Explain to me why VoP is so bad.

[weckar]

It's not much of a story here. I just don't see how a feat that gives a metric ton more feats can be so bad. Yes I understand the sacrifice, but the bare numbers of it seem to compensate and then some.

[Snowbluff]

The feat options are limited.

Item options are better.

Alignment restriction.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It only gives you bonus exalted feats, and not enough useful exalted feats exist to make that worthwhile in the long run.

The bonuses it grants are as though you picked up some generic items, but it falls extremely short of all the necessary effects (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851) a character needs to reliably survive. Flight is at the top of the list for a reason.

It only gives you what one specific set of gear would give you, with no allowance for variation or customization. If you're playing a class that can buff itself (Druid) then it's still at least playable, but no better than having magical gear. If you're playing a class that's not self-sufficient at all (Monk) then you're even worse off due to lacking the above necessary effects without another party member buffing you.

[weckar]

By text, only the first bonus feat needs to be an exalted feat. Unless theres an errata I'm unaware of?

[Doc_Maynot]

Not to mention how the character is forced to take a full divvy of the party loot AND is still expected to beg and mooch off of the other players.

You can't use a magic item, even if it's on the behalf of another and you understand it is not yours. Yet you are explicitly allowed to have magic items used on you.

Most if not all of the bonuses it gives you can be easily replicated with the wealth you are recommended to gain via WBL. This point has been discussed (read:argued) about time and time again on these boards.

Due to not being allowed to have items other than what is explicitly stated, for a wizard to be functional you have to dip into Dragon Magazines for Eidetic, for a Cleric you need to go into dungeonscape and hope your DM lets the sanctified(?) item property slide. For a monk or other martial, it is pretty much unworkable.

In the end, it's pretty much only for a celestial animal companion/wild cohort

[weckar]

Those are some interesting points. I do wonder if that changes at all outside a Magic Mart situation, though. Players being able to pick their magic items is quite a big assumption, barring any artificers.

[CyberThread]

VOP is not bad, it is just a roleplaying option more then a combat option.

[Snowbluff]

Those are some interesting points. I do wonder if that changes at all outside a Magic Mart situation, though. Players being able to pick their magic items is quite a big assumption, barring any artificers.

The general assumption is that you get a certain amount of gold through leveling. You would have to have been really screwed on items for VoP to be useful. Low magic campaigns, for example.

Also, warlocks can make any item an artificer can. :smallannoyed:

[weckar]

So, a few things to get straight:
1. How does the non-availability of a Magic Mart influence VoP value? (see quote)
2. If we rule it by the text of the feat as in the book, does it become worthwhile?
3. Is it better in low combat campaigns?


The general assumption is that you get a certain amount of gold through leveling. You would have to have been really screwed on items for VoP to be useful. Low magic campaigns, for example.

Also, warlocks can make any item an artificer can. :smallannoyed:

But players are hardly in the position that they can dictate what that gold can be spent on.

[Story]

Well not just Artificers. Binders and most casters get decent crafting access too.

Low wealth campaigns just screw over the mundanes even more, though at least it makes VOP less crippling.

[Doc_Maynot]

By text, only the first bonus feat needs to be an exalted feat. Unless theres an errata I'm unaware of?

While I could see you getting this from a reading of the Bonus Exalted Feats entry, coupled with the Text Trumps Table rule. RAI, it is supposed to be Exalted Feats.


Those are some interesting points. I do wonder if that changes at all outside a Magic Mart situation, though. Players being able to pick their magic items is quite a big assumption, barring any artificers.

Or warlocks, chameleons, erudites, wizards, sorcerers, clerics, pretty much any spellcaster with access to item creation feats. I'm under the creed that if there is no magic mart, it is as good a time as every to make a character who's motivation is to start one and make a fortune.

[weckar]

I'm starting to see how it is not a perfect option. Still, I don't think it would be that awful, especially in a party situation.
I mean, it is assumed that the VoP character gets an equal share of treasure in terms of value. Fair. But it does mean that the better magic items get split among a smaller pool of people, making them stronger than they would have been if the magic had to be spread equally. The VoP character could be assigned raw gold to compensate.

[Snowbluff]

So, a few things to get straight:
1. How does the non-availability of a Magic Mart influence VoP value? (see quote)
2. If we rule it by the text of the feat as in the book, does it become worthwhile?
3. Is it better in low combat campaigns?

1. It bumps it a little in some cases. See below.
2. No. Again, that would be better, but still puts you short in a lot of areas.
3. It's worse in low combat campaigns. A lot of magic items have great uses out of combat. Why climb a wall when your Gloves of the Shadow Hand let you teleport?



But players are hardly in the position that they can dictate what that gold can be spent on.
Correct me if I am wrong, but some items are considered commonly available, like scrolls. Scrolls of Wish can be used to pick up specific magic items for a charge.

For the cost, it's a heft 25,000 (for the base 500 xp), plus the cost of a ninth level scroll, plus five times the XP cost of the desired item. Yikes.

[Doc_Maynot]

To which they must give away to charity, and are never allowed to use while still having to ask their allies, who were given the same amount of wealth, for help while really never having an equal ability to help them.

In the end it, like the other "big" vows, is a bad choice because it penalizes the party (and to an extent, the DM) just as much as the person taking the vow.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

By text, only the first bonus feat needs to be an exalted feat. Unless theres an errata I'm unaware of?

Yes, the errata says that the text only trumps the table when the two conflict with each other. The text and table don't conflict, and it clearly grants only exalted feats.


1. NPC spellcasting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell) is a standard, normally available service listed in the PHB. One character in your party with Craft Wondrous Item and a little bit of NPC spellcasting fees gets you just about any item you want crafted. There's no need for a magic mart or anything of the sort unless your party is seriously short on time in-game.
2. The text and table do not conflict, so it grants bonus exalted feats and only exalted feats. The text ability is even titled, Bonus Exalted Feats as in plural exalted feats, meaning more than one is exalted. Trying to convince your gaming group that you can take any feat with this is nothing short of cheating, unless everyone agrees to a houserule to make VoP more viable.
3. In a low-combat game, there are other types of items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?148101-3-x-Shax-s-Indispensible-Haversack-%28Equipment-Handbook%29) to get that would be more useful than the benefits of VoP.

[weckar]

To which they must give away to charity, and are never allowed to use while still having to ask their allies, who were given the same amount of wealth, for help while really never having an equal ability to help them.

In the end it, like the other "big" vows, is a bad choice because it penalizes the party (and to an extent, the DM) just as much as the person taking the vow.
I see that, but the fact that a fraction of the wealth is effectively discarded in this case means that a larger part of the FUNCTIONAL wealth goes to a smaller group. 5 magic items and a pool of gold for a 5 member party tends to net one item each. 5 magic items and a pool of gold for a 5 member party with one (or more) VoP characters would tend to cause a discarding of the gold in favor of letting the non-VoP characters use more magic items than they normally would.

[Vhaidara]

Here's the question: With Vow of Poverty, how do you acquire any of the abilities listed here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items), which cover defenses and utilities that are pretty much required at higher levels?

Also, it is worse than useless on casters (barring sorc), since it does not allow for a spellbook or a holy symbol or even the holly and mistletoe that druids use.

[weckar]

Hmmm. Well, if anything, this thread has proven something else to me: Mundane characters can't stay mundane in ability.
Fact is, though: that list, does EVERY party member need EVERY ability? Can't you spread it out?

[Snowbluff]

Hmmm. Well, if anything, this thread has proven something else to me: Mundane characters can't stay mundane in ability.
Fact is, though: that list, does EVERY party member need EVERY ability? Can't you spread it out?

The answer is yes. What if the guy with True Sight is knocked out and you didn't bring an item to spot an invisible guy? D:

[weckar]

Hmmm, that is interesting. So, mechanically, it is assumed that parties grow towards a degree of uniformity instead of specialization...

[Vhaidara]

Also, oh, yay, the guy with the Wings of Flying can cross the Pit of Doom. To bad the guy with VoP can't even borrow those to get across.

[Deadline]

Hmmm. Well, if anything, this thread has proven something else to me: Mundane characters can't stay mundane in ability.
Fact is, though: that list, does EVERY party member need EVERY ability? Can't you spread it out?

Flight is the biggest thing that all characters should be capable of. The rest are just INCREDIBLY USEFUL. :smallbiggrin:

So to sum up, VoP works kinda ok on a sorcerer, and somewhat better on a druid (assuming that a DM agrees to let you use holly and mistltoe as your divine focus - it's disallowed by RAW because it isn't on the list of allowed things). Everyone else loses out.

If you are playing in a really low wealth game, then the feat is more appealing. It still has its problems though, as mentioned above.

[Snowbluff]

Hmmm, that is interesting. So, mechanically, it is assumed that parties grow towards a degree of uniformity instead of specialization...

For those sorts of things, yes. How different characters accomplish these base abilities and how cost effect they can be while doing it is very important. For things like actually winning fights and social encounters, you'll need other abilities. :smallsmile:

[weckar]

Well, as a last resort I'd almost make an argument for urban adventuring, but I can see that that would be futile. Thank you for your insight. I will no longer be using this feat.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Hmmm. Well, if anything, this thread has proven something else to me: Mundane characters can't stay mundane in ability.
Fact is, though: that list, does EVERY party member need EVERY ability? Can't you spread it out?

Everyone in the party should strive to have each of those effects on their character. Granted if the Wizard is walking out with Persistent Greater Invisibility then he probably doesn't need the miss chance, and the Druid probably doesn't need flight due to Wild Shape, but characters who cannot use their class abilities to gain those effects should try to get them from items. A few of those only need to be on one character (Banner of the Storm's Eye, continuous Magic Circle Against Evil, etc.), but most of them should be on every character in the party. Plenty of those effects are on extremely cheap items, and you can use MIC p234 to see what flat bonuses can be added to an existing item for the same price as a standalone item of that bonus so item slots shouldn't be much of an issue.

[Snowbluff]

Thank you for your insight.

You're welcome! Happy adventuring! :smallsmile:

[Deadline]

Well, as a last resort I'd almost make an argument for urban adventuring, but I can see that that would be futile. Thank you for your insight. I will no longer be using this feat.

*shrug* Sure, if you as a DM craft your encounters so that no enemies ever fly, then flight just drops to the INCREDIBLY USEFUL category, rather than necessary (you can still fly out of reach of your enemies, you never have to climb, can cross over pits, etc.). It's just that most of the abilities on that list are either necessary in order to be able to contribute, or necessary to not die against higher CR encounters.

[Harrow]

The only time VoP is good is if you are severely under WBL and don't have access to any magic item you may want.

But then, DMs that don't give out treasure or let people buy magic items tend to view VoP as overpowered and don't let their players take it.

[toapat]

Hmmm, that is interesting. So, mechanically, it is assumed that parties grow towards a degree of uniformity instead of specialization...

Uniformity and Redundancy are not the same thing

[Vortenger]

Hmmm, that is interesting. So, mechanically, it is assumed that parties grow towards a degree of uniformity instead of specialization...

I believe the 'assumption' is indeed specialization. The reality is that to survive the game, you need X, Y, and Z abilities. Do you trust your party cleric or wizard to always be there and always have just the spell to spend on you, or even the action economy to do so?

[eggynack]

Fact is, though: that list, does EVERY party member need EVERY ability? Can't you spread it out?
For many of those abilities, having one party member with access to an ability doesn't really help you out at all. I mean, really, how does another party member having mind blank, or miss chance help you at all? However, that's really just the beginning for this stuff. Those items are ones that help a character reach some reasonable competence level, but for just about any given character, magic items are likely to make you better at your job than VoP will.

In any case, as long as we're talking about standard WBL, VoP is going to be worse on just about any character. Thus, the best you can really hope for is that VoP won't be crippling to a build. For that purpose, you generally want a class that can do most of the things you would want without items, like druids, psions, or sorcerers, you want a class that is incentivized away from item use, like druids or totemists, and you want a class with a high quantity of good exalted feats, like druids. So, basically, you want a druid. Druids, as I mentioned above, are usually going to be worse with VoP, but they're still going to be awesomely powerful, and you benefit somewhat from complexity reduction, as druids are complex as hell.

[flamewolf393]

One trick that works (as long as you dont have complete stickler as a dm, and you are willing to bend the fluff of VoP a little bit) is getting persistent, permanancied spells on yourself. Its a bit more expensive than magic items, but it basically lets you have magic items without owning any property. You cant buy the casting yourself because you cant own wealth, but you can convince quest npcs to give them as rewards, or ask for them as things to help in a quest. This works really well when questing for a good guild of clerics, ie. They can give you all sorts of nifty spells to help out.

I had a psionic VoP monk that effectively had his character level wealth in the form of these spells. Including greater magic fang, greater magic weapon, enlarge person, and fluid form, along with a number of defensive things like resist energy, deathward, mindblank, etc

[Story]

Yeah, but that's not RAW. Most of those aren't valid targets of Permanency and Mindblank can't even be cast on others (without shenanigans).

You can however get inherent bonuses via Wish, as well as enhancement bonuses via Extract Gift (if you can somehow manage to use Extract Gift without losing Exalted status). Grafts and tatoos might work too, not sure about the RAW on that.

[weckar]

Well, since the thread is still rolling anyway, how is VoP affected be involuntary use of items? Say, continuous items cursed to they cannot be removed?

[Deadline]

Well, since the thread is still rolling anyway, how is VoP affected be involuntary use of items? Say, continuous items cursed to they cannot be removed?

Strictly speaking? I'm pretty sure that violates the vow.

[Vhaidara]

Yeah, cursed items require you to use it to begin with, so you have a violation.

[Darkweave31]

It's a roleplaying option for those who want to play the ascetic. Magic items have such a wide variety of effects and usefulness that giving up access to them for basic abilities that you'd normally get from them anyway is generally under-powered.

The more you can make up the effects that you miss out on with vow of poverty through spells, class features, or racial abilities the less it hurts your character (assuming your DM isn't a jerk that doesn't allow you to carry a holy symbol with VoP). But there will always be better items that you'll want even for those classes.

In the end, if you really want to castrate yourself go for a vow of chastity instead.

[Deophaun]

Also, it is worse than useless on casters (barring sorc), since it does not allow for a spellbook or a holy symbol or even the holly and mistletoe that druids use.
There are edible forms of holly, which makes holly food, which you can keep.

[cosmonuts]

In the end, it's pretty much only for a celestial animal companion/wild cohort

Say, why'd you sarcasm this? This is pretty novel to me... any reason it wouldn't work?

[Darkweave31]

Say, why'd you sarcasm this? This is pretty novel to me... any reason it wouldn't work?

I think it's because it'd work, but the idea of an animal companion taking a vow of poverty seems silly considering the spirit of the feat.

[Deadline]

I think it's because it'd work, but the idea of an animal companion taking a vow of poverty seems silly considering the spirit of the feat.

I thought it was because even animals benefit better from actual wealth and items rather than taking the feat. :smalltongue:

[weckar]

I can't help but imagining applying Exalted Animal Companion to a Dread companion, anytime someone brings it up.

[Socratov]

Say, why'd you sarcasm this? This is pretty novel to me... any reason it wouldn't work?

because it's carrying a faint aroma of gruyere with it. the vows were created to give a roleplaying handle s some kind of in depth character motivation. it represents a conscious choice to limit oneself like Buddhist monks or ascetics, which is considered a very 'human' thing. Now, animals, (and to some extent magical beasts) don't really concern themselves with such moral choices but act more according to nature. So, while RAW doesn't seem to forbid it, consensus is that it's not really like the designers intended it. So, long story short: It does work, just make sure you get someway of deflecting projectiles irl.

[Rubik]

Well, since the thread is still rolling anyway, how is VoP affected be involuntary use of items? Say, continuous items cursed to they cannot be removed?According to the feat, you're not allowed to open doors, disable traps, climb ropes, sleep indoors (on a bed or no), stand on a carpet, enjoy a tapestry or painting, ride in a wagon (even if you're in a coma) or on a ship or airship, or even use a knife to cut food with. You must eat with your hands out of your bag, sleep on the ground, make others open doors, run next to the wagon (even during a chase scene), swim next to the ship, and so on.

All those things cost money, and you're not allowed to use them in any way (including artwork, the entire purpose of which is to be looked at and enjoyed).

[TheIronGolem]

VOP is not bad, it is just a roleplaying option more then a combat option.

It's not that it's a bad combat option, it's that it's a bad adventuring option.

And I would argue that it actually is a bad roleplaying option too, since it does a poor job of executing the concept it is intended to support.

[Deophaun]

According to the feat, you're not allowed to open doors, disable traps, climb ropes, sleep indoors (on a bed or no), stand on a carpet, enjoy a tapestry or painting, ride in a wagon (even if you're in a coma) or on a ship or airship, or even use a knife to cut food with. You must eat with your hands out of your bag, sleep on the ground, make others open doors, run next to the wagon (even during a chase scene), swim next to the ship, and so on.

All those things cost money, and you're not allowed to use them in any way (including artwork, the entire purpose of which is to be looked at and enjoyed).
Yup. This is why VoP, as written, is unplayable. You always need to talk to your DM and hash out reasonable exceptions to the rule.

Edit: Although you can use a knife to cut food, as it's a simple weapon. You can also stockpile millions of gold worth of crossbows.

[Vhaidara]

No, because you can have A simple weapon.

[Rubik]

Edit: Although you can use a knife to cut food, as it's a simple weapon. You can also stockpile millions of gold worth of crossbows.You could use a fighting dagger (probably still covered in gore residue from the monsters you slew not too long ago), but I don't believe actual cutlery would be considered weaponry. You could say they're improvised weapons, but technically, you can't even use those, since they don't fit into the simple/martial/exotic schemata.

[Deophaun]

No, because you can have A simple weapon.
That's not what the feat says. In fact, it explicitly uses the plural:

To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions: You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick.

[Vortenger]

I think it's because it'd work, but the idea of an animal companion taking a vow of poverty seems silly considering the spirit of the feat.

Have you ever seen a mid-high level Animal Companion that wasn't showered in hand-me-down magic items and/or an amulet of mighty fists? Animals need gear too! After all, a well equipped bear is stronger than a CR appropriate fighter (most of the time).

[Darkweave31]

Have you ever seen a mid-high level Animal Companion that wasn't showered in hand-me-down magic items and/or an amulet of mighty fists? Animals need gear too! After all, a well equipped bear is stronger than a CR appropriate fighter (most of the time).

I only said it worked by RAW, not that it was a better decision :smalltongue:

[holywhippet]

What I'm trying to work out is can a wizard have a VoP since they will be toting around one or more spell books containing spells. That spell book will be valuable because of the spells inside of it. It might even qualify as a magical item.

[ryu]

What I'm trying to work out is can a wizard have a VoP since they will be toting around one or more spell books containing spells. That spell book will be valuable because of the spells inside of it. It might even qualify as a magical item.

They can if and only if they go eidetic spellcaster. No book.

[Adverb]

Somewhere, I've got a Bard with strength 4 that took VoP, partially because otherwise he'd be encumbered from a mithril chain shirt and a rapier, and partially because it makes the character more interesting.

Mostly, though, it seems to boil down to flight, sensory abilities, and Neat Options that magic items provide.

[HammeredWharf]

While we're at it, is there a RAW ruling on VoP characters using grafts? Technically, they're not items... I think.

[Divayth Fyr]

Technically, they're not items... I think.
The vow forbids "material possessions" which is a description grafts would fall under, no?

[Rubik]

The vow forbids "material possessions" which is a description grafts would fall under, no?Only if they're not part of you. If they are, then, well, they're a part of you.

Also, I think your sig is hilarious, because it's so indicative of his view on things.

[dextercorvia]

They can if and only if they go eidetic spellcaster. No book.

Don't eidetics have to burn expensive incense insead?

[toapat]

Don't eidetics have to burn expensive incense insead?

only for inscription, not for preparation.

[Doc_Maynot]

So with VoP it pretty much makes them Int-Based Sorcs, since they can't buy the incense to learn additional spells.

[Prime32]

You can also stockpile millions of gold worth of crossbows.My favorite loophole is the Vow of Peace warforged who's allowed to commit genocide against his own race. :smalltongue:

[weckar]

You'd still learn your usual level-up spells, and get spell levels earlier.

[dextercorvia]

So you could have an Eidatic Elven Generalist with Collegiate Wizardy and Eschew Materials. That would probably play like high T2, since several of your spells would be devoted to overcoming shortcomings in your Vow.

[Somensjev]

My favorite loophole is the Vow of Peace warforged who's allowed to commit genocide against his own race. :smalltongue:

do i want to know? :smallconfused:

[dextercorvia]

do i want to know? :smallconfused:

Constructs are on the OK to Kill list. Of course BoED was pre-Eberron.

[weckar]

Living Construct =/= Construct, except where explicitly stated in the Living Construct description.

[dextercorvia]

Living Construct =/= Construct, except where explicitly stated in the Living Construct description.

No, but Living Construct ⊂ Construct. So, if you can kill Constructs....

[weckar]

That's a lot like arguing Magical Beast ⊂ Animal. If you simply look at Warforged anatomy and psychology, they are as far removed.

[torrasque666]

In layman's terms, Living Construct is a subtype of construct, not humanoid.

[eggynack]

That's a lot like arguing Magical Beast ⊂ Animal. If you simply look at Warforged anatomy and psychology, they are as far removed.
It's really not like that at all. Magical beast is not a subset of animal. In fact, the two sets are completely disjoint, unless there's some double-typed creature I don't know about. Meanwhile, living construct is very much a subset of construct, because all living constructs are constructs. There's no real argument here, because these things I'm saying are just basic objective facts.

[dextercorvia]

That's a lot like arguing Magical Beast ⊂ Animal. If you simply look at Warforged anatomy and psychology, they are as far removed.

No, that is actually quite different. Living Construct is a subtype of the Construct type, so all Living Constructs are Constructs (by default -- we can change it with shenanigans of course). Animal and Magical Beast are Types, Magical Beasts are not Animals in the rules and vice versa.

[Graypairofsocks]

That's a lot like arguing Magical Beast ⊂ Animal. If you simply look at Warforged anatomy and psychology, they are as far removed.

Constructs don't necessarily have to have the same form or shape, there can be bizarre ones like the Prismatic Golem (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mmiii_gallery/83001.jpg)(From Monster Manual III) which is also incorporeal.

[3WhiteFox3]

That's a lot like arguing Magical Beast ⊂ Animal. If you simply look at Warforged anatomy and psychology, they are as far removed.

That's not the worst by far, most constructs are at least vaguely similar in shape...

However, take a look at Abberations; Ithilids, Beholders, Elan and Chokers are all the same type, despite very different anatomy and psychologies. Types are really weird in D&D. Same goes for most of the non-humanoid types.

[Vhaidara]

That's not the worst by far, most constructs are at least vaguely similar in shape...

However, take a look at Abberations; Ithilids, Beholders, Elan and Chokers are all the same type, despite very different anatomy and psychologies. Types are really weird in D&D. Same goes for most of the non-humanoid types.

Don't forget Aboleth. You can always throw in a giant mutant fish.

[Graypairofsocks]

That's not the worst by far, most constructs are at least vaguely similar in shape...

However, take a look at Abberations; Ithilids, Beholders, Elan and Chokers are all the same type, despite very different anatomy and psychologies. Types are really weird in D&D. Same goes for most of the non-humanoid types.
I think that is kind of the point of the Abberation creature type.


Don't forget Aboleth. You can always throw in a giant mutant fish.

They also have make Shaboath Golems (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/lom_gallery/88141.jpg) which are made completely out of water.

[3WhiteFox3]

I think that is kind of the point of the Abberation creature type.


And constructs are different somehow? An animated rope and Iron Golem are about as different as black and white, but they are the same type. Most types have a huge amount of difference between each different monster entry. Animals, Plants, Outsiders, even Magical Beasts.

[Prime32]

Tibbits (in their natural forms) are housecats with the Humanoid type. :smalltongue:

[Incanur]

As mentioned in the other thread, I contend VoP constitutes a mechanically sound option for good-aligned druids up until at least level 12, and that it's great at levels 5-8. It looks solid for good druids in an otherwise Core-only game until level 17 or maybe all the way to 20.

[eggynack]

As mentioned in the other thread, I contend VoP constitutes a mechanically sound option for good-aligned druids up until at least level 12, and that it's great at levels 5-8. It looks solid for good druids in an otherwise Core-only game until level 17 or maybe all the way to 20.
Pretty much. It might actually be somewhat optimal in a core game, as you're mostly stuck with metamagic rods of extend spell, ioun stones, and wild armor with those sources. It's not exactly the best item list, especially when you consider the fact that there are fewer spells made significantly better by extension in core. Also, I recently noticed that words of creation is kinda awesome on druids if you meet the stat prerequisites. I suspect that it makes for a better feat than touch of golden ice. Incidentally, that makes my current VoP druid feat assignment something like:
1: nymph's kiss
2: exalted companion
4: intuitive attack
6: words of creation
8: exalted wild shape
10: touch of golden ice
12: sanctify natural attack
14: nimbus of light
16: animal friend
18: stigmata
20: Geez, I dunno, defender of the homeland? Maybe gift of faith, or one of the luck bonus feats.
Wow, those still get awful bad in a hurry, and that's about as good as it gets. It's a pretty sweet ride up until that point though.

[da_chicken]

That's a lot like arguing Magical Beast ⊂ Animal. If you simply look at Warforged anatomy and psychology, they are as far removed.

No, they're not.

Just like Elves are Humanoid (Elf), Humans are Humanoid (Human), and Orcs are Humanoid (Orc), Warforged are Construct (Living Construct). That's why charm person and enlarge person don't work on Warforged. They're not "persons" (i.e., Humanoid). The first line of the description of the Living Construct Subtype in the Eberron Campaign Setting on page 23 is, "Warforged are constructs with the living construct subtype." The stat blocks presented throughout the campaign books agree, too.

Living Construct doesn't say that they're an exception to VoP, and VoP makes no exceptions for the Living Construct subtype. Your DM might add living constructs to the list, but that is a house ruling. I mean, I agree with that ruling as it makes sense in the context of any normal campaign, but you should recognize that it's not what the books strictly say.

[lunar2]

So with VoP it pretty much makes them Int-Based Sorcs, since they can't buy the incense to learn additional spells.
collegiate wizard doubles your spells known at first level, and gives you 2 extra spells per level.

elven generalist gives you one extra spell per level, plus a bonus slot of your highest level.

so yeah, you're still going to blow sorcerers out of the water in terms of spells known.

[Jeff the Green]

Tibbits (in their natural forms) are housecats with the Humanoid type. :smalltongue:

Monstrous Humanoid, actually.

[Phelix-Mu]

I hate to even post in another one of these debates, but they seem to be a guilty pleasure of [not just me].

My view:

1.) BoED in its entirety should only be used in conjunction with an accommodating DM and an understanding group of players (whether their characters are quite so complicit is up to the players, but should be kept within reason). Major parts of Exalted rules seriously influence playstyle of not just the Exalted character, but the entire group, and if the DM is going to force the characters in the direction of the big gray space between good and evil, then it's unlikely that an Exalted character will fit in well with that kind of thing. That is the nature of the beast, and the book says as much.

2.) In conjunction with my first point, VoP (and most of BoED) is far from ideal for optimization purposes because of the heavy interpretation needed by the DM to use it in a coherent (and not TO or cherrypicking) manner. While every Abjurant Champion under the sun would love to live in a world where luminous armour is standard issue, it's mildly abusive to use the optimization potential of sanctified spells while disregarding the assumed role playing requirement.

3.) In an Exalted campaign, virtue is a commodity, and a party of Exalted characters would be in favor of VoP and what it stands for, because good is good, not because it's effective (as often evil is strictly more effective due to lack of principles/qualms/virtues). Mechanical drawbacks be damned, if you can defeat evil without even engaging in combat, then that character is pulling their weight by the standards of an Exalted campaign. Again, this really only jives if the DM is doing what BoED was intended for...use in a campaign with heavy emphasis on good v evil and the nature of virtue.

4.) Again in conjunction with 1, the options in BoED lack support. Any DM of a long campaign with players interested in that stuff should homebrew or find the few other sources for published Exalted feats and import them. Favorable rulings on things like holy symbols, divine foci, and spellbooks need to be made in order to keep VoP and the like from being un-fun (and this doesn't even get into the briar patch that is VoPe). A DM that has players that want this and who is willing to incorporate it needs to support it in a manner that is functional given the existing op-level of their campaign.

5.) On a personal note, I dislike suggestions that everyone must toe the line with assumed abilities or items or be found to be grievously injuring their fellow party members by way of their presumed lack of competence. There is way, way more to a role playing game than a checklist of pass-or-fail abilities and items. I love to optimize my characters as much as the next person, but lack of perfection in all things is a way in which the game becomes more, not less interesting. If every party ever was always perfectly prepared, to a man, for even the obvious challenges, then there would be way less in the way of entertaining stories about how those rapscallions inexplicably escaped death or won by sheer wits.

And, as a DM, I am generally just opposed to a standard of perfection or absolute competence among pcs. I am already gunning for them (in a sportsmanlike manner, ofc), and I want them to grow and adapt. If they are blind-spot free or kitted to the gills, that means I really have to drop the hammer on them, and thus it reduces my allowed margin of error (especially as levels increase and the tendency for rocket tag becomes more pronounced). Thus, if someone wants VoP, or any other strict nerf to their own mechanical abilities in favor of role play, I LOVE THAT. The game is already too combat oriented, and the Christmas tree can already solve almost anything with minimal actual creativity/problem-solving (except for that which is inherent to an efficiently run Christmas tree, ofc).

Again, all my opinion, casually disregard at will. I just don't like how down everyone is by default on a suggestion for a special variant set of rules in book that implies a different tone and atmosphere than is present in the default fluff for the game. It's not like it's supposed to be a big boost in power. If being good was mechanically better than the other alignments, it'd be way more popular. Virtue is desirable as an end in itself in games that treat it that way. My experiences with VoP in a series of low-op games was highly enjoyable, and the characters that had it neither were ineffective or crippled the functionality of the party.

That said, the RAW VoP power levels should be tweaked upward for higher levels of optimization or in campaigns where a DM really is going to throw down on the pcs.

Aggh. Was trying to avoid ranting this time. Epic fail.:smalltongue:

[toapat]

5.) On a personal note, I dislike suggestions that everyone must toe the line with assumed abilities or items or be found to be grievously injuring their fellow party members by way of their presumed lack of competence. There is way, way more to a role playing game than a checklist of pass-or-fail abilities and items. I love to optimize my characters as much as the next person, but lack of perfection in all things is a way in which the game becomes more, not less interesting. If every party ever was always perfectly prepared, to a man, for even the obvious challenges, then there would be way less in the way of entertaining stories about how those rapscallions inexplicably escaped death or won by sheer wits.

And, as a DM, I am generally just opposed to a standard of perfection or absolute competence among pcs. I am already gunning for them (in a sportsmanlike manner, ofc), and I want them to grow and adapt. If they are blind-spot free or kitted to the gills, that means I really have to drop the hammer on them, and thus it reduces my allowed margin of error (especially as levels increase and the tendency for rocket tag becomes more pronounced). Thus, if someone wants VoP, or any other strict nerf to their own mechanical abilities in favor of role play, I LOVE THAT. The game is already too combat oriented, and the Christmas tree can already solve almost anything with minimal actual creativity/problem-solving (except for that which is inherent to an efficiently run Christmas tree, ofc).

Again, all my opinion, casually disregard at will. I just don't like how down everyone is by default on a suggestion for a special variant set of rules in book that implies a different tone and atmosphere than is present in the default fluff for the game. It's not like it's supposed to be a big boost in power. If being good was mechanically better than the other alignments, it'd be way more popular. Virtue is desirable as an end in itself in games that treat it that way. My experiences with VoP in a series of low-op games was highly enjoyable, and the characters that had it neither were ineffective or crippled the functionality of the party.

i think that, on the "mandatory" list, the only truly necessary things are True Seeing, Storage, and Flight, everything else is a nicety. And VoP covers 2 of those already.

otherwise, good rant

[Phelix-Mu]

otherwise, good rant

Please don't feed the giant space hamster that lives in my head and compels me to post. He's already months overdue on rent.:smalltongue:

I the 3+ year campaign that I ran, the VoP spellscale cleric ran light, had spells and minions for flight, and generally could rely on his allies and party members to help him in the few narrow areas where he couldn't cover his own backside (that is one benefit of good people cultivating the habit of friendship, after all). It's not that I'm against self-reliance or pragmatism, I just don't like it when people tout it as an integral part of the game that everyone plan for everything in advance. Half my players almost never have any of their characters plan for anything, and we've had years of fun role playing experiences, and relatively few character deaths, all things considered.

After all, it's not even vaguely like the game designers expected pcs to even use half the resources given by just their class levels, let alone items (witness fail playtesting stories).

[Incanur]

As may have been mentioned earlier, adding the saint template to a VoP character can go a long way toward improving effectiveness. That template definitely helped out the non-VoP party paladin in a campaign I ran.

[Jeff the Green]

My favorite way to make VoP characters more able to contribute is by having them "buy" Pearls of Power/Memento Magica/metamagic rods for the party caster to cast spells on them. They buy them by contributing the XP to their construction plus that much once again to another item, akin to spending XP to do away with expensive material components.

[Talya]

First of all, I'm not going to argue against anyone saying VOP sucks.

It does. The arguments against it are all accurate. VOP is for most characters a great way to make them completely ineffectual, and there are no characters for whom it's "optimal."


However, these discussions always irritate me because of one thing... it's "Schroedinger's Ethics," really.

Which do you go by, the letter of the RAW? or the spirit?

By the letter of the RAW, VOP is much worse. And yet the same people who nitpick that by the letter of the RAW, you can't open doors, or use a spellbook (as a wizard), will also complain when you point out that by the letter of the RAW, a VOP character can pay for church services with donations to get Wish cast on them (or read someone else's Tome while the owner turns the pages), or insist on bartering with crossbows, that you're violating the spirit of VOP.

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to argue a divine caster can't use their holy symbol, then they damn well can do the above. If you're going to argue by the spirit of the law, then none of the restrictions that are obviously oversights and block primary class features apply.


My favorite loophole is the Vow of Peace warforged who's allowed to commit genocide against his own race. :smalltongue:

Note that this doesn't work, by RAW or by spirit. The Sacred Vows are all [Exalted] feats. They have the paladin-like restriction on them all about commiting even a single evil act. It doesn't matter that you're allowed to use violence against constructs, because you cannot perform any evil acts.

[Deophaun]

By the letter of the RAW, VOP is much worse. And yet the same people who nitpick that by the letter of the RAW, you can't open doors, or use a spellbook (as a wizard), will also complain when you point out that by the letter of the RAW, a VOP character can pay for church services with donations to get Wish cast on them (or read someone else's Tome while the owner turns the pages), or insist on bartering with crossbows, that you're violating the spirit of VOP.
Um... I think I'm the one on this board most likely to point out that VOPer's can't open doors (honestly, this is the first thread I've seen on VoP where someone beat me to it), and yet I also frequently mention the crossbow thing, and even brought up wish here (and no, the Tome thing doesn't work by RAW: you cannot use it; the method by which you use it hardly matters).

The point in mentioning these things (well, except the wish) is to show that VoP, as written, doesn't work and needs the player to sit down with a DM to figure out how to better adjudicate it. It is not to say that VoP is bad from an optimization standpoint. For that, you go to the WBL argument.

Edit: OK, I didn't bring up wish in this thread. It was the other VoP thread running at the same time.

[Rubik]

Actually, now that I think about it, you cannot go indoors, either, since you're using the building, and buildings cost lots. I guess you could adventure in the Underdark, but no venturing into drow cities and whatnot. Good luck D&Ding, son.

And like Deophaun said, you can't read the book (in fact, you can't read any book, or scroll, or wall hanging), because those all cost money, too, and reading them (or even looking at the pictures) will make you break your vow.

[Vhaidara]

Wait, what is the value of the Material Plane? Are you allowed to use the ground to allow you to walk?

[Rubik]

Wait, what is the value of the Material Plane? Are you allowed to use the ground to allow you to walk?I don't believe air and unworked earth have an actual price on them, so you should be fine. But you'd best not breathe too hard, just in case. And definitely don't walk on cobbles or paved paths. So no walking on roads for you.

[nedz]

Actually, now that I think about it, you cannot go indoors, either, since you're using the building, and buildings cost lots. I guess you could adventure in the Underdark, but no venturing into drow cities and whatnot. Good luck D&Ding, son.

And like Deophaun said, you can't read the book (in fact, you can't read any book, or scroll, or wall hanging), because those all cost money, too, and reading them (or even looking at the pictures) will make you break your vow.

Lets just hope Mr. VoP doesn't get caught out by a Trap — those things are quite expensive.

[Talya]

Um... I think I'm the one on this board most likely to point out that VOPer's can't open doors (honestly, this is the first thread I've seen on VoP where someone beat me to it), and yet I also frequently mention the crossbow thing, and even brought up wish here (and no, the Tome thing doesn't work by RAW: you cannot use it; the method by which you use it hardly matters).

The point in mentioning these things (well, except the wish) is to show that VoP, as written, doesn't work and needs the player to sit down with a DM to figure out how to better adjudicate it. It is not to say that VoP is bad from an optimization standpoint. For that, you go to the WBL argument.

A tome is equivalent in this regard to a potion... a very expensive potion. VOP characters are explicitly allowed to benefit from ... and even sometimes use expendable items that someone else gives to them (the example given is a potion). They cannot carry one for a long period of time, it is for immediate use. (That's why I have someone else turning the pages. They're using the expendable items, but never possessing them.)

Also, there's a section on Tithing (above voluntary poverty) that talks about building goodwill with churches, and how you can benefit from these things. Churches are charity for the purpose of donating your share of the party loot. That's how one arranges to eventually pay for that wizard that the church of magic keeps on retainer and his string of wish spells.

[Rubik]

Lets just hope Mr. VoP doesn't get caught out by a Trap — those things are quite expensive.Or gets poisoned. That snake venom sells for a mint on the black market!

[Deophaun]

A tome is equivalent in this regard to a potion... a very expensive potion.
Or it's the equivalent in this regard to a scroll... a very expensive scroll, which VoPers are not allowed to use.

And here's the thing: potions can actually be "used on your behalf;" if you're unconscious, your party member can take a potion, put it in your mouth, and make you drink it (hence the example of a potion of cure serious wounds). Tomes don't work that way. There's no way someone can read the Tome for you. You have to actively study it.

They cannot carry one for a long period of time, it is for immediate use.
Actually, they can carry it for as long as they want. The prohibition is against using and owning, not holding or carrying (yes, that's right, you may carry and use a spell component pouch... but you still can't own one).

Also, there's a section on Tithing (above voluntary poverty) that talks about building goodwill with churches, and how you can benefit from these things. Churches are charity for the purpose of donating your share of the party loot. That's how one arranges to eventually pay for that wizard that the church of magic keeps on retainer and his string of wish spells.
There's also a section that lets you wear simple clothing, which gets you sandals and a hat.

[Graypairofsocks]

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to argue a divine caster can't use their holy symbol, then they damn well can do the above.

Interestingly a divine caster with Vow of Insanity Poverty can't use their holy symbol according to an official ruling(I strongly recommend ignoring this ruling).

[Incanur]

Interestingly a divine caster with Vow of Insanity Poverty can't use their holy symbol according to an official ruling(I strongly recommend ignoring this ruling).

This makes me want to play VoP cleric of Waukeen. The flavor fits! Waukeen would want to punish poverty.

Cleric: "Wealth for the common good! I will donate everything I have to the people and the church."
Waukeen: "I think you're a bit confused. It's like a worshiper of Sharess taking a vow of chastity."
Cleric: "No, my poverty will increase the wealth of masses!"
Waukeen: "Good luck casting DF spells, sucker."

[137beth]

i think that, on the "mandatory" list, the only truly necessary things are True Seeing, Storage, and Flight, everything else is a nicety. And VoP covers 2 of those already.

otherwise, good rant
I consider immunity to divination/mind affecting (mind blank being the ideal) at least as important as true seeing...provided other people in the party already have true seeing. One PC without true seeing doesn't mean the whole party is lost, just that that PC is much more vulnerable alone. One PC who the enemies can scry on, or dominate? That's a liability:smallwink:

Anyways, I've seen a lot of people bring up VoP animal companions (which is IMO optimal, despite the possibility of item-using animal companions, because animal companions do not get their own WBL; the druid/ranger with a VoP animal companion can use their wealth on themselves). But what about a VoP familiar? Familiars don't get as many feats, sure, but it doesn't need material components to deliver touch spells or Share Spells. It eliminates the possibility of an improved familiar UMDing a wand in combat, but other than that I don't see much of a drawback.

On a semi-related note, if a VoPer's ally is knocked of a ledge of a cliff and is hanging by one hand, does helping them up count as possessing any magic items they are wearing? If Elan had had VoP, would he have fallen from pulling Nale up (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0067.html) (since Nale had a scroll with him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0070.html))?

[Renen]

Vow of Nudity is the only one for me!

[Graypairofsocks]

Anyways, I've seen a lot of people bring up VoP animal companions (which is IMO optimal, despite the possibility of item-using animal companions, because animal companions do not get their own WBL; the druid/ranger with a VoP animal companion can use their wealth on themselves). But what about a VoP familiar? Familiars don't get as many feats, sure, but it doesn't need material components to deliver touch spells or Share Spells. It eliminates the possibility of an improved familiar UMDing a wand in combat, but other than that I don't see much of a drawback.

I also think that familiars are less likely to be using magic items(and more likely to hide during combat) so it might be ok.

[eggynack]

Anyways, I've seen a lot of people bring up VoP animal companions (which is IMO optimal, despite the possibility of item-using animal companions, because animal companions do not get their own WBL; the druid/ranger with a VoP animal companion can use their wealth on themselves).
Realistically, if VoP animal companions aren't optimal, it's because of the feat cost of exalted companion, rather than the opportunity cost of not kitting out your animal companion. You're not likely to do all that much better than VoP with your itemization, after all, because for all its faults, that feat definitely delivers in terms of simple bonuses. It's an argument I've seen proposed before, that making your animal companion an ascetic one just can't compete with other feat options available to druids, and I think it has some validity.

I haven't yet taken the time to stat up some VoP companions, with an without natural bond, so it could be a thing worth doing. One of the biggest problems, I think, is that you're getting a pretty low return on the exalted feats, which is the opposite of the druid himself, who is running about six or seven total real feats from VoP, if you combine the value on the lesser feats until you hit something you'd actually consider taking. Maybe less, because I'd probably never actually take words of creation, intuitive attack, or nymph's kiss, as much as I might say that they're practically real options. On the other hand, the value on animal companion feats was already considerably lower, so something like sanctify natural attack or touch of golden ice might actually qualify as real feats. This is a complicated thing.

[shadowseve]

AS a druid in a low money low magic campaign VOP has worked very well for my druid. the party is level 6-7 with about 100g between the 3 of us so yeah. The VOP on my druid is nice. The stat bonuses are good exalted wild shape and exalted companion are good. granted I wish the majority of exalted feats didn't suck. Bu in a situation where we're all poor. My druid comes out on top. they have potions, the party does each have a healing belt, I don't so I do get healed. But, at least for a druid, vop is not so bad. I wouldn't have the money to afford wilding clasps anyways so I'm NG might as well take a vow. :-D

[Deophaun]

On a semi-related note, if a VoPer's ally is knocked of a ledge of a cliff and is hanging by one hand, does helping them up count as possessing any magic items they are wearing? If Elan had had VoP, would he have fallen from pulling Nale up (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0067.html) (since Nale had a scroll with him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0070.html))?
Possession is not an issue for VoP. It's using or owning. So Elan would not have fallen in your hypothetical.

[Renen]

Thats not low magic, thats the no wealth campaign.
I feel so bad for your fighter types...

[Incanur]

Realistically, if VoP animal companions aren't optimal, it's because of the feat cost of exalted companion, rather than the opportunity cost of not kitting out your animal companion.

If the DM is stickler about tricks and animal intelligence, I think just the getting an animal with 3 Int can be worth the feat. (On the other hand, the rules aren't clear how 3-Int animal companions work. But they're definitely not bound by the restriction described under the Handle Animal skill.) The DR/magic, ability to overcome DR/magic, darkvision, smite, and energy resistance from the celestial template are also nice to have. (DR 5/magic at level 5 can actually matter quite a bit.)

[shadowseve]

Thats not low magic, thats the no wealth campaign.
I feel so bad for your fighter types...

Me too. that's why vop makes so much sense for my druid. I couldn't afford **** anyways... Might as well get nice buffs some how. Druids are less reliant on magic items anyways.

Now if I'm dm I run a high magic high gold campaign so that would change things for my druid but...

[shadowseve]

If the DM is stickler about tricks and animal intelligence, I think just the getting an animal with 3 Int can be worth the feat. (On the other hand, the rules aren't clear how 3-Int animal companions work. But they're definitely not bound by the restriction described under the Handle Animal skill.) The DR/magic, ability to overcome DR/magic, darkvision, smite, and energy resistance from the celestial template are also nice to have. (DR 5/magic at level 5 can actually matter quite a bit.)


The bonuses have saved my exalted animal companion more than once. Plus I like have an animal with a 3 int. Don't have to worry about tricks. It can also make for a great rp flare too if you're not overly concerned with complete min/maxing. Druids are nasty enough.

[eggynack]

If the DM is stickler about tricks and animal intelligence, I think just the getting an animal with 3 Int can be worth the feat. (On the other hand, the rules aren't clear how 3-Int animal companions work. But they're definitely not bound by the restriction described under the Handle Animal skill.) The DR/magic, ability to overcome DR/magic, darkvision, smite, and energy resistance from the celestial template are also nice to have. (DR 5/magic at level 5 can actually matter quite a bit.)
It's all decent, but none of it is particularly worth a feat. Druids get feats like crazy. When you take exalted companion, it's pretty much always competing with something absolutely ridiculous, like greenbound summoning, natural spell, dragon wild shape, or rashemi elemental summoning. The feats are so good, in fact, that they still might be superior to exalted companion when it's offering VoP. My suspicion is that it is worth it, especially if you're also running natural bond (it's a great combo), but it's likely not for every good build. The real question is whether this is better or worse than natural bond and companion spellbond, because those are the real competition on the animal companion feat front.

[ryu]

Me too. that's why vop makes so much sense for my druid. I couldn't afford **** anyways... Might as well get nice buffs some how. Druids are less reliant on magic items anyways.

Now if I'm dm I run a high magic high gold campaign so that would change things for my druid but...

Also dear sweet goodness if remember correctly planar shepherd is happening in his campaign. Planar Shepherd with less ridiculous chosen plane than possible, but still Planar Shepherd. That's going to be all kinds of fun experience.

[Incanur]

I guess you're better of with the Elemental Companion ACF or arcane hierophant if you want a smart companion anyway. Celestial animals still can't talk as far as I know. But in some campaigns you really do want a smart companion. (Earth elemental companions are nuts, by the way, as long as you houserule in replacement to the ACF.)

And I guess technically the VoP druid can get a VoP companion for free, which is another point in favor of the VoP druid.

[shadowseve]

Also dear sweet goodness if remember correctly planar shepherd is happening in his campaign. Planar Shepherd with less ridiculous chosen plane than possible, but still Planar Shepherd. That's going to be all kinds of fun experience.

dm ruled against planar shepherd. She said she wouldn't be able to challenge me. She has a hard enough time as it is.


besides now that we lost the cleric and have a crusader in her place I don't want to overshadow the party too much.

[ryu]

dm ruled against planar shepherd. She said she wouldn't be able to challenge me. She has a hard enough time as it is.


besides now that we lost the cleric and have a crusader in her place I don't want to overshadow the party too much.

Aw. My condolences.

[shadowseve]

Aw. My condolences.

it's ok. me and the crusader spared and it wasn't even close. She stayed the whole fight blinded by spittle and entangled in kelp. Now imagine if I was a planar shepherd...

[ryu]

it's ok. me and the crusader spared and it wasn't even close. She stayed the whole fight blinded by spittle and entangled in kelp. Now imagine if I was a planar shepherd...

To be fair status inflicting save or lose is one of the last things that should trouble a well built crusader in high or even mid levels. They're also pretty frigging hard screw up build-wise.

[shadowseve]

To be fair status inflicting save or lose is one of the last things that should trouble a well built crusader in high or even mid levels. They're also pretty frigging hard screw up build-wise.

blinding spittle is a touch attack with no save to blind. Since I have the invisible spell feet she was denied her reflex on the touch attack. She had no water to wash her eyes. kelpstrand is a grapple. Her strength and medium size vs two strands that use my spell level and wis modifier. she failed on both grapple checks. I had three crocs me in bear form with luminous armor, bull strength, and girallon's blessing on me and my companion. It was not even a close fight.

[eggynack]

Since I have the invisible spell feet she was denied her reflex on the touch attack.
I don't know what you mean exactly by "denied her reflex", but there is no real indication that invisible spell has any sort of impact on how hard it is to resist blinding spittle.

[shadowseve]

I don't know what you mean exactly by "denied her reflex", but there is no real indication that invisible spell has any sort of impact on how hard it is to resist blinding spittle.

If I am correct blinding spittle has no save. it's a touch attack. if the spell is invisible how can a character add their reflex to a touch attack? The can't see the spell so how can they "add" dex score to their ac. It's like if someone castes an invisible fireball with that spell feat how could they gain a reflex save when they can't see the spell coming.

on a ranged touch attack how can they get a dex bonus if they can't see the spell touching them? at least that's how we've interpreted the feat

[eggynack]

If I am correct blinding spittle has no save. it's a touch attack. if the spell is invisible how can a character add their reflex to a touch attack?
First, do you mean dexterity? Cause that's what you tend to add. Second, because I'm not really sure why you wouldn't. At the very least, the opponent is likely to see your movements that indicate an attack of some sort, and in a bigger way, it doesn't really matter. The rules are what they are, and unless there's some actual mechanical impetus for such a loss of bonus, the loss just doesn't happen.

[shadowseve]

First, do you mean dexterity? Cause that's what you tend to add. Second, because I'm not really sure why you wouldn't. At the very least, the opponent is likely to see your movements that indicate an attack of some sort, and in a bigger way, it doesn't really matter. The rules are what they are, and unless there's some actual mechanical impetus for such a loss of bonus, the loss just doesn't happen.


I did mean dex instead of reflex. even with the dex the roll would have been high enough, still not the point. So you're saying for instance I fling two spells that are invisible they should still be allowed a reflex save, or in this case a bonus to dex on a touch attack even though they can't "see" the attack. They see me doing something but they couldn't see what. There would be little insensitive to take that feat then.

Even if there are no strict rules on that to me common sense would tell me I can't see the fireball heading my way so I can't react to it.

[Vhaidara]

You are in a 10x10x10 box with a sorcerer. You have evasion. The sorc casts fireball. It fills the entire space. You make your save and avoid the whole thing.

Invisible spell is a +0 metamagic, IIRC. Irresistable Spell was a +4/6 to remove save, and got errataed to +10 the the save DC.

[eggynack]

I did mean dex instead of reflex. even with the dex the roll would have been high enough, still not the point. So you're saying for instance I fling two spells that are invisible they should still be allowed a reflex save, or in this case a bonus to dex on a touch attack even though they can't "see" the attack. They see me doing something but they couldn't see what. There would be little insensitive to take that feat then.
On the first point, yes. On the second, about invisible spell lacking incentives to take it, no. Even if the feat had no other value, invisible spell's nature as a +0 metamagic would grant it intrinsic value, due to the combination with arcane thesis. However, the feat does have value, and ridiculous quantities at that. Consider applying the metamagic to SNA, or wall of thorns, or, really, any number of spells that have any kind of lasting impact. That's just the tip of the iceberg too, in terms of invisible spell abuse. Just consider for a moment: invisible invisibility. What even is that? Is it the same as invisibility, except it stymies true seeing? No one knows. Even the intentional effect has some level of value, as it can be nice to just hit someone with a spell, and have their allies not know what you hit them with. There is massive incentive, in other words, to the point that the feat is somewhat broken.


Even if there are no strict rules on that to me common sense would tell me I can't see the fireball heading my way so I can't react to it.
It's generally a bad idea to use common sense when dealing with rules issues. It tends to lead people astray on a frequent basis, as the game's rules often act counter to what you'd expect. Common sense has its place, and it has its value, but it's no substitute for a good ol' fashioned book citation.

[ryu]

On the first point, yes. On the second, about invisible spell lacking incentives to take it, no. Even if the feat had no other value, invisible spell's nature as a +0 metamagic would grant it intrinsic value, due to the combination with arcane thesis. However, the feat does have value, and ridiculous quantities at that. Consider applying the metamagic to SNA, or wall of thorns, or, really, any number of spells that have any kind of lasting impact. That's just the tip of the iceberg too, in terms of invisible spell abuse. Just consider for a moment: invisible invisibility. What even is that? Is it the same as invisibility, except it stymies true seeing? No one knows. Even the intentional effect has some level of value, as it can be nice to just hit someone with a spell, and have their allies not know what you hit them with. There is massive incentive, in other words, to the point that the feat is somewhat broken.


It's generally a bad idea to use common sense when dealing with rules issues. It tends to lead people astray on a frequent basis, as the game's rules often act counter to what you'd expect. Common sense has its place, and it has its value, but it's no substitute for a good ol' fashioned book citation.

Generally true in the higher tiers of the RAW of the real world too. I doubt I really have to bring out the full list of scientific things that simply don't jive with what most people would consider common sense. My personal favorite is edge-less finite space.

[shadowseve]

On the first point, yes. On the second, about invisible spell lacking incentives to take it, no. Even if the feat had no other value, invisible spell's nature as a +0 metamagic would grant it intrinsic value, due to the combination with arcane thesis. However, the feat does have value, and ridiculous quantities at that. Consider applying the metamagic to SNA, or wall of thorns, or, really, any number of spells that have any kind of lasting impact. That's just the tip of the iceberg too, in terms of invisible spell abuse. Just consider for a moment: invisible invisibility. What even is that? Is it the same as invisibility, except it stymies true seeing? No one knows. Even the intentional effect has some level of value, as it can be nice to just hit someone with a spell, and have their allies not know what you hit them with. There is massive incentive, in other words, to the point that the feat is somewhat broken.


It's generally a bad idea to use common sense when dealing with rules issues. It tends to lead people astray on a frequent basis, as the game's rules often act counter to what you'd expect. Common sense has its place, and it has its value, but it's no substitute for a good ol' fashioned book citation.



I really didn't mean to open a can of worms and derail the thread. I see your point about rules vs common sense, only in the sense to prevent over abuse. It's just counteractive to common sense. The dm's ruling was based on common sense so that's how we've rolled. I'll mention this to our dm and see what she rules.The whole party assumed it would deny reflex and dex bonuses since you couldn't see it.

I have considered it as far as walls and sna. Now my assumption on sna is once they attack they are now seen correct? At least that would make common sense for it to work like reg invisibility.

[shadowseve]

This is interesting to me. My first introduction to 3.5 was under a gm who followed those same lines, common sense can override rules. He would often deny my rogues evasion bonus in the fireball example given above about the fireball hitting the whole room. henceforth I've tended to rule the same way. You are what your taught.

[eggynack]

I have considered it as far as walls and sna. Now my assumption on sna is once they attack they are now seen correct? At least that would make common sense for it to work like reg invisibility.
I don't think so, no. By all indications, invisible spell doesn't make these manifestations invisible as the spell, but instead makes them invisible as the quality. The feat doesn't even seem to reference the spell invisibility. It's a messed up little feat. I'd advise against buffing it on that basis alone, if rules stuff is unconvincing.

[shadowseve]

I don't think so, no. By all indications, invisible spell doesn't make these manifestations invisible as the spell, but instead makes them invisible as the quality. The feat doesn't even seem to reference the spell invisibility. It's a messed up little feat. I'd advise against buffing it on that basis alone, if rules stuff is unconvincing.

I think she ruled it as they become visible after the first attack to avoid it being op which I can see.

same reason she denied me going into planar shepherd so I wouldn't be more powerful than everyone else. Which I can also see.

[eggynack]

I think she ruled it as they become visible after the first attack to avoid it being op which I can see..
That definitely impacts things some, but that's still just one of many of the feat's applications. We haven't even gotten into that one trick where you layer invisible fog cloud over normal fog cloud, such that enemies using true seeing will still just see a fog cloud, or that thing where you make a permanently invisible wall of stone. It's just a little pile of ridiculousness.

[shadowseve]

That definitely impacts things some, but that's still just one of many of the feat's applications. We haven't even gotten into that one trick where you layer invisible fog cloud over normal fog cloud, such that enemies using true seeing will still just see a fog cloud, or that thing where you make a permanently invisible wall of stone. It's just a little pile of ridiculousness.

Ok I might as well make a new thread for more questions so I'm no longer derailing this one.

[Deophaun]

I don't think so, no. By all indications, invisible spell doesn't make these manifestations invisible as the spell, but instead makes them invisible as the quality. The feat doesn't even seem to reference the spell invisibility. It's a messed up little feat. I'd advise against buffing it on that basis alone, if rules stuff is unconvincing.
The problem is "manifestation" is an undefined term. If you interpret it broadly, then it's going to have ridiculous results.

[eggynack]

The problem is "manifestation" is an undefined term. If you interpret it broadly, then it's going to have ridiculous results.
True enough, though you can get pretty ridiculous results with less broad definitions. I think that invisible fog cloud holds up to reasonably strict scrutiny, for example.

[Deophaun]

I think that invisible fog cloud holds up to reasonably strict scrutiny, for example.
I disagree. In my interpretation, Invisible Spell is pretty much useless for conjurations and transmutations. It is most useful for evocations, some necromancy (rays and touch spells), would be useful for enchantments if they had visual effects, and only gets confusing around illusions.

[shadowseve]

I disagree. In my interpretation, Invisible Spell is pretty much useless for conjurations and transmutations. It is most useful for evocations, some necromancy (rays and touch spells), would be useful for enchantments if they had visual effects, and only gets confusing around illusions.


Now you both have me confused.

If what I was told above was true then how are they useful for evocations and rays / touches and not useful for conjurations and illusions and vise verse or is this going to have to come down to RAI?

[Deophaun]

If what I was told above was true then how are they useful for evocations and rays / touches and not useful for conjurations and illusions and vise verse or is this going to have to come down to RAI?
My go-to example of what the "manifestation" is Disney's Cinderella. See all the sparkles that accompany the transformation of Cinderella's dress? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pph-ayIrOk) That's the manifestation; it's the appearance of the magical force that calls the effect into existence*. When it comes to evocations, that's basically the entirety of appearance of the spell. When it comes to conjuration, it's an inconsequential part of the appearance of the spell (even the orbs: you're removing the pyrotechnics accompanying the creation of the orbs, which are negligible if they exist at all, not the orbs themselves).

RAI? No idea. But you know, this is neither useless for a feat nor overpowered for a +0 Metamagic, and it avoids about 80% of the "what the hell happens now?" questions, so it's the interpretation I stick with.

*It must be noted that although "effect" is used in the feat, it is not used in the manner of an Effect: line, as the example is fireball, which has no such line.

[SinsI]

If you allow to spend Bonus Exalted feats on Incarnum feats, VoP becomes pretty useful to a Totemist or Incarnate: they can't use items in most of the slots as they are already occupied by soulmelds, soulmelds grant A LOT of the necessary abilities magic items do, and there are pretty useful Incarnum feats out there. Too bad there are only a few splatbooks with Incarnum support...

[Talya]

Actually, they can carry it for as long as they want. The prohibition is against using and owning, not holding or carrying (yes, that's right, you may carry and use a spell component pouch... but you still can't own one).


Except for the inconsistency with expendable items like potions. You can immediately use a potion someone hands you, but if you're carrying around a bunch of potions, you can't use them.

[Ansem]

This is interesting to me. My first introduction to 3.5 was under a gm who followed those same lines, common sense can override rules. He would often deny my rogues evasion bonus in the fireball example given above about the fireball hitting the whole room. henceforth I've tended to rule the same way. You are what your taught.

Which is why I'm a RAW person.
I hate DM's changing **** on the fly and I think it's fair for everyone to know what means what beforehand. If nothing is discussed AND agreed upon beforehand in the campaign, it's RAW.
Same **** how some dip**** DM once ruled my fireball didn't do fire damage but 'magic' because he didn't want his fire-vulnerable bad guy to die quickly.

Completely defeats the point of even having Evasion, so he ought to give you something in return for it.
Summary: be careful with DM's pulling random stuff from their sleeves to screw you over.

[Prime32]

You are in a 10x10x10 box with a sorcerer. You have evasion. The sorc casts fireball. It fills the entire space. You make your save and avoid the whole thing.Easily explained as "The burst is uneven and/or composed of many small projectiles that you can dodge between (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOnfnNYkSlY)".

You know, since a character using Evasion never leaves their space, so they can't be outrunning it.

[Graypairofsocks]

You are in a 10x10x10 box with a sorcerer. You have evasion. The sorc casts fireball. It fills the entire space. You make your save and avoid the whole thing.

Invisible spell is a +0 metamagic, IIRC. Irresistable Spell was a +4/6 to remove save, and got errataed to +10 the the save DC.

Invisible spell is +0.

Irresistable Spell is +4(why) and I don't even think it was even given errata*.


*I think this (http://www.kenzerco.com/Orpg/kalamar/KPG5_feats.pdf) is the Kingdoms of Kalamar errata.

[nedz]

Where is Irresistable Spell from ?

[Graypairofsocks]

Kingdoms of Kalamar.

It is a book made by Kenzer & Company, but it was approved(or similar) by WotC.

[Deophaun]

Except for the inconsistency with expendable items like potions. You can immediately use a potion someone hands you...
No. They don't hand you potions. They put it in your mouth and you drink it:

A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature’s throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.
This is what doesn't violate the VoP: Someone else using a potion on you.

[Renen]

They throw it in the air, you catch it in your mouth and chug it down :D

As for dodging the fireball, you can say the person was fast enough to get into a stance,get his hands to cover his face and the such.

[Deophaun]

They throw it in the air, you catch it in your mouth and chug it down :D
Just as long as they're standing next to you and take a full-round action, that's perfectly fine fluff.

[Talya]

No. They don't hand you potions. They put it in your mouth and you drink it:

This is what doesn't violate the VoP: Someone else using a potion on you.


Not what the feat says.


you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you.

[Deophaun]

Not what the feat says.
Quote the whole portion:

You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.
You are ignoring the text of the feat and pulling out a quote divorced from its context. You cannot just drink a potion, by yourself, because that is not someone else using it on your behalf. The DMG describes how that is done with potions, and nothing in the language of the VoP feat conflicts.

[Talya]

I am not ignoring anything. It is explicit. It says you may drink a potion your friend gives you. There are no other stipulations to that. In what language does that indicate your friend has to hold it and pour it down your throat? Certainly not English.

(which would still indicate you can read a tome that your friend holds and turns the pages for you.)

[Deophaun]

I am not ignoring anything. It is explicit. It says you may drink a potion your friend gives you. There are no other stipulations to that. In what language does that indicate your friend has to hold it and pour it down your throat? Certainly not English.
It is English: "USED ON YOUR BEHALF." That is not Russian. That is not Italian. That is not Tagalog. That is English. And you are flatly ignoring it. You are pretending that it exists in an separate universe from the clause it is tied to, as surely as if someone said "The feat says 'wands,' so you can use wands!" is ignoring that it's limited to "[receiving] a spell cast from."

And then, ridiculously, you hinge this all on some "immediate" use, when nowhere in the feat is there a time horizon mentioned for anything. You implicitly know that the feat does not allow someone to use potions that a merchant gave them a month ago, but having ignored the only language that prevents that, you have to invent, out of whole cloth, a new restriction. It's laughable.

[Lans]

VOP is probably good for NPCs that have, between lower WBL available, and potentially higher HD it changes the numbers

[Talya]

It is English: "USED ON YOUR BEHALF." That is not Russian. That is not Italian. That is not Tagalog. That is English. And you are flatly ignoring it. You are pretending that it exists in an separate universe from the clause it is tied to, as surely as if someone said "The feat says 'wands,' so you can use wands!" is ignoring that it's limited to "[receiving] a spell cast from."

In the sentence fragment prior to it, it says you can benefit from items used on your behalf. Then it says you can drink a potion someone else gives you. These are separate things.
It does specifically say you can benefit from scrolls or wands someone else casts on you, but that you can drink a potion. Drinking a potion is a specific action type, and if you're questioning the English, drinking a potion is even an action defined in the core rules. You can drink a potion someone else gives you. It is explicit. There is no other way to read that.

[dob]

I'm playing a VoP psion in a campaign now; it's actually a ton of fun. Mechanically, it's rather less potent than WBL would be, but it's enough to get by for a self-buffing machine like a psion. It helps a bit that the DM has let me trade in bonus exalted feats, for which there are precisely none relevant to psions, on regular feats on a 2-1 basis, but she was entirely playable prior to that arrangement.

She's also easily the greediest character I've ever played, accounting for every copper the party acquires and ensuring she gets precisely her fair share. She claims to be a devotee of Yondalla, being a halfling, but I'm pretty sure she's on permanent loan to Waukeen. Her insight / delusion is that hoarding wealth retards the expansion of the economy, trapping the commoners in penury. It's her holy obligation to find treasure hoards, ideally in the hands of evil beings, and liberate them. Recently, she founded an investment bank. It's a total contradiction and a riot and I love it.

One minor advantage no one seems to have mentioned yet is that it's easier to present as less powerful, since you avoid the Christmas tree effect.

[Deophaun]

In the sentence fragment prior to it, it says you can benefit from items used on your behalf. Then it says you can drink a potion someone else gives you. These are separate things.
English lesson time.

The passage in question says:

You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.
Now, this thing: —
is called an em dash. It is used to indicate that what follows is designed to illustrate, define, or clarify what has come before it. It cannot be said that "these are separate things" when the rules of English dictate the exact opposite. Everything past the em dash is referring to "magic items used on your behalf." There is no other way to read it. You are wrong.

[Vhaidara]

This is drink as in swallow, not drink as in chug.

[Incanur]

I've got to side with Talya here. Riding on the ebony fly also potentially contradicts the "magic items used on your behalf," but it's there. I don't see how riding on a companion's ebony fly is an item used on your behalf strictly speaking. (Look at the ebony fly item description.) If they wanted it to be that you only drink a potion poured into your mouth or only ride on the companion's ebony fly while unconscious and on their lap, the feat would probably just say that. But it's pointless debate anyway, because VoP requires some RAI interpretation to be viable.

[Deophaun]

I've got to side with Talya here. Riding on the ebony fly also potentially contradicts the "magic items used on your behalf," but it's there. I don't see how riding on a companion's ebony fly is an item used on your behalf strictly speaking.
It actually does fit with all the others, because figurines of wondrous power only follow the commands of the person who activated them. So, just like with wands, scrolls, and staffs, the VoPer never uses any action to interact with the ebony fly; his role is entirely passive.

[Incanur]

The item can be used three times per week for up to 12 hours per use.

According to this quotation it's being used the whole time it's animated. And it's the size of a pony, so it's not even the case that the VoP character would be sharing it with the companion. They'd be the only one using it. The whole scenario is pretty awkward given how the ebony fly only obeys its owner.

As an aside, this is one way around the flight problem VoP has.

[lunar2]

I've got to side with Talya here. Riding on the ebony fly also potentially contradicts the "magic items used on your behalf," but it's there. I don't see how riding on a companion's ebony fly is an item used on your behalf strictly speaking. (Look at the ebony fly item description.) If they wanted it to be that you only drink a potion poured into your mouth or only ride on the companion's ebony fly while unconscious and on their lap, the feat would probably just say that. But it's pointless debate anyway, because VoP requires some RAI interpretation to be viable.

your companion pilots the fly, while you ride along. what's so complex about that? i know there is no specific rules for 2 riders, but in that case, you just have to use common sense. if a real mount could handle 2 riders (a pony with two small kids on it, for example), then an in game mount of the same size should, as well.

which brings up a rules question. the ebony fly is supposed to be the same size as a pony, but use all the statistics of a hippogriff, so is it large, and is just the same height and weight as a pony, or is it medium?

[Incanur]

The ebony fly can only carry up to 300lbs and still fly. Many medium characters weigh more than 150lbs each, especially with gear, so assuming they're both on the fly seem unlikely. Either the VoP writers made a mistake, imagined characters weighing less than 150lbs each, or thought the owner would command the fly to obey the VoP character. Or many they assumed the companion flies alongside the VoP character by some other means. In any case, it's awkward unless it's two halflings or something.

[lunar2]

The ebony fly can only carry up to 300lbs and still fly. Many medium characters weigh more than 150lbs each, especially with gear, so assuming they're both on the fly seem unlikely.

if we are assuming the ebony fly is medium, then they are both small characters anyway. if not, one of them is carrying no gear. so if the other is lightly armored, then it can possibly pull it off, as long as both are lightweight characters. that said, it can still walk even with a medium or heavy load. the feat didn't reference flying, after all.

[Deophaun]

The ebony fly can only carry up to 300lbs and still fly. Many medium characters weigh more than 150lbs each, especially with gear, so assuming they're both on the fly seem unlikely. Either the VoP writers made a mistake, imagined characters weighing less than 150lbs each, or thought the owner would command the fly to obey the VoP character. Or many they assumed the companion flies alongside the VoP character by some other means. In any case, it's awkward unless it's two halflings or something.
Or they thought the VoP guy might get knocked unconscious and the party would need a way to move him.

[Talya]

English lesson time.

The passage in question says:

Now, this thing: —
is called an em dash. It is used to indicate that what follows is designed to illustrate, define, or clarify what has come before it. It cannot be said that "these are separate things" when the rules of English dictate the exact opposite. Everything past the em dash is referring to "magic items used on your behalf." There is no other way to read it. You are wrong.

English lesson time: Everything you just said proves my point, not yours. As I stated, potions are an inconsistency. The inconsistency is because the two rules texts do not match up. It explicitly allows something that is inconsistent with other statements. Drinking a potion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/potionsAndOils.htm) is a specifically defined action in the game rules. It also has a specific meaning in the vernacular English, which happens to coincide with that defined in the game rules. You cannot change that meaning based on a conflict with another part of the statement.

[Phelix-Mu]

It's rather silly to argue the finer points of the RAW in VoP (and, indeed, throughout much of BoED). Optional rules are often poorly written with respect to the default game, and it's hardly surprising if they form a distinct rule (can't have/use stuff), and then RAW caveat that rule until all that's left is a ten-page internet debate about where the cheese is, and where the holes in the cheese are. If you want to eat use VoP, your DM will have to iron out just what is and isn't allowed, cause the writers didn't do/finish their job very well.

I'm actually in favor of things like using tomes or wishes and such to enhance VoP-users; the prohibition is against having wealth, not being effective through use of magical resources. While there is a bit of an argument about the person now being worth the money invested (like with psionic tattoos), I find that "improvements" to the person with VoP aren't really owning things, just benefiting from positive effects that happen to be permanent and usually require money. If the character is gifted the tome and reads it, then the tome is worth nothing at the end of the week. Seems not totally contrary to the spirit of the rule, and unless one houserules the "consecutive wishes" bit of acquiring inherent bonuses away, then tomes are pretty much the only reliable way to get inherent bonuses.

To be clear, however, in my world, tomes aren't for sale, anyway. A relic of an older edition, I'm sure, but I never like the idea of them being for sale (they are on my list of special treasure for special fights...wouldn't be so special if they were on the open market).