet at a party after college are:

1. Who are you?
2. What do you do/where do you work?

And so he would then tell them that he taught PoliSci at the nearby university. And the response he would invariably get was, "Oh, you're a PoliSci PhD? Well let me get your opinion on something..."

Only, of course, they don't want his opinion on anything. They want to give him their opinion on something and see if he agrees with it. If he does, they go home and tell their friends and family, "Guess who's as smart as a PoliSci PhD?" And if he disagrees, they go home and tell their friends and family, "Guess who's smarter than a PoliSci PhD?"

You didn't open up this thread to start a discussion, you opened it up to start a fight and preemptively declared that anyone disagreeing with you is clearly dumber than you are, because *you* being mistaken, or wrong, or that there could be multiple valid interpretations of a poorly refined splatbook variant rule is apparently not possible in this reality. Yours is not the one true opinion, the one true interpretation, or the one true anything, and statistically there are many people on a board like this who will be smarter than you. This grade-school-quality sarcasm, barrage of ad hominem attacks (among other logical fallacies, including the one where the DM rewrites the rules until what you're getting at is viable), and hyperbolic posturing is not helping your case - if anything, it's antithetical to the purpose of a message board.

[Lord_Gareth]

visigani, I'm going to tell you a little story, and I want you to remember it forever because it will help you.

My PoliSci professor at college once told us that he didn't like parties. Why, you ask? Well, he wasn't against them in principle, but *he* didn't go to any because the first two questions you get from anyone you meet at a party after college are:

1. Who are you?
2. What do you do/where do you work?

And so he would then tell them that he taught PoliSci at the nearby university. And the response he would invariably get was, "Oh, you're a PoliSci PhD? Well let me get your opinion on something..."

Only, of course, they don't want his opinion on anything. They want to give him their opinion on something and see if he agrees with it. If he does, they go home and tell their friends and family, "Guess who's as smart as a PoliSci PhD?" And if he disagrees, they go home and tell their friends and family, "Guess who's smarter than a PoliSci PhD?"

You didn't open up this thread to start a discussion, you opened it up to start a fight and preemptively declared that anyone disagreeing with you is clearly dumber than you are, because *you* being mistaken, or wrong, or that there could be multiple valid interpretations of a poorly refined splatbook variant rule is apparently not possible in this reality. Yours is not the one true opinion, the one true interpretation, or the one true anything, and statistically there are many people on a board like this who will be smarter than you. This grade-school-quality sarcasm, barrage of ad hominem attacks (among other logical fallacies, including the one where the DM rewrites the rules until what you're getting at is viable), and hyperbolic posturing is not helping your case - if anything, it's antithetical to the purpose of a message board.

I....I love you.

[jindra34]

Let me see if I understand this (and can simplify some of the above incredulicty about your arguement): Your saying VoP, which prohibits you from owning or using anything not on a short list and requires you to give anything you would gain from adventuring to worthy charitable causes, isn't bad because in the same book there exists items that aren't exactly magical, yet not listed on the exceptions list, and might in theory with a cooperative DM be given to you exactly as needed?

Now let me also ask: Would giving similar exactly as needed items WITH price tags attached to a player, in line with WBL, end up with a better or worse character?

[RFLS]

I....I love you.

Seconded. Call it to a vote? Does the Playground love Jade_Tarem?

[Kevka Palazzo]

Seconded. Call it to a vote? Does the Playground love Jade_Tarem?

I'll submit my vote.

[Red Fel]

I'll submit my vote.

This is going to be the fastest landslide election in the history of dictatorships.

I mean democracy.

I mean I vote in favor.

[ryu]

This is going to be the fastest landslide election in the history of dictatorships.

I mean democracy.

I mean I vote in favor.

The man gets my cookie.

[Ziegander]

Aye. :smalltongue:

[Morbis Meh]

Seconded. Call it to a vote? Does the Playground love Jade_Tarem?

All the yes

[Ignominia]

visigani, I'm going to tell you a little story, and I want you to remember it forever because it will help you.

My PoliSci professor at college once told us that he didn't like parties. Why, you ask? Well, he wasn't against them in principle, but *he* didn't go to any because the first two questions you get from anyone you meet at a party after college are:

1. Who are you?
2. What do you do/where do you work?

And so he would then tell them that he taught PoliSci at the nearby university. And the response he would invariably get was, "Oh, you're a PoliSci PhD? Well let me get your opinion on something..."

Only, of course, they don't want his opinion on anything. They want to give him their opinion on something and see if he agrees with it. If he does, they go home and tell their friends and family, "Guess who's as smart as a PoliSci PhD?" And if he disagrees, they go home and tell their friends and family, "Guess who's smarter than a PoliSci PhD?"

You didn't open up this thread to start a discussion, you opened it up to start a fight and preemptively declared that anyone disagreeing with you is clearly dumber than you are, because *you* being mistaken, or wrong, or that there could be multiple valid interpretations of a poorly refined splatbook variant rule is apparently not possible in this reality. Yours is not the one true opinion, the one true interpretation, or the one true anything, and statistically there are many people on a board like this who will be smarter than you. This grade-school-quality sarcasm, barrage of ad hominem attacks (among other logical fallacies, including the one where the DM rewrites the rules until what you're getting at is viable), and hyperbolic posturing is not helping your case - if anything, it's antithetical to the purpose of a message board.


Seconded. Call it to a vote? Does the Playground love Jade_Tarem?

So....very...VERY well said.

You have earned my vote sir.

[nedz]

+1 from me

[Just to Browse]

Ad hominem is saying someone wrong because they're dumb. What you guys are looking for is the no true scotsman (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman).

Insulting after after proving a point is just mean, not a fallacy.

[ryu]

Ad hominem is saying someone wrong because they're dumb. What you guys are looking for is the no true scotsman (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman).

Insulting after after proving a point is just mean, not a fallacy.

Actually he did both.

[Asheram]

Seconded. Call it to a vote? Does the Playground love Jade_Tarem?

Aye. Well said, Jade_Tarem!

[dysprosium]

+1 from me for Jade_Tarem

Great story. I don't think the position could have been put any more plainly.

[Just to Browse]

Actually he did both.

Ach, that's what I get for coming in before the scrub. :smallredface:

[Karnith]

[...]I'm going to tell you a little story [...]
You are a wonderful person.

(Also, when I heard that story, it was from an Economics professor.)

[Emperor Tippy]

VoP doesn't suck on a very small subset of characters in a very small subset of situations.

Frankly, if you stripped out the need for Sacred Vow and being exalted along with allowing the bonus feats to be any feat for which the VoP character qualifies then it could become decent.

As you need to spend two feats on it, the bonus feats that it gives tend to suck (there just aren't that many decent Exalted feats), it requires you to be Exalted, and it doesn't provide critical character capabilities it is highly subpar for everything but a Psion in an already Exalted game who has Embrace the Dark Chaos and Shun the Dark Chaos on his powers known list (or at least on the list of someone in the party for easy access).

[Aharon]

VoP doesn't suck on a very small subset of characters in a very small subset of situations.

Frankly, if you stripped out the need for Sacred Vow and being exalted along with allowing the bonus feats to be any feat for which the VoP character qualifies then it could become decent.

As you need to spend two feats on it, the bonus feats that it gives tend to suck (there just aren't that many decent Exalted feats), it requires you to be Exalted, and it doesn't provide critical character capabilities it is highly subpar for everything but a Psion in an already Exalted game who has Embrace the Dark Chaos and Shun the Dark Chaos on his powers known list (or at least on the list of someone in the party for easy access).

Actually, if we go by RAW, only the first bonus feat has to be exalted:


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

Of course, the subheader "Bonus Exalted Feats" and the table, where it is correctly stated as "Bonus Exalted Feat" make the RAI painfully clear, but an RAW argument could be made...

[NEO|Phyte]

Actually, if we go by RAW, only the first bonus feat has to be exalted:



Of course, the subheader "Bonus Exalted Feats" and the table, where it is correctly stated as "Bonus Exalted Feat" make the RAI painfully clear, but an RAW argument could be made...

why would you bring up the table, text trumps table.

[Just to Browse]

why would you bring up the table, text trumps table.

Because some people get dangerous levels of psychic feedback when interpreting RAW that heavily.

[Talya]

why would you bring up the table, text trumps table.

He brought up the table to show RAI, even though he pointed out by RAW the bonus feats need not be exalted.

[LordBlades]

I don't really want to call you on expecting the GM to include Relics and Artifacts with loot, since most optimization relies on the GM catering to their players in the same way. I will point out that if a GM does that for a VoP character in a mid to high powered game, then expect the other party to be even more powerful, since he'll be doing the same for them.

It's not exactly the same.

Most builds rely on the GM not saying no. Like 'can I take that feat?' or 'can I buy this magic item in a town that has enough GP limit?'. They require no GM effort or campaign adaptation.

The proposed approach to the VoP issue relies on the DM explicitly handing out (as part of loot or RP) specific items.

[Psyren]

The subheader is "Bonus Exalted Feats." I don't see any way you could possibly interpret that as only one of the feats being exalted.

[Tvtyrant]

The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth

Awesome. Sir you have my vote.

[mabriss lethe]

I think this thread has reached its conclusion. Here's a picture of a puppy instead. (http://all-puppies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cute-english-bulldog-puppies.jpg)

[Kevka Palazzo]

I normally don't like bulldog puppies, but that one is adorable.

[Rubik]

Everyone who votes for Jade_Tarem gets a free puppy!*

This ad was paid for by the Dictatorial Regime Institutionalization Program. DRIP is not responsible for incidental murders caused by fiendish or draconic parentage of said puppies.

*Jade_Tarem pays for the puppies.

[Svata]

Relics are built by the DM like any other magic item. This argument has turned hilarious because of the lengths...

"Oh... oh muh gawd... oh muh GAWD... HE EXPECTS THE DM TO PROVIDE TREASURE THE PLAYER CAN USE?!?!?!?! How DARE he! And... *gasp* it's "strange custom content from beyond the realms of madness!"..."

this group has gone to to maintain their belief that VoP must suck... because if it doesn't... can we trust anything to be real?

Meanwhile everyone is telling themselves Dragonwrought Kobolds begin play as epic dragons or somesuch nonsense... because like, they're "True Dragons".



When the player takes a feat that basically says "you give up all of your loot for these bonuses" then expecting custom-generated loot just so that he can have it IS kinda ridiculous, yeah. And the Kobold thing is usually a pretty divisive issue. Oh, and there are plenty of magic items not made by the DM. For example, the sword/armor of the fighter who pours all of his cash into improving it, instead of relying on the RNG to give him something that meshes with his feats.



EDIT: Oh, and +1 for Jade_Tarem, hold the (fiendish) puppy.

[137beth]

First, I'm going to say that I'm not really convinced about the whole notion that the CD/MiC relics "replace" the BoED relics.
First off, we're already talking about an outdated system--if you really care about what the 'official' or 'up-to-date' rules for D&D are, you should look at 4e. You could also argue that since the thread is about a feat from a 3.0 sourcebook, then it is a thread about 3.0 by default nope, this sentence does not exist!
More importantly, the CD/MiC relics don't have all that much in common with the BoED relics except name. There would be nothing contradictory about having them both in the same game. It would be a bit like saying, for example, that the High Proselytizer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/prestigeClasses/highProselytizer.htm) epic prestige class should not be allowed since it is "replaced" by the Crusader, which fulfills a completely different function in the game. If there was something besides the name indicating that the CD relics were actually intended to replace the BoeD relics, then this argument would be more convincing--maybe its there and I don't see it (and in that case please point it out to me!).

That being said, the pro-VoP interpretation of relics on this thread seems to be to treat them like artifacts. On that note, I will join in with the majority and say that artifacts and similar items shouldn't be counted in tiers--after all, artifacts (and really any other magic item) do more for commoners than anyone else (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285984). Arguing that VoP is good because a VoPer can use artifact-like customized relics that everyone else can also use sounds awfully like the line of thought that leads to sillyness like 'everyone is tier 1'.

And finally, Jade_Tarem wins.

[Talya]

You could also argue that since the thread is about a feat from a 3.0 sourcebook, then it is a thread about 3.0 by default.


Minor quibble: BoED is 3.5. (BoVD is 3.0)

[137beth]

Minor quibble: BoED is 3.5. (BoVD is 3.0)

Oops:smallredface:
Oh well, it doesn't really change much.

[Brookshw]

Everyone who votes for Jade_Tarem gets a free puppy!*

This ad was paid for by the Dictatorial Regime Institutionalization Program. DRIP is not responsible for incidental murders caused by fiendish or draconic parentage of said puppies.

*Jade_Tarem pays for the puppies.

He's got my vote. Where do I pick up said puppy?

[Marlowe]

Well, it took me a awhile to read this thread, because the title made my fists itch. But now that the mossie's been swatted I do have a question related to the whole "This isn't a subpar choice because the DM will give you stuff" issue.

The Archivist is a class that seems to depend, at least to be anything other than a Cloistered Cleric without domains, on Clerics and possibly Druids leaving scrolls of normally Non-Cleric spells lying about on a regular basis, so the Archivist can find and learn them. Given that neither Clerics, nor Druids have scribing scrolls as a class feature, and that scroll-scribing is inefficient compared to other casting feats, and that the only things the Archivist is interested in would be the normally-Arcane Domain spells and a few off the Druid list, I have trouble with the idea that Clerics with the ability to make scrolls would make such items of their Domain spells and then just leave them lying around just for somebody to find and learn from. It strikes me that the Archivist is an entire class that depends on the DM giving you things that have no right to exist reliably or in great quantity.

I grant you, the Archivist is still a quite powerful class if none of this happens. But without DM help, it strikes me as "Cloistered Cleric, only weaker". Am I wrong?

The Spellthief is another class that seems to suffer from this, in that getting much benefit from the class depends on having enemy spellcasters that somehow possess valuable spells, but who can be approached in close combat by somebody with light armour and a d6 hit dice, and that it's not urgent to kill immediately. Not something I'd consider usual. It's as if the DM is supposed to provide the Spellthief with a regular set of very stupid spellcaster opponents. Or the Spellthief's supposed to steal off his own party casters.

Am I wrong about these impressions? It seems this theme of "The DM is supposed to give ludicrously specific help to a character to back up a certain build" does come up a few times.

[Divayth Fyr]

He's got my vote. Where do I pick up said puppy?
At the nearest animal shelter.

[Brookshw]

At the nearest animal shelter.

Just checked, they were fresh out of the fiending half dragon types (though I'd swear that that one in the corner was half ooze based on what was coming out of it's mouth....)

[Boci]

I grant you, the Archivist is still a quite powerful class if none of this happens. But without DM help, it strikes me as "Cloistered Cleric, only weaker". Am I wrong?

There is a difference between "DM help" and "DM homebrewing stuff for you". Divine scrolls have existed since core, and whilst obviously rarer than arcane scrolls, should be a lot more common than BoED relics. (Plus relics may very well count as magical items for the purpose of a VoP character.)


The Spellthief is another class that seems to suffer from this, in that getting much benefit from the class depends on having enemy spellcasters that somehow possess valuable spells, but who can be approached in close combat by somebody with light armour and a d6 hit dice, and that it's not urgent to kill immediately. Not something I'd consider usual. It's as if the DM is supposed to provide the Spellthief with a regular set of very stupid spellcaster opponents. Or the Spellthief's supposed to steal off his own party casters.

That is the main problem of the spellthief class. And again, enemies with spells should be more more common then BoED relics.

[Kurald Galain]

I think this thread has reached its conclusion. Here's a picture of a puppy instead. (http://all-puppies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cute-english-bulldog-puppies.jpg)

So you're telling me that VOP is a good feat for a puppy?

[JaronK]

I grant you, the Archivist is still a quite powerful class if none of this happens. But without DM help, it strikes me as "Cloistered Cleric, only weaker". Am I wrong?

The spell research rules actually mean that an Archivist can just research to duplicate any existing spell. This blows the whole thing right out of the water.

Alternate idea: the spell Mule's Enlightenment (from Kingdoms of Kalamar) gives you a bonus feat for a day. Use it for Extra Spell. Scribe this into your book.

Alternate idea: Find a Warlock friend. Have him make every scroll you ever wanted.

Alternate idea: just find friendly Clerics (I find most campaigns have one back in town) to help you out as far as getting spells is concerned.


The Spellthief is another class that seems to suffer from this, in that getting much benefit from the class depends on having enemy spellcasters that somehow possess valuable spells, but who can be approached in close combat by somebody with light armour and a d6 hit dice, and that it's not urgent to kill immediately. Not something I'd consider usual. It's as if the DM is supposed to provide the Spellthief with a regular set of very stupid spellcaster opponents. Or the Spellthief's supposed to steal off his own party casters.

Yeah, I've always felt that Spellthieves were like kittens adapted with longer claws to hunt elephants. At some point, you just realize it's a terrible evolution and they're going to get stepped on.


Am I wrong about these impressions? It seems this theme of "The DM is supposed to give ludicrously specific help to a character to back up a certain build" does come up a few times.

Having played both, you're wrong about the Archivist, but totally right about Spelltheives. But the latter is amazing when there's a Factotum in the party, at least.

JaronK

[molten_dragon]

visigani, I'm going to tell you a little story, and I want you to remember it forever because it will help you.

My PoliSci professor at college once told us that he didn't like parties. Why, you ask? Well, he wasn't against them in principle, but *he* didn't go to any because the first two questions you get from anyone you meet at a party after college are:

1. Who are you?
2. What do you do/where do you work?

And so he would then tell them that he taught PoliSci at the nearby university. And the response he would invariably get was, "Oh, you're a PoliSci PhD? Well let me get your opinion on something..."

Only, of course, they don't want his opinion on anything. They want to give him their opinion on something and see if he agrees with it. If he does, they go home and tell their friends and family, "Guess who's as smart as a PoliSci PhD?" And if he disagrees, they go home and tell their friends and family, "Guess who's smarter than a PoliSci PhD?"

You didn't open up this thread to start a discussion, you opened it up to start a fight and preemptively declared that anyone disagreeing with you is clearly dumber than you are, because *you* being mistaken, or wrong, or that there could be multiple valid interpretations of a poorly refined splatbook variant rule is apparently not possible in this reality. Yours is not the one true opinion, the one true interpretation, or the one true anything, and statistically there are many people on a board like this who will be smarter than you. This grade-school-quality sarcasm, barrage of ad hominem attacks (among other logical fallacies, including the one where the DM rewrites the rules until what you're getting at is viable), and hyperbolic posturing is not helping your case - if anything, it's antithetical to the purpose of a message board.

I have never wished this forum allowed likes more than I do right now.

[Brookshw]

So you're telling me that VOP is a good feat for a puppy?

Based on what my new half ooze puppy is doing to the +1 stuffed animals I'd say they must all be VoP forsakers.

[Hiro Protagonest]

At least the last who fit that profile had the brief and shining moment of entertainment where he seriously argued probability was a scientific conspiracy.

Who's that? Last one I remember was a small group who signed on within a few days/weeks of each other and were either one guy who made alt accounts or this small highly opinionated gaming group who believed that making a character who was anything less than right at the top of the PO barrier for their class was badwrongfun.

[Zombulian]

On some points Visi, I'd be inclined to agree with you, if your rhetoric wasn't so goddamn awful. There's something particularly reminiscent in the way you argue - overuse of bold and caps, poking fun at others, and being otherwise toxic when backed into a corner - that reminds me of another user who used to stalk these boards.

So here's my theory: you're either Pickford in disguise; or you're a clone of Pickford from the future, sent here to torment the playground with ridiculous accusations and gun-stickiness.

[molten_dragon]

VoP doesn't suck on a very small subset of characters in a very small subset of situations.

Frankly, if you stripped out the need for Sacred Vow and being exalted along with allowing the bonus feats to be any feat for which the VoP character qualifies then it could become decent.

As you need to spend two feats on it, the bonus feats that it gives tend to suck (there just aren't that many decent Exalted feats), it requires you to be Exalted, and it doesn't provide critical character capabilities it is highly subpar for everything but a Psion in an already Exalted game who has Embrace the Dark Chaos and Shun the Dark Chaos on his powers known list (or at least on the list of someone in the party for easy access).

I would argue that it's not highly subpar for a druid. Slightly subpar, but not nearly as bad as it is for most other things. The things that VoP doesn't offer a druid can get other ways, and it saves the druid a good bit of money on wilding clasps.

[Psyren]

Or maybe he's burned a few baskets in his day...

[Hiro Protagonest]

On some points Visi, I'd be inclined to agree with you, if your rhetoric wasn't so goddamn awful. There's something particularly reminiscent in the way you argue - overuse of bold and caps, poking fun at others, and being otherwise toxic when backed into a corner - that reminds me of another user who used to stalk these boards.

So here's my theory: you're either Pickford in disguise; or you're a clone of Pickford from the future, sent here to torment the playground with ridiculous accusations and gun-stickiness.

I haven't seen much of Pickford, but isn't he still around and not so ridiculous? I know that his initial monks-don't-suck argument was quite bad, but what else?

[Brookshw]

His defense of enchantment in a recent thread.

[ryu]

I haven't seen much of Pickford, but isn't he still around and not so ridiculous? I know that his initial monks-don't-suck argument was quite bad, but what else?

His latest arguments involve enchantment not being the weakest school and a level one fighter beating a level one druid. I won't get into specifics if you don't want me to spoil the read. Want linkies?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Right, now I remember where I saw him. The Enchantment thread.

[Zombulian]

Right, now I remember where I saw him. The Enchantment thread.

Oh. I thought he ceased to exist after the monk debacle.

[Augmental]

Who's that? Last one I remember was a small group who signed on within a few days/weeks of each other and were either one guy who made alt accounts or this small highly opinionated gaming group who believed that making a character who was anything less than right at the top of the PO barrier for their class was badwrongfun.

I think I know who he's talking about. Are we allowed to post specific names?

[Averis Vol]

So you're telling me that VOP is a good feat for a puppy?

This isn't skyrim, wolves aren't just running around with gold and ruby rings and 53Gp, in a world where realistically puppies have no wealth to begin with, it totally is. Because even without items, puppy breath and gaze of the adorable are already enough to carry them.

VoP should actually be mandatory as a balancing mechanism.

[ryu]

Oh. I thought he ceased to exist after the monk debacle.

HA! no.

Also epic respect for the RWBY avatar Jade.

[Tvtyrant]

This isn't skyrim, wolves aren't just running around with gold and ruby rings and 53Gp, in a world where realistically puppies have no wealth to begin with, it totally is. Because even without items, puppy breath and gaze of the adorable are already enough to carry them.

VoP should actually be mandatory as a balancing mechanism.

Actually one of the more cheesy exploits as a Druid is to put VoP on your animal companion, since they rarely benefit from items. Suddenly my Dire Polar Bear gets a massive boost in abilities and a ton of extra feats for no loss.

[Asheram]

At least the last who fit that profile had the brief and shining moment of entertainment where he seriously argued probability was a scientific conspiracy.

By Jove, I remember that fellow. Wasn't he the one who advocated that binding Ronove was hideously overpowered because it gave you a "ranged" (10ft/binder level) attack for 1d6 that always hit?

((Edit for those who don't know the vestige. That is. 1d6 and a bullrush every 5 rounds))

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think I know who he's talking about. Are we allowed to post specific names?


By Jove, I remember that fellow. Wasn't he the one who advocated that binding Ronove was hideously overpowered because it gave you a "ranged" (10ft/binder level) attack for 1d6 that always hit?

I dunno who this is. He must've showed up at the time I was burned out on the 3.5 section and wasn't visiting it.


HA! no.

Also epic respect for the RWBY avatar Jade.

Ren is best character. Except for Blake, who looks sexy and acts adorable (her waving the little RWBY pennant on a stick is now stuck in my mind). But someone else called dibs on Blake (granted, someone else also has Cuthalion's Ren avatar, but I called dibs first :smalltongue:).

[molten_dragon]

Actually one of the more cheesy exploits as a Druid is to put VoP on your animal companion, since they rarely benefit from items. Suddenly my Dire Polar Bear gets a massive boost in abilities and a ton of extra feats for no loss.

How exactly does that work, since all animals have Alignment: always neutral, and the druid entry says nothing about changing their alignment?

Plus the entry on exalted feats specifies that only intelligent creatures can take exalted feats.

That's not really a cheesy exploit so much as just ignoring the rules.

[Tvtyrant]

How exactly does that work, since all animals have Alignment: always neutral, and the druid entry says nothing about changing their alignment?

Plus the entry on exalted feats specifies that only intelligent creatures can take exalted feats.

That's not really a cheesy exploit so much as ignoring the rules.

Interesting fact, an animal companion gaining intelligence does not automatically force it to stop being an animal companion. Awakening it does, but simply wishing it to have a higher int only raises its int up.

The wish would cost a bit on the hired caster chart, but by RAW it should work (as long as you can keep your animal good.)

[molten_dragon]

Interesting fact, an animal companion gaining intelligence does not automatically force it to stop being an animal companion. Awakening it does, but simply wishing it to have a higher int only raises its int up.

The wish would cost a bit on the hired caster chart, but by RAW it should work (as long as you can keep your animal good.)

That still doesn't change its alignment.

[Theoboldi]

That still doesn't change its alignment.

Aren't there rules in the BoED for changing a creature's alignment through diplomacy?

[Tvtyrant]

That still doesn't change its alignment.

On the contrary, it is no longer an animal and so it becomes able to gain an alignment. The oddity is that it no longer has a type...

[AntiTrust]

Specific trumps General. VoP requires that you use no magic items. BoED Relics say they are not like normal magic items, ergo, they are still magic items, and will break VoP because they are not specifically called out as working with VoP. People here are trying to provide you with valid, understandable debates as to why Relics don't work in this circumstance. There is no need to get aggressive.

My reading of the BOED passage says that they are "sometimes confused with magic items...never radiate magic...cannot be suppressed or dispelled with dispel magic or antimagic field". That doesn't read to me like they're magic items, but rather something different.

[molten_dragon]

On the contrary, it is no longer an animal and so it becomes able to gain an alignment. The oddity is that it no longer has a type...

How does gaining an INT score make it lose the animal type?

And animals have an alignment, neutral.

I suppose you could roleplay its actions and have it do good deeds to become good, but if you get to that point you're basically asking for the DM's permission, and no longer relying on RAW.

[Augmental]

I dunno who this is. He must've showed up at the time I was burned out on the 3.5 section and wasn't visiting it.

Well, the thread he made was about binders originally, but it got sidetracked when he claimed that probability was a lie. From there it expanded out into so many topics that it was renamed and moved to the General Forum because nobody was talking about D&D anymore.

[Tvtyrant]

How does gaining an INT score make it lose the animal type?

And animals have an alignment, neutral.

I suppose you could roleplay its actions and have it do good deeds to become good, but if you get to that point you're basically asking for the DM's permission, and no longer relying on RAW.

Animal Type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType): Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

[molten_dragon]

Animal Type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType): Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

Huh, never seen that before.

[Grim Portent]

The type becomes a reason for the GM to throw stuff at you. :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

How exactly does that work, since all animals have Alignment: always neutral, and the druid entry says nothing about changing their alignment?

Plus the entry on exalted feats specifies that only intelligent creatures can take exalted feats.

That's not really a cheesy exploit so much as just ignoring the rules.
It's pretty trivial to pick up the feat exalted companion, which allows you to make a celestial version of any animal companion at an effective druid level of one less. That makes the companion both good and intelligent enough for VoP. You can even pick up the feat by going into lion of Talisid, which gets it for free at the fourth level of the class. It's one of the few good druid prestige classes.

As for the main argument of this thread, it's pretty obvious that this won't work. Relics are clearly not ordinary by any definition, and there isn't even a provision in the rules for custom relics. Also, seriously, these items are unique. You're not going to find them just lying around in random dungeons. Maybe if you went on a quest for each and every one it would work, but that's a hell of a lot of effort.

[molten_dragon]

It's pretty trivial to pick up the feat exalted companion, which allows you to make a celestial version of any animal companion at an effective druid level of one less. That makes the companion both good and intelligent enough for VoP. You can even pick up the feat by going into lion of Talisid, which gets it for free at the fourth level of the class. It's one of the few good druid prestige classes.

Ah, very good point. I completely forgot that feat existed.

[Lanson]

On some points Visi, I'd be inclined to agree with you, if your rhetoric wasn't so goddamn awful. There's something particularly reminiscent in the way you argue - overuse of bold and caps, poking fun at others, and being otherwise toxic when backed into a corner - that reminds me of another user who used to stalk these boards.

So here's my theory: you're either Pickford in disguise; or you're a clone of Pickford from the future, sent here to torment the playground with ridiculous accusations and gun-stickiness.

I wonder what his opinion on the Drunken Master's Improvised weapon ability and how it interacts with the Damage by weight in the back of Complete Warrior. :smallwink:

On a more serious note, other than a druid, what other classes is VoP good for? I know people listed off a couple, but are there more classes that arent neutered by taking VoP?

[lsfreak]

Who's that? Last one I remember was a small group who signed on within a few days/weeks of each other and were either one guy who made alt accounts or this small highly opinionated gaming group who believed that making a character who was anything less than right at the top of the PO barrier for their class was badwrongfun.

Yea, probably wasn't actually the last. Hyperbole and whatnot. The post was some time September 11/12 of last year, all I remember about the guy was his avatar was Psion!Minmax from Goblins, and the whole probability thing that confirmed to everyone he wasn't capable of making anything resembling a rational argument. I rely on avatars to identify people so if he changed it and is still around, I never noticed.


By Jove, I remember that fellow. Wasn't he the one who advocated that binding Ronove was hideously overpowered because it gave you a "ranged" (10ft/binder level) attack for 1d6 that always hit?
Yar sounds right, though I wasn't visiting the forums all that often so I didn't know the thread was moved.

[Karnith]

On a more serious note, other than a druid, what other classes is VoP good for? I know people listed off a couple, but are there more classes that arent neutered by taking VoP?
The Psion, Incarnate, and Totemist are some other big ones that do fine with VoP. There is also am ACF from Dragon Magazine (Eidetic Spellcaster) that makes VoP wizards pretty viable by getting rid of their spellbook.

[jindra34]

On a more serious note, other than a druid, what other classes is VoP good for? I know people listed off a couple, but are there more classes that arent neutered by taking VoP?

Incarnum classes don't take the same hit as everyone else, but then again they kinda have '"NOT" ITEMS' as the main class feature/benefit/reason for going into them. And higher end casters are another step down, what with them not needing items but items being pretty grand to have.

[Kennisiou]

I wonder what his opinion on the Drunken Master's Improvised weapon ability and how it interacts with the Damage by weight in the back of Complete Warrior. :smallwink:

On a more serious note, other than a druid, what other classes is VoP good for? I know people listed off a couple, but are there more classes that arent neutered by taking VoP?

Unarmed swordsage is less gimped by not having it than Monk, but still lacks a few features from magic items it usually wants. If you manage to pound out an arcane-caster variant swordsage with your DM like is suggested for adaptation in ToB, then potentially it's very good with VoP (depending on spell list). Wildshape variant Ranger is also not very dependent on items, depending on prestiges. I could see one that takes a few MoMF levels and then prestiges into Chameleon not really needing gear thanks to wildshapes and spells.

Also, potentially if you apply enough/the right LA+ templates you could reduce your dependency on magic items enough that VoP works on any class that doesn't need a weapon. That said, I don't think that it's worth getting the, like, +15 or whatever LA it would take but I guess if you're already there then no reason not to?

[Grod_The_Giant]

On a more serious note, other than a druid, what other classes is VoP good for? I know people listed off a couple, but are there more classes that arent neutered by taking VoP?
Totemist comes out pretty OK. A wildshape ranger/master of many forms build would probably do just fine. Pretty much any non-spellbook using full T1/2 caster (or a spellbook user with Eidetic Caster) will weather the hit without undue difficulty.

EDIT: swordsage'd bad.

[Big Fau]

Or maybe he's burned a few baskets in his day...

If you're refering to who I think you are, I doubt that person and Visigani are related on account of Visigani stating he thinks druids are underpowered (relatively recently, and not as Pickford).

[Averis Vol]

Actually one of the more cheesy exploits as a Druid is to put VoP on your animal companion, since they rarely benefit from items. Suddenly my Dire Polar Bear gets a massive boost in abilities and a ton of extra feats for no loss.

Yea, I've heard of that one, but I thought we were just talking about widdle puppies, not something that will become as big as a horse in a span of like two months. :P

That being said, I've never played a druid personally, but I'd way rather beef it out in items instead. Unless, of course, animals can't be taught to activate items.

[AntiTrust]

Animal Type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType): Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

The SRD says "An awakened animal gets 3d6 Intelligence, +1d3 Charisma, and +2 HD. Its type becomes magical beast (augmented animal)."

Bolded for emphasis, so it doesn't become typeless

[Coidzor]

The SRD says "An awakened animal gets 3d6 Intelligence, +1d3 Charisma, and +2 HD. Its type becomes magical beast (augmented animal)."

Bolded for emphasis, so it doesn't become typeless

That's only in the specific case of casting the Awaken spell on an animal. If you use any other method then you're in grey "Hey, DM, it's up for you to patch the holes in the rules set" territory.

[The Glyphstone]

The SRD says "An awakened animal gets 3d6 Intelligence, +1d3 Charisma, and +2 HD. Its type becomes magical beast (augmented animal)."

Bolded for emphasis, so it doesn't become typeless

Awakened Animals, yes. An animal companion who has benefited from a Wish to raise its Intelligence score hasn't been Awakened, but it does have Int 3, making it ineligible for the Animal type but without any replacement defined.

[JaronK]

Note that VoP is very good in low op, low wealth games. Those are pretty common.

JaronK

[AntiTrust]

Awakened Animals, yes. An animal companion who has benefited from a Wish to raise its Intelligence score hasn't been Awakened, but it does have Int 3, making it ineligible for the Animal type but without any replacement defined.

Magical Beast seems like the probable choice based on its text

"A magical beast is similar to an animal but can have an Intelligence score higher than 2...If your creature resembles an animal but is intelligent or has supernatural or spell-like abilities, it’s probably a magical beast."

[Boci]

Note that VoP is very good in low op, low wealth games. Those are pretty common.

JaronK

Yeah, but its not exactly a safe bet the feat will be allowed in such a game.

[Zombulian]

Magical Beast seems like the probable choice based on its text

"A magical beast is similar to an animal but can have an Intelligence score higher than 2...If your creature resembles an animal but is intelligent or has supernatural or spell-like abilities, it’s probably a magical beast."

The issue here is that you can't have a Magical Beast as your Animal Companion.

[AntiTrust]

The issue here is that you can't have a Magical Beast as your Animal Companion.

My issue is that it can't become typeless, the question regarding having magical animal companions I wasn't so interested in

[ben-zayb]

So... is the OP expecting to see a hobo adorned with 20+ relics, or a hobo with one relic to rule them all that has teleport, special senses, condition/status negation, flying, spell effects? Either way sounds forced and purely reeks of DM adjudication. :smalltongue:

Using Oberoni Fallacy is just...

Eh, who am I kidding? That point's been already made. Just stopped by to give +1 to Jade Tarem.

[eggynack]

That being said, I've never played a druid personally, but I'd way rather beef it out in items instead. Unless, of course, animals can't be taught to activate items.
I think it would need more than two intelligence to activate an item, so you generally need to either pump its intelligence somehow (exalted companion or urban companion), or give it passive items. In the latter case, you could probably just fill that role with VoP. The real advantage is obviously that animal companions don't have any money to lose, and any kitting out is coming out of your wealth by level. If VoP is anything like WBL, and animal companions are stat reliant enough that it basically is in their case, then putting VoP on your animal companion reads a lot like double money. I don't really know what I'd be putting on an animal companion that would be so much better than VoP, especially when the VoP is so close to free.

[nedz]

Interesting fact, an animal companion gaining intelligence does not automatically force it to stop being an animal companion. Awakening it does, but simply wishing it to have a higher int only raises its int up.

The wish would cost a bit on the hired caster chart, but by RAW it should work (as long as you can keep your animal good.)

Why isn't this in the dysfunctional rules thread ?

[Jade_Tarem]

:smallredface:

1. Make post.
2. Return to work.
3. Return to thread after work.
4. !!!
5. How the hell am I going to pay for this many puppies?
6. ???
7. Profit

[RFLS]

I'll submit my vote.


This is going to be the fastest landslide election in the history of dictatorships.

I mean democracy.

I mean I vote in favor.


The man gets my cookie.


Aye. :smalltongue:


So....very...VERY well said.

You have earned my vote sir.


+1 from me


Aye. Well said, Jade_Tarem!


+1 from me for Jade_Tarem

Great story. I don't think the position could have been put any more plainly.


You are a wonderful person.

(Also, when I heard that story, it was from an Economics professor.)


Awesome. Sir you have my vote.


Everyone who votes for Jade_Tarem gets a free puppy!*

This ad was paid for by the Dictatorial Regime Institutionalization Program. DRIP is not responsible for incidental murders caused by fiendish or draconic parentage of said puppies.

*Jade_Tarem pays for the puppies.


EDIT: Oh, and +1 for Jade_Tarem, hold the (fiendish) puppy.


And finally, Jade_Tarem wins.


He's got my vote. Where do I pick up said puppy?


I have never wished this forum allowed likes more than I do right now.


Eh, who am I kidding? That point's been already made. Just stopped by to give +1 to Jade Tarem.


:smallredface:

1. Make post.
2. Return to work.
3. Return to thread after work.
4. !!!
5. How the hell am I going to pay for this many puppies?
6. ???
7. Profit

And the ayes have it. The Playground officially loves Jade_Tarem.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Or maybe he's burned a few baskets in his day...

It's right in the back of my mind... I can't remember what this was about, but I know I was there.

[Rubik]

5. How the hell am I going to pay for this many puppies?I did say they were free...

[edit] Note the opening line in my signature.

[Legendxp]

Originally Posted by Zombulian
The issue here is that you can't have a Magical Beast as your Animal Companion.

I found a few feats that say otherwise.

Exalted Companion (Book of Exalted Deeds pg42): Instead of gaining an Animal as your companion, you get a Magical Beast.

Monstrous Animal Companion (Dragon Magazine 326 pg32): If you can find a Magical Beast off the Monstrous Animal Companion list in the Creature Index, you can make it your companion if you can changes its attitude towards you to ‘helpful’ or ‘friendly’ using Wild Empathy.

[visigani]

visigani, I'm going to tell you a little story, and I want you to remember it forever because it will help you.

My PoliSci professor at college once told us that he didn't like parties. Why, you ask? Well, he wasn't against them in principle, but *he* didn't go to any because the first two questions you get from anyone you meet at a party after college are:

1. Who are you?
2. What do you do/where do you work?

And so he would then tell them that he taught PoliSci at the nearby university. And the response he would invariably get was, "Oh, you're a PoliSci PhD? Well let me get your opinion on something..."

Only, of course, they don't want his opinion on anything. They want to give him their opinion on something and see if he agrees with it. If he does, they go home and tell their friends and family, "Guess who's as smart as a PoliSci PhD?" And if he disagrees, they go home and tell their friends and family, "Guess who's smarter than a PoliSci PhD?"

You didn't open up this thread to start a discussion, you opened it up to start a fight and preemptively declared that anyone disagreeing with you is clearly dumber than you are, because *you* being mistaken, or wrong, or that there could be multiple valid interpretations of a poorly refined splatbook variant rule is apparently not possible in this reality. Yours is not the one true opinion, the one true interpretation, or the one true anything, and statistically there are many people on a board like this who will be smarter than you. This grade-school-quality sarcasm, barrage of ad hominem attacks (among other logical fallacies, including the one where the DM rewrites the rules until what you're getting at is viable), and hyperbolic posturing is not helping your case - if anything, it's antithetical to the purpose of a message board.

Accuses me of great wrong on the basis I speak in absolutes... then proceeds to speak in absolutes..


Accuses me of presenting my own opinion as correct... As he adopts the common opinion as his own and correct...

Accuses me of posting a message for the express purpose of starting a fight... posts a message filled with nothing more than an elaborate personal attack.

Lemme guess, you're a forum favorite and a mod darling and you're so very this and you're so very that and really all you did was present a load of snot nosed snark framed as carefully as possible so as not to offend the mods tender sensibilities.

Right.

Back to what I was saying before if someone is incapable of grasping the fact that the relics in the book of exalted deeds are tailor made for vow of poverty characters the failing isn't in me, it's in them, for allowing a herd to dictate to them what is and is not right and what is and is not valuable.

And then clinging to that desperately because if the herd isn't right then what else could it be wrong about?

[ryu]

Accuses me of great wrong on the basis I speak in absolutes... then proceeds to speak in absolutes..


Accuses me of presenting my own opinion as correct... As he adopts the common opinion as his own and correct...

Accuses me of posting a message for the express purpose of starting a fight... posts a message filled with nothing more than an elaborate personal attack.

Lemme guess, you're a forum favorite and a mod darling and you're so very this and you're so very that and really all you did was present a load of snot nosed snark framed as carefully as possible so as not to offend the mods tender sensibilities.

Right.

Back to what I was saying before if someone is incapable of grasping the fact that the relics in the book of exalted deeds are tailor made for vow of poverty characters the failing isn't in me, it's in them, for allowing a herd to dictate to them what is and is not right and what is and is not valuable.

And then clinging to that desperately because if the herd isn't right then what else could it be wrong about?

It's like Pickford only less amusing. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Rubik]

It's like Pickford only less amusing. Welcome to my ignore list.He's already been [redacted] from EN World for the same behavior.

Something tells me adding him to your ignore list will soon be redundant.

[Dienekes]

And then clinging to that desperately because if the herd isn't right then what else could it be wrong about?

You keep repeating this, but in my time here I have seen "the herd" change their adopted ideologies several times when adequate explanation and reasoning come into play.

The difference between your posts and the ones that actually do change the mentality of other people? Well one, they defend their position better than you have. But more importantly, your posts make you sound like a complete jackass. Why else would you start the thread by calling everyone else idiot? You're trying to place yourself on a pedestal as being above everyone else, but honestly nothing I've seen you post in this thread so far has made me see you as anything other than a petulant teenager angry that no one understands him. It's kind of sad really. If you actually put in the effort to develop your ideas in a more structured and intellectually stimulating manner you might get somewhere.

Somehow, I think you're just going to ignore me or insult me instead. And that's your prerogative, but know you won't actually convince people with that attitude, you'll just make them annoyed at you until you are ignored completely and eventually either forgotten or brought back as a joke.

[Juntao112]

He's already been [redacted] from EN World for the same behavior.


I see what you did there.

With regard to EN World, I was there and saw everything.

[ryu]

He's already been banned from EN World for the same behavior.

Something tells me adding him to your ignore list will soon be redundant.

And? It's the principle of the thing man.

[jindra34]

Again Visigani the issue isn't with the 'Relic's per se. Its that they can only keep on them and USE:
1. A normal (unenchanted non-masterwork) simple weapon
2. 1 set of simple unenchanted clothes
3. Some food, specifically 1 days worth.
4. A plain non-magical bag/sack
5. And a spell component pouch.
And I'm not seeing Relics anywhere on that list. And as they are in the same book, even with WotC's horrible editing practices, I find it doubtful that they would leave out such a HUGE exception.

[AstralFire]

What you're saying is that Relics are so clearly intended for use with Vow of Poverty that no one in the history of any of our past encounters in D&D has thought to obviously pair them with Vow of Poverty, and that these literally hundreds if not thousands of people we've met and dealt with, many of them professional game developers, are stupid.

:smallconfused:

[eggynack]

Lemme guess, you're a forum favorite and a mod darling and you're so very this and you're so very that and really all you did was present a load of snot nosed snark framed as carefully as possible so as not to offend the mods tender sensibilities.
I don't think so in particular. I'm pretty sure that people just agreed with him because what he said was accurate, interesting, and pertinent. I might have missed some big sweeping love fest prior to this point, but I can't remember one occurring.


Back to what I was saying before if someone is incapable of grasping the fact that the relics in the book of exalted deeds are tailor made for vow of poverty characters the failing isn't in me, it's in them, for allowing a herd to dictate to them what is and is not right and what is and is not valuable.
May you prove it for me? I can't really see any indication that relics are tailor made for VoP at all, and I see much indication that you actively can't use the two together. I was completely unaware of relics, and then I read your post, and I immediately disagreed with it, purely on the basis of reading the book. No herd force at all, apart from the one that knows that if some cool new discovery seems too good to be true, it probably is. You might have a slight chance of gaining a relic weapon, with a very dubious interpretation of the rules, but apart from that you're fresh out of luck.

In the best case scenario, you're completely reliant on your DM creating a pile of relics, ones that exist completely outside of any rules, and giving you enough to make up for item loss. I really can't see any of that happening, and it's certainly not something I'd depend upon. The difference between my position and your position is not that I have been blinded by my unwavering acceptance of what other people say. The difference is that I'm using logic, and the rules, to make my arguments. You are not.

[Zombulian]

I'm gonna go forward and say that while I'm sure Jade_Tarem has been around for a while judging by his forum rank... This may have been the first post I've ever seen of his.

It's kinda funny to me that as soon as someone gets more attention than you do you start complaining of favoritism. Maybe don't be an ass if you want to be a favorite/the center of attention for more than a day.

[RFLS]

It's like Pickford only less amusing. Welcome to my ignore list.

At least Pickford is, if not polite, at least civil. He obeys the forum rules, and acknowledges points made against him, even if it's with "I disagree because <reason>."

In other news, I've utilized the report button again.

[Invader]

I'm still waiting for a response to the question about relics not being magic items in the "traditional" sense argument. Seems pretty clear that at least in some sense they are in fact still magic items.

Of course I to find it easier to win arguments if I ignore the counter points that prove me wrong, reality can be so burdensome if you don't.

[Rubik]

At least Pickford is, if not polite, at least civil. He obeys the forum rules, and acknowledges points made against him, even if it's with "I disagree because <reason>."There is that. Sometimes.


In other news, I've utilized the report button again.What a coincidence!

[ryu]

At least Pickford is, if not polite, at least civil. He obeys the forum rules, and acknowledges points made against him, even if it's with "I disagree because <reason>."

In other news, I've utilized the report button again.

No I'm fine with the argumentative nature. It's managing to make arguing boring that makes the ignore button happen. After all if they're not fun(ny), AND they're pugnacious what's the point of acknowledging their existence?

[eggynack]

At least Pickford is, if not polite, at least civil. He obeys the forum rules, and acknowledges points made against him, even if it's with "I disagree because <reason>."
Agreed. I think those arguments end up being pretty engaging, if not always logical. Ultimately, even if I end up saying to myself, "Yup, I was obviously right about that all along," I at least know why I was right in the first place on a deeper level. This thread is just mean spirited, by contrast.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Oh look, another (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310179) visigani (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310084) thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309962)


I'm not going to lie, I honestly thought that this was another Pickford thread.

I feel bad for assuming that now.

also, another +1 for Jade_Tarem.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In other news, I've utilized the report button again.
Wait, is that an option? We can report people for being ****s?

On-topic...

Visigani's point about relics being non-magical may be valid. The language in BoED is pretty damning on that count-- not only the oft-mentioned "not magic in the traditional sense" line, but they don't radiate magic, are immune to being suppressed or dispelled, and work in anti-magic fields. That last point in particular would seem to classify them as Extraordinary effects. So that's interesting, and probably can be of use somewhere.

But not here. VoP doesn't talk about the gold value of items, and it doesn't talk about not being allowed magic effects. The ban is on material possessions, with a very few listed possessions. You're allowed "ordinary simple weapons," "simple clothes...with no magical properties," and "a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag."

Now, maybe it's just me, but... a relic, an item empowered by close contact with a saint, an item meant to mirror things that, in real life, drew/draw people on incredible pilgrimages... that's not normal. That's not simple. An axe used to kill a saint is not, and will never be, "an ordinary weapon."

[ryu]

Yep. Little exclamation point button next to their online/offline indicator. Reports the post they made.

[Kennisiou]

But not here. VoP doesn't talk about the gold value of items, and it doesn't talk about not being allowed magic effects. The ban is on material possessions, with a very few listed possessions. You're allowed "ordinary simple weapons," "simple clothes...with no magical properties," and "a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag."

Now, maybe it's just me, but... a relic, an item empowered by close contact with a saint, an item meant to mirror things that, in real life, drew/draw people on incredible pilgrimages... that's not normal. That's not simple. An axe used to kill a saint is not, and will never be, "an ordinary weapon."

Yeah, that's pretty accurate by RAW. Hell, I've seen DMs use the RAW to justify things like not letting VoP players do things like cook food for others using anything but a campfire and their own allowed simple possessions.

[Deophaun]

Yeah, that's pretty accurate by RAW. Hell, I've seen DMs use the RAW to justify things like not letting VoP players do things like cook food for others using anything but a campfire and their own allowed simple possessions.
Heck, by RAW, VoPers aren't allowed to open doors. It sucks not simply because of mechanical deficiency, but also because of how poorly written it is that you pretty much need house rules for it to function.

Oh, and am I too late for a puppy?

[RFLS]

Wait, is that an option? We can report people for being ****s?

It's specifically for "spam, advertising messages, problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts as well as any posts you feel are or might be against the forum rules." It can be found in the lower left corner of the forum post in question; it's a white triangle with a red border and an exclamation mark.

[Jade_Tarem]

Accuses me of great wrong on the basis I speak in absolutes... then proceeds to speak in absolutes..

Ah, but I didn't say you were wrong on the basis of speaking in absolutes. Some things *are* absolute - we call them 'facts.' For instance, my claim that you preemptively called everyone stupid was a fact. It's provable. It's in the title of all the early posts. My statement that you showed up looking for a fight is conjecture, and is presented as such. My statement that you have yet to even consider that you could be wrong is also a fact, although if you can self-quote to prove me wrong I'll certainly reconsider.


Accuses me of presenting my own opinion as correct... As he adopts the common opinion as his own and correct...

I can adopt whatever opinion I wish. Obviously, I'm not going to adopt an opinion that I think is *wrong.* Being in possession of the minority opinion does not make you right or even special, and *that* was one of the points I was trying to make with my little story. The other was that you are completely incapable of learning anything if you are unwilling to acknowledge that you don't know everything.


Accuses me of posting a message for the express purpose of starting a fight... posts a message filled with nothing more than an elaborate personal attack.

You are free to interpret constructive criticism as an elaborate personal attack if you like - but you are going to lead a hard, lonely, angry life if that's your default mode of operation.


Lemme guess, you're a forum favorite and a mod darling and you're so very this and you're so very that and really all you did was present a load of snot nosed snark framed as carefully as possible so as not to offend the mods tender sensibilities.

Someone who is literally incapable of handling criticism or disagreement has no business referring to anyone's sensibilities as 'tender.' I was actually rather stunned by the response I got, as it's the largest I've ever had. I've also gotten into trouble when trying to talk to people like you in the past (to the tune of counter-flaming infractions), so yes, I am quite careful about my language and don't really consider myself a 'mod darling.' I assure you, the response I'd like to give would probably get me permabanned, so I wouldn't complain about the application of the rules if I were you.

That said, I'd like you to stand in front of a mirror and read the segment I quoted above to yourself in a high-pitched, nasal voice. If that doesn't convince you to change your tone, nothing will.

Tippy, by contrast, *is* something of a forum favorite (as far as I can tell), mostly because he's quite good at reasoned debate, typically knows his stuff, and put a lot of thought into what a world governed by 3.5 RAW would look like and came up with a very compelling argument that it would look more like The Federation than Faerun, and the resulting thought experiment still carries his screen name. He's also capable of disagreeing with people without calling them names.


And then clinging to that desperately because if the herd isn't right then what else could it be wrong about?

Heaven help us if you ever learn the word 'sheeple.' See above: having the minority opinion only makes you automatically right in terribly written movies. In reality, there are likely to be thousands of variations on any given opinion, and most of them can be backed up to some degree or another. The problem with your argument, I claimed previously, is that you are unwilling to acknowledge even the merest possibility that anyone else could have a point equal or superior to your own, which is a stance so full of classical hubris that Oedipus is sending me text messages telling me to warn you about your future wife.


A woman was watching the evening news, when she saw an urgent bulletin warning people going out that there was a man driving down the wrong side of the nearby interstate, into incoming traffic. Worried because her husband normally took that interstate home from work, she called his cellphone and told him about the lunatic barreling toward oncoming traffic. Her husband frantically shouted back over the phone, "It's worse than that, dear - there's hundreds of them!"

The 'herd' is completely capable of being right.

Your language, tone, and attitude is presenting a bad first impression, and you respond to all counterpoints with bold fonts, cheap (text based) theatrics, and the claim that anyone who doesn't immediately and completely agree with you is a brainless drone following a 'herd' mentality, which is funny on several levels.

[ryu]

Heck, by RAW, VoPers aren't allowed to open doors. It sucks not simply because of mechanical deficiency, but also because of how poorly written it is that you pretty much need house rules for it to function.

Oh, and am I too late for a puppy?

Depends whether the guy who sigged it is still checking. If not you may have to wait for him to check back later to edit you in.

[Averis Vol]

I think it would need more than two intelligence to activate an item, so you generally need to either pump its intelligence somehow (exalted companion or urban companion), or give it passive items. In the latter case, you could probably just fill that role with VoP. The real advantage is obviously that animal companions don't have any money to lose, and any kitting out is coming out of your wealth by level. If VoP is anything like WBL, and animal companions are stat reliant enough that it basically is in their case, then putting VoP on your animal companion reads a lot like double money. I don't really know what I'd be putting on an animal companion that would be so much better than VoP, especially when the VoP is so close to free.

Yea, yea you're right. I just get the biggest grin when I think of a horse sized wolf bearing down on someone while sweating blood because he just activated his bands of blood rage :smallbiggrin:

[Dimers]

Heaven help us if you ever learn the word 'sheeple.'

Ooh, nicely played! Since visigani seems unwilling to accept anything someone else agrees on, your use of the word should prevent him* from putting it in his vocabulary. Jade_Tarem, you have not only pleased the Playground, you have made the world a better place.


*gender known from the recent sexism threads

[Drelua]

Heck, by RAW, VoPers aren't allowed to open doors. It sucks not simply because of mechanical deficiency, but also because of how poorly written it is that you pretty much need house rules for it to function.

Oh, and am I too late for a puppy?

Wait, so you're saying... if I take Vow of Poverty, the rules actually say that I have can only open doors by kicking them in? That has to be the best rule that I have ever heard. :smallamused:

Oh, and I was going to offer Jade_Tarem an internet high five, but after the line about Oedipus, I don't think that would suffice. Well played.

[ryu]

Wait, so you're saying... if I take Vow of Poverty, the rules actually say that I have can only open doors by kicking them in? That has to be the best rule that I have ever heard. :smallamused:

Oh, and I was going to offer Jade_Tarem an internet high five, but after the line about Oedipus, I don't think that would suffice. Well played.

Internet chest bump?

[Deophaun]

Wait, so you're saying... if I take Vow of Poverty, the rules actually say that I have can only open doors by kicking them in? That has to be the best rule that I have ever heard. :smallamused:
Well, it says "you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions..." and door handles are not on the list. Did your fighter climb a cliff and lower a rope to help you get up? Well, guess what else is not on the list. Did you ask for a drink of water? I hope you aren't thinking of taking it out of a cup, canteen, or water skin.

You can, however, own a billion heavy crossbows.

[Ignominia]

I'm still waiting for a response to the question about relics not being magic items in the "traditional" sense argument. Seems pretty clear that at least in some sense they are in fact still magic items.

Of course I to find it easier to win arguments if I ignore the counter points that prove me wrong, reality can be so burdensome if you don't.

You and me both:smallsmile:

Visigani? Come on, I'm really interested in your interpretation.

[Grod_The_Giant]

<truthiness>

http://31.media.tumblr.com/9ee8e9051e70c2a3cf81777b22fb6914/tumblr_mlb51zqI8k1qk9fero1_500.gif

Best anti-troll response I've seen on the internet.



Visigani? Come on, I'm really interested in your interpretation.
Scroll up to my last post-- that part of his argument has merit. (They explicitly work in an anti-magic field.)

[Rubik]

Internet chest bump?A Playground Brohoof.

[The Trickster]

You can, however, own a billion heavy crossbows.

Wait...what?

[Mystral]

So, VOP doesn't suck if your DM bends over backwards to give you loads of "magic items which aren't magic items at all"?

Wow.

[Jade_Tarem]

Well, it says "you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions..." and door handles are not on the list. Did your fighter climb a cliff and lower a rope to help you get up? Well, guess what else is not on the list. Did you ask for a drink of water? I hope you aren't thinking of taking it out of a cup, canteen, or water skin.

You can, however, own a billion heavy crossbows.

That *is* funny, although I'd wager you can argue that you're only borrowing the door handle, cup, canteen, etc. That said, I will take the Drelua route in the future and leave shattered wooden doors in my wake. "Stop oppressing my religion, you ethnocentric birch! KII-YAAAH!"

[CRtwenty]

This thread has made my day. Honestly.

[Big Fau]

Accuses me of great wrong on the basis I speak in absolutes... then proceeds to speak in absolutes..


Accuses me of presenting my own opinion as correct... As he adopts the common opinion as his own and correct...

Accuses me of posting a message for the express purpose of starting a fight... posts a message filled with nothing more than an elaborate personal attack.

Lemme guess, you're a forum favorite and a mod darling and you're so very this and you're so very that and really all you did was present a load of snot nosed snark framed as carefully as possible so as not to offend the mods tender sensibilities.

Right.

Back to what I was saying before if someone is incapable of grasping the fact that the relics in the book of exalted deeds are tailor made for vow of poverty characters the failing isn't in me, it's in them, for allowing a herd to dictate to them what is and is not right and what is and is not valuable.

And then clinging to that desperately because if the herd isn't right then what else could it be wrong about?

Hey guys, I think we found Chief Circle's account...

On a more serious note:


My statement that you have yet to even consider that you could be wrong is also a fact, although if you can self-quote to prove me wrong I'll certainly reconsider.

Look at how many have spoken against this, citing RAI, RAW, and the famous Oberoni Fallacy. Has it ever occured to you that, maybe just this once, the bandwaggon is onto something? I posted in this thread because you insulted me, then claimed you were right. The only reason I continue to post in it is because you keep proving that the original title was referencing the wrong person.

Visigani, you are not providing an argument. You are throwing a tantrum because we aren't agreeing with you.

[137beth]

How is it that in less than a day Jade_Tarem has advanced in my head, and apparently a lot of other people's heads, from the rank of "someone who's username I don't even recognize in the playground" to "hyper awesome in the playground":confused:


Ooh, nicely played! Since visigani seems unwilling to accept anything someone else agrees on, your use of the word should prevent him* from putting it in his vocabulary. Jade_Tarem, you have not only pleased the Playground, you have made the world a better place.


*gender known from the recent sexism threads
Wow...I can't tell if Jade intended this to happen, but...either way, that is perfect.

Internet chest bump?
Just make sure whoever you give the Internet Chest Bump to doesn't have a VoP: otherwise you might cause them to fall, since internet chest bumps are not on the list of things a VoPer can have.

EDIT to account for swordsages:

Hey guys, I think we found Chief Circle's account...

<Must remove serious stuff!>
CC doesn't like parts of the internet that allow users to post comments, remember? Also he isn't saying basically enough. Besides, "Vow of Poverty is horrible, it prevents you from using katanas".

[Drelua]

A Playground Brohoof.

Hmm, I'll see what I can come up with... let's see... ah, here we go! I give you, an angry not-a-real-horse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngprICtYDy0)! I think that seems like a good reward, plus some of the people in this thread could use a laugh at this point.

[Big Fau]

CC doesn't like parts of the internet that allow users to post comments, remember? Also he isn't saying basically enough. Besides, "Vow of Poverty is horrible, it prevents you from using katanas".

I'll give you the katana thing, but from what's been shown in this thread Visigani was likely expecting us to be astounded by his superior intellect.

[ryu]

I'll give you the katana thing, but from what's been shown in this thread Visigani was likely expecting us to be astounded by his superior intellect.

Should I be scared, amused, or retroactively angry?

[137beth]

I'll give you the katana thing, but from what's been shown in this thread Visigani was likely expecting us to be astounded by his superior intellect.

Also, in the SUE universe, VoP would indeed be horrible: you wouldn't be able to use paper and pen to become an Authyr and write that you were omnipotent.

[Coidzor]

Circle Chef? SUEtiverse? Authyrs? What on earth are you all going on about now? :smallconfused:

[ryu]

Also, in the SUE universe, VoP would indeed be horrible: you wouldn't be able to use paper and pen to become an Authyr and write that you were omnipotent.

Aw dang it! Why did you have to keep getting more specific? I blocked all memory of those threads out through shock therapy, and now THEY FLOOD BACK!

[TuggyNE]

Accuses me of great wrong on the basis I speak in absolutes... then proceeds to speak in absolutes..

Only the Sith speak in absolutes.


Accuses me of presenting my own opinion as correct... As he adopts the common opinion as his own and correct...

There is a subtle but crucial distinction between having good reasons to believe something, and assuming any reasons you can come up with for why you believe something must be good because you believe that thing, and if you believe it it must be true.


Lemme guess, you're a forum favorite

As others (and Jade_Tarem himself) have correctly noted, there really wasn't any forum favoritism, or even much forum notice, until we all saw his rather exemplary and inspiring posts right here. So yeah, now he's a forum favorite. Consider why that is, and be enlightened. :smallsmile:

[Deophaun]

Wait...what?
Those 50gp devices are simple weapons, which are on the list.

That *is* funny, although I'd wager you can argue that you're only borrowing the door handle, cup, canteen, etc.
It's not the ownership that's at issue. It's the using.

That said, I will take the Drelua route in the future and leave shattered wooden doors in my wake. "Stop oppressing my religion, you ethnocentric birch! KII-YAAAH!"
It's the damned English oak that you have to watch out for.

[Zaklito]

How to troll GitP in one post or less

By Visigani

[Khatoblepas]

Well, regardless of Visigani's actual intentions, his arguement is a little unclear to me.

I'm having trouble coming up with a reason why the relics make VoP all that good, even giving them the benefit of the doubt RE: a VoP character being able to use them. I mean, you have:

- A statue of Greater Restoration, Hallow, and Death Ward, that a VoP character can't carry around with them.
- A holy vorpal greataxe.
- Guidance 1/day
- An item of Holy Water at will.
- An item of Cure Disease at will.
- An item of +1 resistance to saving throws. (The equivilent of the resistance spell)
- a holy disruption light mace
- an item of heal 1/month or 1/year and some holy water.

Please, Visigani, can you explain how any of these items make a VoP character any better? There are no rules for creating more BoED relics, so homebrew relics are out of the question. Use only the rules specified in the books! Cause to me, these relics are pretty weak, they're nice to have, but don't actually make a VoP character playable. If anything, they just mimick low level spells, which a spellcaster would have, and a noncaster would beg off of the spellcaster. And again, the weapons are nice, but they don't help the character fly or teleport, or do any cool junk actual equipment could do. If there was an item or two that allowed you to do those kinds of things in the rules, and it was a relic, and relics could explicitly be used by VoP characters, and there was a non-DM dependant way to get it, then I'd feel totally dumb and I'd look on VoP a little better. Otherwise, I'm just not seeing it.

So what's the deal? Smart me up, Visigani. Remember: No rule 0! (The objective power of a feat, spell, or item relies on DM Independence, remember? Not all DMs will be homebrewing!)

[eggynack]

So what's the deal? Smart me up, Visigani. Remember: No rule 0!
It actually is just that. His intent is that the DM creates custom relics to fill the many gaps in a VoP guy's build. He's said as much several times. It's a pretty ridiculous plan.

[ArcturusV]

More or less. Though it has had the benefit of making me more familiar and reminding me of the Relic rules. I might actually homebrew up some Relics for my next campaign/setting, as I doubt the vaguely Judeo-Christian veneer of the book Relics will really match the setting I create. *shrug* So at least some measure of good came from it.

[eggynack]

More or less. Though it has had the benefit of making me more familiar and reminding me of the Relic rules. I might actually homebrew up some Relics for my next campaign/setting, as I doubt the vaguely Judeo-Christian veneer of the book Relics will really match the setting I create. *shrug* So at least some measure of good came from it.
True enough. It's not so bad, having threads that are at this crazy combined level of insulting and wrong, as long as we learned something from the experience. So, today I learned that relics are a thing, that relics definitely don't work with VoP, and that Jade_Tarem is super cool on occasion. That's a good number of things, I think.

[TuggyNE]

True enough. It's not so bad, having threads that are at this crazy combined level of insulting and wrong, as long as we learned something from the experience. So, today I learned that relics are a thing, that relics definitely don't work with VoP, and that Jade_Tarem is super cool on occasion. That's a good number of things, I think.

Is this where the bronies would say "Dear Princess Celestia..."? :smalltongue:

[Just to Browse]

Also medusa was raped by Poseidon.