Vow of Poverty

[Malapterus]

I am working on a concept for a crazy gestalt game & exploring the Vow of Poverty.

I need some opinions on how you, as a DM, would feel about some various concepts.

Normally a Vow of Poverty character cannot use anything fancier than a stick or their own hand. What, however, if they were using an object they magically summoned? I am sure no one would have a problem with the character using the weapon created by the Flame Blade spell. Even something a little more solid like the Blade of Pain and Fear (ignoring the other ramifications of said spell) shouldn't be an issue, as these things are just magical constructs.

What if someone used Major Creation to summon up a greatsword? No one owns it, it didn't come from anywhere, and it's going to disappear in an hour. Is this conjured blade any different than the Flame Blade to the vow of poverty?

If the Major Creation is not a violation, let's say our Vow of Poverty character has levels in Artificer. He conjures up a temporary blade and then uses an Infusion to give it a +3 enhancement. It's now, from one perspective, a very valuable item - but from a realistic view it's still an imaginary conjured thing that's going to vanish in an hour. Is this still the same as the Flame Blade in terms of being fine for him to use?

Taking it even further - our Vow of Poverty Cleric/Artificer Gestalt is also a Warforged. The skin or 'hull; of a Warforged can be enhanced as armor, their slam attack can be enhanced as weapons. The Warforged uses his skills and burns experience to cover the gold costs and enchants his own composite plating with a +3 armor enhancement. He certainly has a right to his own skin, doesn't he? Is this a violation of the Vow of Poverty?

I think this could be a very interesting character, but there's a lot of interpretation to whether or not it can be done. How much of this would you allow?

[Venger]

None of the things you cited are against the rules. They're good ways of navigating vop's many pitfalls if you are committed to the concept.

since you're gestalting, check out incarnate or totemist for one of your halves. among other things it covers vop's lack of flight.

[Falontani]

I definitely would allow it; however if you want scaling armor another way to do it would be to make one of your halves Binder and bind the one who gives you enchanted fullplate as part of the binding

[Venger]

I definitely would allow it; however if you want scaling armor another way to do it would be to make one of your halves Binder and bind the one who gives you enchanted fullplate as part of the binding

savnok. he's ok, but ages fairly quickly.

[mabriss lethe]

I definitely would allow it; however if you want scaling armor another way to do it would be to make one of your halves Binder and bind the one who gives you enchanted fullplate as part of the binding

You wouldn't even need to take levels in Binder to do it. Savnok's summoned armor is one of the abilities granted by the Bind Vestige feat chain. (though you still need proficiency)

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'd be perfectly fine with those as a DM. Their temporary nature robs then of any real monetary value.

I'll also second incarnum on one side of the gestalt as a really solid option even in absence of VoP.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Actually, VoP has an exhaustive list of everything that a VoP character can use. If it's not on the list, it breaks the vow, no matter how dumb it might be. Use a doorknob to open a door? You fall. Read a book or a sign? You fall. Look at a statue meant to be viewed due to its aesthetic value? You fall.

Sorry, but all the things you mentioned break the vow, because the vow, as written, is stupid.

[Malapterus]

Actually, VoP has an exhaustive list of everything that a VoP character can use. If it's not on the list, it breaks the vow, no matter how dumb it might be. Use a doorknob to open a door? You fall. Read a book or a sign? You fall. Look at a statue meant to be viewed due to its aesthetic value? You fall.

Sorry, but all the things you mentioned break the vow, because the vow, as written, is stupid.

The text reads "To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions". I don't think your interpretation is correct, because a doorknob on a tavern or a statue in a square is, while material, not your possession. It explicitly states that the ban on using -other- people's possessions is limited to persistent magical items, so it seems like you could go so far as to borrow someone's sword or bow, so long as it wasn't enhanced.

Walking on a paved road or leaning on a public building wouldn't break the vow. It seems like anything a normal person who has no access to money can use can be used by a person with the vow, with the explicit exception of persistent magical items.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Actually, VoP has an exhaustive list of everything that a VoP character can use. If it's not on the list, it breaks the vow, no matter how dumb it might be. Use a doorknob to open a door? You fall. Read a book or a sign? You fall. Look at a statue meant to be viewed due to its aesthetic value? You fall.

Sorry, but all the things you mentioned break the vow, because the vow, as written, is stupid.

Just... No.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/possession?s=t

"Possessions" and "goods" or "objects" are not the same thing. I get why people have a hate-boner for this feat but let's not make it worse than it actually is, please.

That said, an extremely strict RAW reading would, indeed, forbid the OPs suggestions. However, the sacred vows, like most of the rest of the books of exalted deeds and vile darkness, rely much more heavily on DM interpretation to function in any meaningful way than most anything else in the system. If you're trying to rules-lawyer them, you've missed the entire point.

The point of VoP is to live as an ascetic. Using magic to further your and your patrons' goals doesn't part with that. Keeping 49.4999% of your share of the loot you find and "having your allies spend it on your behalf" for permanent spell effects and grafts and the like because the feat demands you give up "the majority" of your treasure does. At least IMO.

[Malapterus]

That said, an extremely strict RAW reading would, indeed, forbid the OPs suggestions. However, the sacred vows, like most of the rest of the books of exalted deeds and vile darkness, rely much more heavily on DM interpretation to function in any meaningful way than most anything else in the system. If you're trying to rules-lawyer them, you've missed the entire point.

I guess there are a couple ways to look at a vow of poverty.

One way would be to consider that there is only so much wealth to go around, and you have vowed to give up your share so there is more for everyone else. In that interpretation, my concepts would not violate the oath.

Another way to look at it is an exploration of humility; not to be technically penniless, but to live AS a person who has nothing. You are trying to be like those who are poor, perhaps to inspire the needy or perhaps to understand them or perhaps simply as a sign of your devotion. In that case, a work-around such as major creation would probably break the vow - even though it's still hardly any different than Flame Blade when used in that way.

[Nifft]

What if someone used Major Creation to summon up a greatsword? No one owns it, it didn't come from anywhere, and it's going to disappear in an hour. Is this conjured blade any different than the Flame Blade to the vow of poverty? No problem with this.


If the Major Creation is not a violation, let's say our Vow of Poverty character has levels in Artificer. He conjures up a temporary blade and then uses an Infusion to give it a +3 enhancement. Legal but pointless since VoP gives you an enhancement bonus on whatever weapon you're holding.


Taking it even further - our Vow of Poverty Cleric/Artificer Gestalt is also a Warforged. The skin or 'hull; of a Warforged can be enhanced as armor, their slam attack can be enhanced as weapons. The Warforged uses his skills and burns experience to cover the gold costs and enchants his own composite plating with a +3 armor enhancement. He certainly has a right to his own skin, doesn't he? Is this a violation of the Vow of Poverty? Might be legal, if you can find a way to pay the GP cost without ever owning any money. I think this violates the spirit, though, so the Exalted Good being who mediates your VoP benefits package might cancel all ongoing service.


I think this could be a very interesting character, but there's a lot of interpretation to whether or not it can be done. How much of this would you allow? There are ways to work around the effects without violating the spirit of the feat. Those would tend to be legal.

Unlike regular feats, the [Exalted] tag means you're under supervision, and they can take away your cookies if you don't behave double-extra-good.

[Malapterus]

Legal but pointless since VoP gives you an enhancement bonus on whatever weapon you're holding.

The Artificer Infusion actually works really well with this, because it doesn't have to give a flat enhancement bonus, it can give any bonus of equivalent market price - so you can keep your full VoP bonus and add on Flaming or Vorpal or Fleshgrinding or Keen or whatever for 10 minutes per infusion.

[Nifft]

The Artificer Infusion actually works really well with this, because it doesn't have to give a flat enhancement bonus, it can give any bonus of equivalent market price - so you can keep your full VoP bonus and add on Flaming or Vorpal or Fleshgrinding or Keen or whatever for 10 minutes per infusion. Cool.

That would be a significantly better use for that ability.

[King of Nowhere]

I would allow it.
1) it fits with lore. you do not own any material possession, you are simply using temporary spells to buff you - or permanent spells you cast with an xp cost to buff you.
2) it is not broken, because (if I read this correctly) most of those bonuses would not stack with the ones granted from the vow anyway. I mean, you already get an enhancement bonus to your weapon from the vow, and an armor bonus.



The point of VoP is to live as an acetic.
You strive to be more like vinegar?



Actually, VoP has an exhaustive list of everything that a VoP character can use. If it's not on the list, it breaks the vow, no matter how dumb it might be. Use a doorknob to open a door? You fall. Read a book or a sign? You fall. Look at a statue meant to be viewed due to its aesthetic value? You fall.

Sorry, but all the things you mentioned break the vow, because the vow, as written, is stupid.
Nah, not at all. The vop is written in a way that clearly requires a bit of interpretation, because if you were to try and clarify every single special case you may need another book. The vop is not stupid, it's just that you are trying to interpret it in the stupidest possible way.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I am working on a concept for a crazy gestalt game & exploring the Vow of Poverty.

Are you dead set on that? Vow of Poverty is strictly worse than having WBL.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You strive to be more like vinegar?

:smallmad: I've got to get a new physical keyboard for this ****ing tablet. Auto-correct can go straight to hell.

[lylsyly]

Are you dead set on that? Vow of Poverty is strictly worse than having WBL.

And it only took 15 posts for someone to say that ... I play in 4 games a week and VoP is workable in all of them.


:smallmad: I've got to get a new physical keyboard for this ****ing tablet. Auto-correct can go straight to hell.

I feel your pain. I don't suppose you could drop one at my place when you get yours? ;D

[Kelb_Panthera]

And it only took 15 posts for someone to say that ... I play in 4 games a week and VoP is workable in all of them.

It -is- workable, that was the goal, but that's it. Unless your DM is hamstringing wealth and item availability or improving VoP in some way, the statement remains true. I won't say "don't do it" but let's keep it real, shall we? Well spent wealth >> VoP.


I feel your pain. I don't suppose you could drop one at my place when you get yours? ;D

Sorry, no. :smallbiggrin: Mine crapped out a while ago and money -stays- tight. The sympathy is appreciated though.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And it only took 15 posts for someone to say that ... I play in 4 games a week and VoP is workable in all of them.

What classes did you play? VoP is especially hard on characters that are reliant on magic items, like Monks.

[bean illus]

Everything suggested is fine.
Take gift of discernment asap.


I guess there are a couple ways to look at a vow of poverty.

One way would be to consider that there is only so much wealth to go around, and you have vowed to give up your share so there is more for everyone else. In that interpretation, my concepts would not violate the oath.

You just violated your oath.
VoP is not about making others richer so that you can be richer, but without a wallet.


Just... No.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/possession?s=t

"Possessions" and "goods" or "objects" are not the same thing. I get why people have a hate-boner for this feat but let's not make it worse than it actually is, please.

..snip.

The point of VoP is to live as an ascetic. Using magic to further your and your patrons' goals doesn't part with that. Keeping 49.4999% of your share of the loot you find and "having your allies spend it on your behalf" for permanent spell effects and grafts and the like because the feat demands you give up "the majority" of your treasure does. At least IMO.
Yes, and no.

You absolutely CAN spend 49.9% on yourself. I would stick to 45% unless you wanna get busted on sandwiches and rooms.
But you're not allowed to want cash or hoard it. VoP would leave their share on the side of the road before they carried it ('Too many temptations and allowances create a precedent of the spirit. Best to be avoided').

Seriously, take Gift of Discernment ASAP. Then stick to theme. If you want to break the game, don't take VoP.

For instance trying to rig free or half priced wishes out of it would be absolutely not allowed.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Take gift of discernment asap.Except, a phylactery of faithfulness is really chea...

Err...

Right. Never mind.

[Doctor Awkward]

Normally a Vow of Poverty character cannot use anything fancier than a stick or their own hand. What, however, if they were using an object they magically summoned? I am sure no one would have a problem with the character using the weapon created by the Flame Blade spell.

No.
A flame blade (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameBlade.htm) is wielded "as though it were a scimitar." A scimitar is a martial weapon.
Vow of Poverty states you may not "own or use" any weapons other than ordinary simple ones.


Even something a little more solid like the Blade of Pain and Fear (ignoring the other ramifications of said spell) shouldn't be an issue, as these things are just magical constructs.
Yes.
This is not a weapon. This is a spell effect.


What if someone used Major Creation to summon up a greatsword?

No.
A greatsword is not a simple weapon. And the stipulation is not just against "owning". It's also against using. The whole point of this is to prevent a party member from carrying equipment for you to use in combat, thus dodging the technicality of "ownership"


If the Major Creation is not a violation, let's say our Vow of Poverty character has levels in Artificer. He conjures up a temporary blade and then uses an Infusion to give it a +3 enhancement. It's now, from one perspective, a very valuable item - but from a realistic view it's still an imaginary conjured thing that's going to vanish in an hour. Is this still the same as the Flame Blade in terms of being fine for him to use?

Taking it even further - our Vow of Poverty Cleric/Artificer Gestalt is also a Warforged. The skin or 'hull; of a Warforged can be enhanced as armor, their slam attack can be enhanced as weapons. The Warforged uses his skills and burns experience to cover the gold costs and enchants his own composite plating with a +3 armor enhancement. He certainly has a right to his own skin, doesn't he? Is this a violation of the Vow of Poverty??

None of this is okay.
When items are infused with magical enchantments, they are magical.
A character with Vow of Poverty "may not use any magic item of any sort."

[Malapterus]

Are you dead set on that? Vow of Poverty is strictly worse than having WBL.

I want to make a Warforged Cleric/Monk/Artificer and hit up all the good vows. Poverty, Nonviolence, and Peace.

A holy-roller robot man with no original sin sent from the plane of law to explore what can be gained without taking and to spread goodness without the distraction of wealth or glory.

[tterreb]

No.
A flame blade (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameBlade.htm) is wielded "as though it were a scimitar." A scimitar is a martial weapon.
Vow of Poverty states you may not "own or use" any weapons other than ordinary simple ones.
It is wielded as a scimitar, but is not actually a scimitar. It uses the mechanics of a scimitar -- damage, crit range, etc. -- but as it is not actually a physical weapon it doesn't violate VoP.

[Doctor Awkward]

It is wielded as a scimitar, but is not actually a scimitar. It uses the mechanics of a scimitar -- damage, crit range, etc. -- but as it is not actually a physical weapon it doesn't violate VoP.

So far as the rules are concerned, there is no fundamental difference between "wielded as" and "is".
In both cases, all relevant rules are applied.

[bean illus]

Simple weapon is a thing. Dagger + whirling blade. ?

[Doctor Awkward]

I want to make a Warforged Cleric/Monk/Artificer and hit up all the good vows. Poverty, Nonviolence, and Peace.

A holy-roller robot man with no original sin sent from the plane of law to explore what can be gained without taking and to spread goodness without the distraction of wealth or glory.

Vow of Peace is the worst vow. You not only screw over yourself, you screw over your party.


To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm to any living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this prohibition). You may not deal real damage or ability damage to such creatures through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects, disintegrate, or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death or great harm. You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can kill them--if you incapacitate a foe, you must take him prisoner.

Any time a combat encounter occurs in which you participate, any foe that you affect in any way must be taken prisoner by the party, otherwise you break your vow.

Do not take that feat without consulting your DM with the rest of the players present.

[Venger]

So far as the rules are concerned, there is no fundamental difference between "wielded as" and "is".
In both cases, all relevant rules are applied.

vop characters can cast spells. a flame blade is a spell. it gives you something scimitar-like, but not a scimitar.

in your mind, can a vop character not cast mount, since horses can be sold for ~30gp?

[Malapterus]

This is not a weapon. This is a spell effect.

Where do you draw the line? In this case, the greatsword itself IS a spell effect.

Flame Blade, Blade of Pain and Fear, and Greatsword created by Major Creation; they're all weapons that deal real damage and then vanish from your hands a set amount of time later. The Greatsword is a spell effect, the effect of the spell is 'this sword appears, exists for an hour, then vanishes'. What does it matter if its made of fire or steel?

[bean illus]

vop characters can cast spells. a flame blade is a spell. it gives you something scimitar-like, but not a scimitar.

in your mind, can a vop character not cast mount, since horses can be sold for ~30gp?

Will he still need ranks in ride?

[Doctor Awkward]

vop characters can cast spells. a flame blade is a spell. it gives you something scimitar-like, but not a scimitar.

in your mind, can a vop character not cast mount, since horses can be sold for ~30gp?

You can cast either of those spells to your heart's content.

The moment you use the scimitar or ride the horse, you break you vow.
The horse is a material possession.
Flame Blade is wielded exactly as a scimitar.

[Doctor Awkward]

Where do you draw the line? In this case, the greatsword itself IS a spell effect.

Flame Blade, Blade of Pain and Fear, and Greatsword created by Major Creation; they're all weapons that deal real damage and then vanish from your hands a set amount of time later. The Greatsword is a spell effect, the effect of the spell is 'this sword appears, exists for an hour, then vanishes'. What does it matter if its made of fire or steel?

The greatsword is a martial weapon. For all intents and purposes, so is the scimitar.

I draw the line at the text of the feat: "own or use".

[Venger]

That certainly is an... interesting interpretation of vop.

Malapterus, has your gm made it clear where he draws the line on vop in your game?

[Malapterus]

You just violated your oath.
VoP is not about making others richer so that you can be richer, but without a wallet.


I'm not getting how you got that from what I said.

I am talking, there is only so much wealth for everyone in the world, not just your party. Some fraction of the money you decline to hoard theoretically remains available to each starving commoner and low-level adventurer in the world. You're not setting it up to go to familiar people who will turn around and directly benefit you in return, you're just giving up your glass of water and pretending everyone else in the world gets an extra drop because of you.

If this is the case, then it doesn't matter what you use as long as you didn't really 'obtain' it from anywhere. Your summoned greatsword was not bought or stolen & the world is not short a sword someone else might need because you have this one; you conjured it with your own magic and will.


Now, from the other perspective, humility, then you are trying to live as one who has nothing. In that case, it's the use of the object that causes the problem, not the method in which it got into your hands. You are purifying yourself and inspiring others by rejecting even the slightest luxury, so even if your labor-saving tool was pulled from thin air, you're breaking the spirit of your vow by using it.

Personally, I prescribe to the first line of thought & I feel that if there is no way what you have could ever have belonged to someone else, because it and the material it is made of literally did not exist without your action, then it's okay. Conversely, if I spent the backbreaking effort to dig up some iron ore, build a forge, make it into steel, hammer it into a blade - in that case, the iron I dug and the building materials I used and the wood I burned all could have been used by someone else for something else if I'd not come along. I took these things & this violates my vow.

[Nifft]

I would never consider a temporary effect to be a factor in WBL calculations, nor for it to be a factor in VoP vow maintenance.

I would also never allow a mount spell effect to be sold as a real horse.

You could sell casting the spell, as a service, but it's unlikely you'd find a buyer with any sort of regularity. If you sold spell casting as a service, you could get some gold, and that gold would break your VoP. But the spell itself would not.

[bean illus]

You can cast either of those spells to your heart's content.

The moment you use the scimitar or ride the horse, you break you vow.
The horse is a material possession.
Flame Blade is wielded exactly as a scimitar.

I would let him ride, but he'll need ranks 'cause he won't have a saddle.

VoP should be left playable. It certainly isn't broken.

[Venger]

I would never consider a temporary effect to be a factor in WBL calculations, nor for it to be a factor in VoP vow maintenance.

I would also never allow a mount spell effect to be sold as a real horse.

You could sell casting the spell, as a service, but it's unlikely you'd find a buyer with any sort of regularity. If you sold spell casting as a service, you could get some gold, and that gold would break your VoP. But the spell itself would not.

Of course you wouldn't. There's no listed price for a flame blade or mount or anything like that, so they aren't breaking the vow, they aren't worth anything.

[Jack_Simth]

:smallmad: I've got to get a new physical keyboard for this ****ing tablet. Auto-correct can go straight to hell.
I turned off auto-correct and auto-complete on my phone. It now only completes or corrects a word when I tap that specific suggestion it's making. Works well. When I'm using an ssh client from my phone, I also turn off the suggestions.

Places to find instructions to do that for:
iOS (http://osxdaily.com/2015/01/06/disable-auto-correct-ios/)
Android (https://www.phonearena.com/news/How-to-turn-off-auto-correct-on-Google-Keyboard-Android_id78898)
Windows 10 (http://mywindowshub.com/how-to-turn-off-autocorrect-misspelled-words-in-windows-10/)

[Malapterus]

Hey here's a fun one to throw in: VoP Sandshaper. Makes temporary solid stuff out of sand, ala Green Lantern. Can he use that stuff? Anything from structures to saddles to weapons to living scorpions that can inject you with venom.

[Venger]

Hey here's a fun one to throw in: VoP Sandshaper. Makes temporary solid stuff out of sand, ala Green Lantern. Can he use that stuff? Anything from structures to saddles to weapons to living scorpions that can inject you with venom.

of course he can. sand is not valuable. you can use it freely.

you cannot use sandshaper's sand shape ability to create living organisms with poison. I think you're talking about chaos flasks, which are often compared to shapesand, a magic item that sand shapers often use.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I turned off auto-correct and auto-complete on my phone. It now only completes or corrects a word when I tap that specific suggestion it's making. Works well. When I'm using an ssh client from my phone, I also turn off the suggestions.

Places to find instructions to do that for:
iOS (http://osxdaily.com/2015/01/06/disable-auto-correct-ios/)
Android (https://www.phonearena.com/news/How-to-turn-off-auto-correct-on-Google-Keyboard-Android_id78898)
Windows 10 (http://mywindowshub.com/how-to-turn-off-autocorrect-misspelled-words-in-windows-10/)

I appreciate the attempt to help but I already know how to do that with my on-screen keyboard. The problem is that the tablet's too big to hold up for any length of time and the keyboard is too large to comfortably use two hands on as well. So I use the swipe function with my index finger. For it to function properly the suggestions -must- be on. The alternative is to take several times longer to make each post.

Props for the intellectual generosity though. :smallsmile:

[tterreb]

So far as the rules are concerned, there is no fundamental difference between "wielded as" and "is".
In both cases, all relevant rules are applied.
So, following that logic, I could take said flame blade and sell it for the same price as a scimitar.

[lylsyly]

What classes did you play? VoP is especially hard on characters that are reliant on magic items, like Monks.

All of the PHB Classes except Wizard and Cleric (hard to get around the spellbook and holy symbol), a few others as well, IIRC a Bard was the hardest to pull off, Sorcerer probably the easiest.

Wealth by level can actually over ride ANY class features, skills, proficiencies, ect.

As others have said it is dependent upon DM interpretation. And of course it is also somewhat dependent upon the parties power level.

I just don't like to see peoples character concepts automatically pooped on. Goes right in the same territory as "If you aren't playing a tier one class why are you even playing?"

This is 3.5 (or PF), almost any concept can be duplicated, and optimization can go a long way towards shoring up weaknesses.

just my 2 cp, YMMV!

[AnimeTheCat]

Vow of Peace is the worst vow. You not only screw over yourself, you screw over your party.

Any time a combat encounter occurs in which you participate, any foe that you affect in any way must be taken prisoner by the party, otherwise you break your vow.

Do not take that feat without consulting your DM with the rest of the players present.

The thing about what you just said is that there's a caveat. Later in the feat description, it clearly says that you can force the creature to take a vow of non-interferance. If it breaks that vow, your allies may deal with the creature however they see fit. You sit them down, do a 10 minute diplomacy check, and send them away. If they attack again, they die, no problems. Further, the party can deal lethal damage as normal and you can deal non-lethal to knock them out, again without issue. Its seriously not that hard.

On another note, I don't think casting spells makes you lose your vow, just as long as you're keeping to the primary tenets of the vow.

[Malapterus]

I think you're talking about chaos flasks, which are often compared to shapesand, a magic item that sand shapers often use.

I am talking about the Sand Scorpion under Improved Sand Shape on page 75 of Sandstorm

[Nifft]

On another note, I don't think casting spells makes you lose your vow, just as long as you're keeping to the primary tenets of the vow. Yeah like if you wish for 25 kgp in loot, you lose your vow. But in general, casting a spell doesn't do that. Just don't be deliberately stupid.


I am talking about the Sand Scorpion under Improved Sand Shape on page 75 of Sandstorm I don't see a GP value for that, so I think it's fine.

Was there one somewhere?

[King of Nowhere]

Are you dead set on that? Vow of Poverty is strictly worse than having WBL.
And it only took 15 posts for someone to say that ... I play in 4 games a week and VoP is workable in all of them.



Yes, it is worse than WBL. But you don't have to powergame everything to the hilt. There is some great fluff to be had with vop, and if you don't care with having slightly lower modifiers and losing some utility, then you are perfectly fine. Not everyone who takes vop is a min-maxing wannabe who didn't realize how important items are.


So far as the rules are concerned, there is no fundamental difference between "wielded as" and "is".
In both cases, all relevant rules are applied.
I don't understand this attitude. It's like you WANTED to make a build (that is absolutely not a broken build, not terribly powerful, but made entirely according to some fine roleplaying principles) fail. It's like you WANTED people to not be able to play vop, and I absolutely can't say why. what is it that bothers you so much about the vop that you have to try and top other people completely unrelated to you from using it? Shouldn't you push for a more liberal interpretation to allow for greater freedom for the players? Especially since


VoP should be left playable. It certainly isn't broken. this. no real reason to ban vop, even indirectly


All of the PHB Classes except Wizard and Cleric (hard to get around the spellbook and holy symbol), a few others as well, IIRC a Bard was the hardest to pull off, Sorcerer probably the easiest.

There is no specific exception for the holy simbol, but I think a simple symbol made with poor materials (like a crudely made wooden cross as a cristian symbol, or a piece of wood crudely carved by the ascet himself, without any real skill, into a somewhat recognizable bhudda's figure as a buddist symbol) would be perfectly acceptable.

As for wizardry, it is impossible by RAW, but I have a character concept floating in the back of my mind of a wizard with vop: someone with strong left-wing worldviews denouncing wizardry as elitist and doing it all without anything expensive as part of a campaign to bring magic to the masses. the first thing he researched as a wizard is a standardized way to write spellbooks in pencil on recycled paper, so they'd be very cheap. He'd also have to keep several backups, as his spellbooks would be ruined every time he get dunked in water or hit by a fireball or something. A spell to copy his spellbook without having to hand-copy it from a backup every time would also be pretty high on his to-research list. It would require a drastic refluffing of the vop, and some moderate mechanical tweaks, but I think it would be a very cool character concept, and I'd like to play it.

[bean illus]

... Not everyone who takes vop is a min-maxing wannabe who didn't realize how important items are.


I don't understand this attitude. It's like you WANTED to make a build (that is absolutely not a broken build, not terribly powerful, but made entirely according to some fine roleplaying principles) fail.

Shouldn't you push for a more liberal interpretation to allow for greater freedom for the players? Especially since
this. no real reason to ban vop, even indirectly.

.... the first thing he researched as a wizard is a standardized way to write spellbooks in pencil on recycled paper, so they'd be very cheap. He'd also have to keep several backups, as his spellbooks would be ruined every time he get dunked in water or hit by a fireball or something. A spell to copy his spellbook without having to hand-copy it from a backup every time would also be pretty high on his to-research list....

I agree with most of your interpretations. But the last part about the wizard and spell book... I would never allow that.

I might compromise with something like a Homebrew ACF, where in exchange for giving up any ability to specialize he can learn to tattoo a certain number of spells on his body. An adapted sorcerers spells known progression, but memorized and at a Wizard's spells per day progression. Very VoP themed.

[Doctor Awkward]

So, following that logic, I could take said flame blade and sell it for the same price as a scimitar.
Mount? Sure. It explicitly says it creates a real (if temporary) horse. What happens to your character after the horse you sold someone disappears is up to the DM.
Flame Blade makes no such claim. There are no rules for what happens to it when it leaves your hand, or if you can hand it to someone else. So that's the DM's call.

However none of that is not relevant to the interaction with Vow of Poverty. The spell clearly says it is wielded as though it were a scimitar.
Vow of Poverty clearly says you may not use any weapons other than (plain, non-masterwork) simple ones. A scimitar is a martial weapon.


of course he can. sand is not valuable. you can use it freely.
I'm not sure where this qualifier of "value" is coming from with regards to Vow of Poverty.
For one thing, "value" is often times subjective; as can be seen by the argument that Eschew Materials could negate the need for a piece of the duplicated creature component of Ice Assassin thus allowing you to copy a god, even though a strong argument can be made that a physical piece of a deity is probably not of negligible value.

Secondly, Vow of Poverty makes no stipulation of the "value" of material possessions. You simply cannot use them at all.
It very clearly spells out the restrictions on clothing, weapons, and the way through which it forbids the use of magic items of any sort.

In my games, if it is not otherwise mentioned directly in VoP but it would cease to function in an antimagic field, then you cannot use it. Period.


The thing about what you just said is that there's a caveat. Later in the feat description, it clearly says that you can force the creature to take a vow of non-interferance. If it breaks that vow, your allies may deal with the creature however they see fit. You sit them down, do a 10 minute diplomacy check, and send them away. If they attack again, they die, no problems. Further, the party can deal lethal damage as normal and you can deal non-lethal to knock them out, again without issue. Its seriously not that hard.

On another note, I don't think casting spells makes you lose your vow, just as long as you're keeping to the primary tenets of the vow.

You are thinking of Vow of Nonviolence, the prerequisite.

Vow of Peace has no such caveat text. That's why it is worse by an order of magnitude.


I don't understand this attitude. It's like you WANTED to make a build (that is absolutely not a broken build, not terribly powerful, but made entirely according to some fine roleplaying principles) fail. It's like you WANTED people to not be able to play vop, and I absolutely can't say why. what is it that bothers you so much about the vop that you have to try and top other people completely unrelated to you from using it? Shouldn't you push for a more liberal interpretation to allow for greater freedom for the players? Especially since
this. no real reason to ban vop, even indirectly

My personal taste regarding something in D&D has no bearing with how I rule on it in games that I run.
DM Tonymitsu has no feelings, and does not care about how much anyone likes or dislikes a particular thing when interpreting the rules.

There are several instances regarding what a Vow of Poverty character is and isn't allowed which are very clearly spelled out in the feat text.

No using martial weapons is one of them. No using material possessions is another. And so is no using magic items.

Almost everything he wanted to do in the first post breaks those rules.


He asked in the OP how I, as a DM, would feel about various concepts that were spelled out in the first post.

Well those concepts are pretty much a direct violation of special requirements of Vow of Poverty, so no I wouldn't allow it.
Because if I allow you to break that rule then I have to allow someone else to do it as well.

In local games I have played in, many DM's do not enforce the extremely strict roleplaying requirements of Exalted feats. I do.


Only intelligent characters of good alignment and the highest moral
standards can acquire exalted feats, and only as a gift from powerful
agents of good—deities, celestials, or similar creatures.
These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being
extraordinary abilities, as most feats are).
A character must have the DM’s permission to take an
exalted feat. In many cases, a ritual must be performed; often
this simply amounts to a character swearing a sacred vow, for
example, in the presence of a celestial being. A character who
willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits
from all his exalted feats. She regains these benefits if she
atones for her violations (see Sin and Atonement in Chapter 1).

And that is entirely separate from the specific requirements listed in the chain of sacred vow feats themselves.

[mabriss lethe]

Exalted rules, in general, require a little more Player-DM cooperation. If either the player or the DM doesn't want to cooperate, then it isn't the rules set that should be played at the table.

-A player, trying to find ways to benefit from wealth without actually handling it, that's not cooperating.
-A DM, looking for any and every excuse to rule something a breach of exalted conduct, That's not cooperating.

While both might be valid readings of the mechanics, both are very outside the spirit of the game, so it probably means Exalted rules aren't the right fit for your table.

[King of Nowhere]

snip
I see. You belong to the lawful school of rpg, and I belong to the chaotic one.

OP, check if your DM is lawful or chaotic.

[Nifft]

I personally make an exception for improvised weapons, specifically because I want to allow a Poverty / Peace Monk to have a good time in a chair and ladder workshop, while avowing that she doesn't want any trouble.

[Doctor Awkward]

I see. You belong to the lawful school of rpg, and I belong to the chaotic one.

OP, check if your DM is lawful or chaotic.


I belong to the school of "Fun but fair" RPG.

If I was going to run a game, and one of the players came to me and said, "I have a character idea I wanted to run by you. He's a warforged artificer who suffers from a form of PTSD from the last few years in the war. He developed a great camaraderie with the unit he was attached to, and the soldiers there treated him not just like a person, but as family. The unit was attacked and wiped out, with him as the sole survivor, and it turned out the equipment they used were weapons he created that were stolen in a raid the previous week. So he distances himself from war completely, vowing to never again create an instrument that would be used to kill another living being."

I would say, "Well that sounds fantastic. Let's see if we can work on that a little bit so that you don't accidentally wind up with a happy NPC that wouldn't have any business wandering around with a typical adventuring party." I might then house-rule the exalted feats if there was no other mechanical way around them, and discuss the idea with the rest of the players to see if he would fit in with them. If there's no way to reconcile the concept that's fair for everyone, I would politely suggest the player come up with something else.


If, on the other hand, a player came to me and said, "I have this idea for a character. He's a warforged artificer with a bunch of sacred vow feats. Essentially I want to rules-lawyer the specific applications of them so that I can still basically use any equipment that would otherwise be forbidden, effectively ignoring both the spirit and intent of the feats in order to get some free bonuses on top of whatever else I would normally use."

I would say, "...Yeah, probably not. This is what the feats say and this is how they interact with the various things you want to use. Doing any of what you said will break your vow and lose you the feat until you atone. And repeated violations will likely result in you losing them permanently." And then I would politely suggest the player come up with something else.

[bean illus]

Mount? Sure. ..the horse you sold someone disappears

Flame Blade ...
Vow of Poverty clearly says you may not use any weapons other than (plain, non-masterwork) simple ones. A scimitar is a martial weapon.

...Vow of Poverty makes no stipulation of the "value" of material possessions. You simply cannot use them at all.
It very clearly spells out the restrictions on clothing, weapons, and the way through which it forbids the use of magic items of any sort.

In my games, if it is not otherwise mentioned directly in VoP but it would cease to function in an antimagic field, then you cannot use it. Period.

character is and isn't allowed which are very clearly spelled out in the feat text.

No using martial weapons is one of them. No using material possessions is another. And so is no using magic items.

Almost everything he wanted to do in the first post breaks those rules..

Well those concepts are pretty much a direct violation of special requirements of Vow of Poverty, so no I wouldn't allow it.
Because if I allow you to break that rule then I have to allow someone else to do it as well.

In local games I have played in, many DM's do not enforce the extremely strict roleplaying requirements ...
You make good points, and clarified my view somewhat.

But i do see more room than you do (not much).
I would let them ride the mount. Only simple non magical weapons is a given.
But in between is some interpretation.
But
Basically, if the player even hopes to power up with VoP then they should remember... it's a Role play or No play.

And take GoD ASAP.

[bean illus]

I belong to the school of "Fun but fair" RPG.

If I was going to run a game, and one of the players came to me and said, "I have a character idea I wanted to run by you. He's a warforged artificer who suffers from a form of PTSD from the last few years in the war. He developed a great camaraderie with the unit he was attached to, and the soldiers there treated him not just like a person, but as family. The unit was attacked and wiped out, with him as the sole survivor, and it turned out the equipment they used were weapons he created that were stolen in a raid the previous week. So he distances himself from war completely, vowing to never again create an instrument that would be used to kill another living being."

I would say, "Well that sounds fantastic. Let's see if we can work on that a little bit so that you don't accidentally wind up with a happy NPC that wouldn't have any business wandering around with a typical adventuring party." I might then house-rule the exalted feats if there was no other mechanical way around them, and discuss the idea with the rest of the players to see if he would fit in with them. If there's no way to reconcile the concept that's fair for everyone, I would politely suggest the player come up with something else.


If, on the other hand, a player came to me and said, "I have this idea for a character. He's a warforged artificer with a bunch of sacred vow feats. Essentially I want to rules-lawyer the specific applications of them so that I can still basically use any equipment that would otherwise be forbidden, effectively ignoring both the spirit and intent of the feats in order to get some free bonuses on top of whatever else I would normally use."

I would say, "...Yeah, probably not. This is what the feats say and this is how they interact with the various things you want to use. Doing any of what you said will break your vow and lose you the feat until you atone. And repeated violations will likely result in you losing them permanently." And then I would politely suggest the player come up with something else.

I would say "Throw in 45% WBL as role played 'wish/fly' enhancements and we got a deal".

I'd be happy to VoP a staff wielding tripper.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559394-Help-me-optimize-BoB-Fact5-Cham10-Please&p=23093605#post23093605

[Falontani]

I personally allow my players that take vow of poverty to use Ancestral Relic and count all the money as donated for their relic (so it is always at full capacity). I have also homebrewed several additional Exalted Feats that they can take with the Vow of Poverty's many bonus feats. The feats are thematic and give the player a pretty decent buff if they can take all of them.

Exalted Form: Requires Vow of Poverty and 8 HD
All the enhancement bonuses that Vow of Poverty grant are converted to Perfection bonuses. (so now your mage friend can buff you)

(all the feats following this require Exalted Form)
Exalted Power: +2 stacking Perfection Bonus to Strength
Exalted Reflexes: +2 stacking Perfection Bonus to Dexterity
Exalted Fortitude: +2 stacking Perfection Bonus to Constitution
Exalted Mind: +2 stacking Perfection Bonus to Intelligence
Exalted Insight: +2 stacking Perfection Bonus to Wisdom
Exalted Ego: +2 stacking Perfection Bonus to Charisma

And finally: Exalted Perfection: Requires 20 HD, Exalted Form, Exalted Power, Exalted Reflexes, Exalted Fortitude, Exalted Mind, Exalted Insight, and Exalted Ego
Once per day you may grant yourself the Paragon Creature Template from the EPH for 1 minute. After this minute you lose all Perfection Bonuses for 24 hours.

To get Exalted Perfection as a non epic feat requires you to spend all your exalted feats from level 8+ and one additional feat, and a monk that uses Exalted Perfection basically goes super saiyan for a minute, however afterwards they become extremely weak compared to someone else with WBL.

[tterreb]

There are no rules for what happens to it when it leaves your hand, or if you can hand it to someone else. So that's the DM's call.


Obviously nothing. You've already stated it is exactly like a scimitar, and I don't remember any rules saying a scimitar disappears when you let go.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I want to make a Warforged Cleric/Monk/Artificer and hit up all the good vows. Poverty, Nonviolence, and Peace.

Doesn't Vow of Peace project an aura that stops people from fighting or something?

I hear that feat is gamebreaking, not because it's powerful, but because it breaks down the fundamental assumptions that D&D operates on.

[AnimeTheCat]

Yes, it is worse than WBL. But you don't have to powergame everything to the hilt. There is some great fluff to be had with vop, and if you don't care with having slightly lower modifiers and losing some utility, then you are perfectly fine. Not everyone who takes vop is a min-maxing wannabe who didn't realize how important items are.


I don't understand this attitude. It's like you WANTED to make a build (that is absolutely not a broken build, not terribly powerful, but made entirely according to some fine roleplaying principles) fail. It's like you WANTED people to not be able to play vop, and I absolutely can't say why. what is it that bothers you so much about the vop that you have to try and top other people completely unrelated to you from using it? Shouldn't you push for a more liberal interpretation to allow for greater freedom for the players? Especially since
this. no real reason to ban vop, even indirectly


There is no specific exception for the holy simbol, but I think a simple symbol made with poor materials (like a crudely made wooden cross as a cristian symbol, or a piece of wood crudely carved by the ascet himself, without any real skill, into a somewhat recognizable bhudda's figure as a buddist symbol) would be perfectly acceptable.

As for wizardry, it is impossible by RAW, but I have a character concept floating in the back of my mind of a wizard with vop: someone with strong left-wing worldviews denouncing wizardry as elitist and doing it all without anything expensive as part of a campaign to bring magic to the masses. the first thing he researched as a wizard is a standardized way to write spellbooks in pencil on recycled paper, so they'd be very cheap. He'd also have to keep several backups, as his spellbooks would be ruined every time he get dunked in water or hit by a fireball or something. A spell to copy his spellbook without having to hand-copy it from a backup every time would also be pretty high on his to-research list. It would require a drastic refluffing of the vop, and some moderate mechanical tweaks, but I think it would be a very cool character concept, and I'd like to play it.

I had my character carve their holy symbol in to the end of their quarterstaff. As for the wizard, I had mine use their skin and scar their spellbook into their flesh with a dagger and only took spells on level-up, never from scrolls or otherwise. Pretty fun VoP Mystic Theurge.



Mount? Sure. It explicitly says it creates a real (if temporary) horse. What happens to your character after the horse you sold someone disappears is up to the DM.
Flame Blade makes no such claim. There are no rules for what happens to it when it leaves your hand, or if you can hand it to someone else. So that's the DM's call.

However none of that is not relevant to the interaction with Vow of Poverty. The spell clearly says it is wielded as though it were a scimitar.
Vow of Poverty clearly says you may not use any weapons other than (plain, non-masterwork) simple ones. A scimitar is a martial weapon.


I'm not sure where this qualifier of "value" is coming from with regards to Vow of Poverty.
For one thing, "value" is often times subjective; as can be seen by the argument that Eschew Materials could negate the need for a piece of the duplicated creature component of Ice Assassin thus allowing you to copy a god, even though a strong argument can be made that a physical piece of a deity is probably not of negligible value.

Secondly, Vow of Poverty makes no stipulation of the "value" of material possessions. You simply cannot use them at all.
It very clearly spells out the restrictions on clothing, weapons, and the way through which it forbids the use of magic items of any sort.

In my games, if it is not otherwise mentioned directly in VoP but it would cease to function in an antimagic field, then you cannot use it. Period.



You are thinking of Vow of Nonviolence, the prerequisite.

Vow of Peace has no such caveat text. That's why it is worse by an order of magnitude.



My personal taste regarding something in D&D has no bearing with how I rule on it in games that I run.
DM Tonymitsu has no feelings, and does not care about how much anyone likes or dislikes a particular thing when interpreting the rules.

There are several instances regarding what a Vow of Poverty character is and isn't allowed which are very clearly spelled out in the feat text.

No using martial weapons is one of them. No using material possessions is another. And so is no using magic items.

Almost everything he wanted to do in the first post breaks those rules.


He asked in the OP how I, as a DM, would feel about various concepts that were spelled out in the first post.

Well those concepts are pretty much a direct violation of special requirements of Vow of Poverty, so no I wouldn't allow it.
Because if I allow you to break that rule then I have to allow someone else to do it as well.

In local games I have played in, many DM's do not enforce the extremely strict roleplaying requirements of Exalted feats. I do.



And that is entirely separate from the specific requirements listed in the chain of sacred vow feats themselves.

Then just release them after battle. Nothing says non-violence and peace like never holding prisoners... there's still no good reason why you can't stabilize them, make sure they can take care of themselves then proceed. I feel like you're making it harder than it actually needs to be.

[ColorBlindNinja]

All of the PHB Classes except Wizard and Cleric (hard to get around the spellbook and holy symbol), a few others as well, IIRC a Bard was the hardest to pull off, Sorcerer probably the easiest.

I see.




As others have said it is dependent upon DM interpretation. And of course it is also somewhat dependent upon the parties power level.

I just don't like to see peoples character concepts automatically pooped on. Goes right in the same territory as "If you aren't playing a tier one class why are you even playing?"

People don't like VoP because it's poorly designed.



Yes, it is worse than WBL. But you don't have to powergame everything to the hilt. There is some great fluff to be had with vop, and if you don't care with having slightly lower modifiers and losing some utility, then you are perfectly fine. Not everyone who takes vop is a min-maxing wannabe who didn't realize how important items are.

And the fact that some characters are crippled by the lack of WBL?



what is it that bothers you so much about the vop that you have to try and top other people completely unrelated to you from using it?

It's horrible?


Shouldn't you push for a more liberal interpretation to allow for greater freedom for the players?

No, I accept what the rules say, and take the most straightforward interpretation possible.


There is no specific exception for the holy simbol, but I think a simple symbol made with poor materials (like a crudely made wooden cross as a cristian symbol, or a piece of wood crudely carved by the ascet himself, without any real skill, into a somewhat recognizable bhudda's figure as a buddist symbol) would be perfectly acceptable.

You'd be wrong by the rules that VoP gives us.

[Arcanist]

Vow of Peace is the worst vow. You not only screw over yourself, you screw over your party.

This is fundementally false. The book very clearly explains how to peacefully navigate with (not around) a Pacifist character. The goal is to leave diplomacy as an OPTION, and not to be boot through the door and leave no survivors. The penalty only applies to the slaying of helpless and defenseless opponents, so basically, just don't go around letting your party members Coup de Grace'ing anything and everything. Thats it. They can still just one shot their enemies to -10 hp, but if they are reduced to -9 tell them to just back off.

All of that said, I sincerely think the Vow of Chastity Purity, combined with Vow of Poverty is the absolute worst. Touch an Undead in combat, can't perform purity ritual because Holy Water cost 25gp.


Any time a combat encounter occurs in which you participate, any foe that you affect in any way must be taken prisoner by the party, otherwise you break your vow.

Lets just ignore the fact this only applies to Helpless and Defenseless targets for a moment, why is this an issue? Why not just take the time to tie up your helpless enemies and make a heal check on them so they don't bleed out? It takes 11 rounds of out of combat roleplaying just to do.


Doesn't Vow of Peace project an aura that stops people from fighting or something?

I hear that feat is gamebreaking, not because it's powerful, but because it breaks down the fundamental assumptions that D&D operates on.

It is one of those feats that stands in that fun little valley of "Depends on your DM"; If you're in a game that is boot through the door, take no prisoners? It is exceptionally underpowered and utterly worthless. However in a game that rewards and allows for diplomacy to take place? Well it can theoretically be as powerful as the Diplomacy skill. Just taking the 1st level in Half Elf Bard puts you in a pretty powerful position if you really want to force everyone to be at peace.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It is one of those feats that stands in that fun little valley of "Depends on your DM"; If you're in a game that is boot through the door, take no prisoners? It is exceptionally underpowered and utterly worthless. However in a game that rewards and allows for diplomacy to take place? Well it can theoretically be as powerful as the Diplomacy skill. Just taking the 1st level in Half Elf Bard puts you in a pretty powerful position if you really want to force everyone to be at peace.

D&D 3.5 is a game where you kill things and take their stuff. Vow of Peace does not facilitate that on a fundamental level.

[AnimeTheCat]

D&D 3.5 is a game where you kill things and take their stuff. Vow of Peace does not facilitate that on a fundamental level.

It has a framework that supports both, the party determines the framework used.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It has a framework that supports both, the party determines the framework used.

In order for Vow of Peace to work, you need to build the entire party and campaign around it. That's not going to be the case in 99% of most games.

[lylsyly]

As for wizardry, it is impossible by RAW, but I have a character concept floating in the back of my mind of a wizard with vop: someone with strong left-wing worldviews denouncing wizardry as elitist and doing it all without anything expensive as part of a campaign to bring magic to the masses. the first thing he researched as a wizard is a standardized way to write spellbooks in pencil on recycled paper, so they'd be very cheap. He'd also have to keep several backups, as his spellbooks would be ruined every time he get dunked in water or hit by a fireball or something. A spell to copy his spellbook without having to hand-copy it from a backup every time would also be pretty high on his to-research list. It would require a drastic refluffing of the vop, and some moderate mechanical tweaks, but I think it would be a very cool character concept, and I'd like to play it.

All six people in my group take turns DMing and I will tell you right now that I would allow it, I can guaranty that at least two others would as well. I Like it!

[Arcanist]

D&D 3.5 is a game where you kill things and take their stuff. Vow of Peace does not facilitate that on a fundamental level.

Sounds like lazy, 2-dimensional encounter design to me. If you want to be a murderhobo and burn everything to the ground, than be my guest, but I do not believe it is too much to actively want a game where you can be both a hobo that is willing to talk it out and then beat your brains in, over a hobo that just beats your brains in.

Also, the very book you are referencing the feat you are looking at adamantly disagrees with you. Page 31, Book of Exalted Deeds, "Waging Peace". And the absolute best part is, you can use this even if there are no pacifist in your party and you want to take your players outside of the dungeon and into civilized society.

[AnimeTheCat]

In order for Vow of Peace to work, you need to build the entire party and campaign around it. That's not going to be the case in 99% of most games.

Just because the majority of games doesn't support the framework doesn't mean the framework doesn't exist. I have played in one of those 1% of games and it worked out marvelously because we all went in to it with the intention of playing peacemakers. Nothing about the game mechanics changed and that game lasted for about a year and a half. The antagonist was a lich that was trying to bring the nation down via tyrannical submission.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Sounds like lazy, 2-dimensional encounter design to me.

Then D&D is the wrong game system for you, as that's what it is at its core.



If you want to be a murderhobo and burn everything to the ground, than be my guest, but I do not believe it is too much to actively want a game where you can be both a hobo that is willing to talk it out and then beat your brains in, over a hobo that just beats your brains in.

And when monsters are unintelligent? And when they're literally pure evil (hello demons!).


Also, the very book you are referencing the feat you are looking at adamantly disagrees with you. Page 31, Book of Exalted Deeds, "Waging Peace".

So the book that published the god-awful feat claims it can work? Is this supposed to be a convincing argument?


And the absolute best part is, you can use this even if there are no pacifist in your party and you want to take your players outside of the dungeon and into civilized society.

Vow of Peace is untenable in a party where everyone aren't pacifists. It's highly disruptive at best, and rude at worst. Because 99% of the game is combat.

EDIT:


Just because the majority of games doesn't support the framework doesn't mean the framework doesn't exist. I have played in one of those 1% of games and it worked out marvelously because we all went in to it with the intention of playing peacemakers.

If a feat won't work in 99% of games, it's poorly designed.

[Arcanist]

Then D&D is the wrong game system for you, as that's what it is at its core.

If that is really what you're taking away from my statement then I can't help you :smallsigh:


And when monsters are unintelligent? And when they're literally pure evil (hello demons!).

Handle Animal with Wild Empathy, Turn Undead, Control Undead, Dismissal, Banishment, NON-LETHAL DAMAGE. It sounds like to me you are just too lazy to think your way out of an encounter without just slaughtering anything and everything in your path. And hypothetically speaking, lets say you've decided to go 20 levels of Fighter and do not have access to any of those resources, the feat explains to you that all you need to do, to not break your vow, is give quarter. You can still very well just use Intimidate and fear stacking; To my knowledge most methods of fear stacking are nonlethal in nature.


So the book that published the god-awful feat claims it can work? Is this supposed to be a convincing argument?

When the book more or less holds your hand for how to solve an encounter nonviolently? Yes. Yes it is.


Vow of Peace is untenable in a party where everyone aren't pacifists. It's highly disruptive at best, and rude at worst. Because 99% of the game is combat.

All you have to do, is just give quarter to your enemy or put them into a hopeless or unwinnable situation.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Handle Animal with Wild Empathy,

So, that leaves with, what, Druids? Rangers?


Turn Undead, Control Undead,

Moot, since undead are one of the few enemies you're allowed to kill.


Dismissal, Banishment,

Which only work on Outsiders.


NON-LETHAL DAMAGE.

Which doesn't work on everything.


It sounds like to me you are just too lazy to think your way out of an encounter without just slaughtering anything and everything in your path.

And I think you've already decided that Vow of Peace isn't an awful feat and you won't listen to evidence to the contrary.


And hypothetically speaking, lets say you've decided to go 20 levels of Fighter and do not have access to any of those resources,

Stop, the unrealism is killing me! :smalltongue:


the feat explains to you that all you need to do, to not break your vow, is give quarter.

You know why people don't do that in D&D? Because typically when you spare your opponents, they come back for revenge. Or they escape from whatever prison you put them in and keep doing villainy.



You can still very well just use Intimidate and fear stacking; To my knowledge most methods of fear stacking are nonlethal in nature.

And when your enemies are immune?



When the book more or less holds your hand for how to solve an encounter nonviolently? Yes. Yes it is.

Let's see some quotes, then.


All you have to do, is just give quarter to your enemy or put them into a hopeless or unwinnable situation.

And if you can't do that? And if you face an enemy that screws over the setting by merely existing in proximity to civilization?

[lylsyly]

I see.



People don't like VoP because it's poorly designed.




And the fact that some characters are crippled by the lack of WBL?




It's horrible?



No, I accept what the rules say, and take the most straightforward interpretation possible.



You'd be wrong by the rules that VoP gives us.


Yes, it is poorly designed. But that doesn't automatically mean it can't be played. Look at the E6 Competition, People have doing doing pretty good things with BAD Classes. It can be played by RAW, even if it is tough to do so. But there are as many if not more tables where DM interpretation overrules RAW.


"You are the master architect. If a chart gives you a result that you don't like, throw the book out the window and make your own choices!" World Builders Guidebook, TSR, 1996

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yes, it is poorly designed. But that doesn't automatically mean it can't be played.

The same can also be said of the Truenamer.


Look at the E6 Competition, People have doing doing pretty good things with BAD Classes. It can be played by RAW, even if it is tough to do so.

I never claimed it was unplayable, just that it's a bad feat and clashes with D&D's fundamental design.


But there are as many if not more tables where DM interpretation overrules RAW.

Which is largely irrelevant in these types of discussions.

[Falontani]

why are we arguing about the Vow of Peace in a thread labeled Vow of Poverty?

[ColorBlindNinja]

why are we arguing about the Vow of Peace in a thread labeled Vow of Poverty?

Mostly because the OP said he's taking Vow of Peace in addition to Vow of Poverty.

[lylsyly]

... snip ... Which is largely irrelevant in these types of discussions.

Irrelevant How? Never mind, back on topic ...

[King of Nowhere]

I belong to the school of "Fun but fair" RPG.

If, on the other hand, a player came to me and said, "I have this idea for a character. He's a warforged artificer with a bunch of sacred vow feats. Essentially I want to rules-lawyer the specific applications of them so that I can still basically use any equipment that would otherwise be forbidden, effectively ignoring both the spirit and intent of the feats in order to get some free bonuses on top of whatever else I would normally use."

I would say, "...Yeah, probably not.
Well, people trying to circumvent the rules to gain power is one of the few things I'll disallow. I was under the impression it wasn't the specific case here, though, since vop is still pretty weak even with all the stuff the OP wanted to do with it. then again, if I was DMing this I'd probably look a bit more into the backstory to see if it made sense.




It's horrible?


So what? Let people do what they wish at their tables, rather than telling them they're doing it wrong.





D&D 3.5 is a game where you kill things and take their stuff. Vow of Peace does not facilitate that on a fundamental level.
So...
limiting!

This attitude makes as much sense to me as a guy walking into a cell and locking himself in, then throwing away the keys. Or as the hominid in the opening of 2001 space odissey picking up the bone, deciding it is supposed to support a living creature and it's definitely NOT meant to be used for bashing rival hominids, putting it down and being slaughtered by the rival tribe.

D&D is a framework where you can do pretty much anything if you're willing to fill the blanks. D&D is like a bunch of lego blocks, you can connect them into a lot of different shapes. Maybe those blocks were intended to make a medieval castle. They were in a box labeled "lego medieval castle", and there was a bunch of instructions to build, you guess, a medieval castle. But that in no way prevents you from building, say, a space base with it. Maybe some colors won't fit and you'll have to repaint some pieces. Maybe you'll need to invent a piece or two because you lack some fundamental connectors, and you 3D print it. But in the end you can get your space base, and no one can tell you you're playing the game wrong, because it's your damn game.
Couldn't you buy directly a space base? (play a different game in this metaphor). Well, probably. But maybe you already know D&D and don't want to put the time and effort to learn another system, much less learn it without even knowing if you'll llike it. Maybe you just like a few mechanics of D&D and you want to carry them with you no matter what. Regardless, there's no reason you should not make a space base with the pieces of the castle.

We get it: at your table people do nothing but optimize and fight, and when they are not fighting they are casting divinations to better prepare for the next fight. It's ok, but some of us here would not like to play at your table. So please, play your game and let us play our. After all, people like us do not generally post in your optimization threads telling you you can't take five different prestige classes because it doesn't make sense roleplaying-wise.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So what? Let people do what they wish at their tables, rather than telling them they're doing it wrong.

So, you wouldn't tell people to avoid trap options?



So...
limiting!

SNIP

99% of D&D's rules involve combat. Vow of Peace keeps your friends from hurting enemies and you're useless if they plan to kill them. That is going to cause problems unless the entire campaign has been built around pacifism.

Plus, Vow of Peace isn't that useful outside of combat.

[bean illus]

So please, play your game and let us play ours.

Edited that for you.

[ColorBlindNinja]

We get it: at your table people do nothing but optimize and fight, and when they are not fighting they are casting divinations to better prepare for the next fight.

Tip: Don't make assumptions about people you don't know; you'll be wrong less often.


It's ok, but some of us here would not like to play at your table. So please, play your game and let us play our.

Pointing out that some options suck isn't stopping you from playing anything.

[Falontani]

There are plenty of ways in 3.5 to not only deal, but specialize in Non Lethal Combat. Just because it isn't prevalent or normal does not mean it doesn't have support. From every unarmed class to the Justicar, to the Witchborn Binder, and continuing on to the Vow of Peace and nonlethal substitution. You have options if you wish to take all the prisoners. Your biggest issue here is constructs and undead, both of which the Vow of Peace ignores.

A party that I think would be highly entertaining:
Rogue/Slayer of Domiel with subduing strike
Ranger/Totemist/Witchborn Binder/Justicar (i forgot how, but there was a way to get improved grab with any weapon you were using, combine that with Justicar's Hog tie ability, Witchborn Binder's manifested manacles, and exotic weapon prof manacles)
Monk with Vow of Poverty (using the feats I've talked about earlier in the thread)
Favored Soul with a focus on Compulsion effects
Warmage with elemental substitution and nonlethal substitution

[ColorBlindNinja]

There are plenty of ways in 3.5 to not only deal, but specialize in Non Lethal Combat. Just because it isn't prevalent or normal does not mean it doesn't have support. From every unarmed class to the Justicar, to the Witchborn Binder, and continuing on to the Vow of Peace and nonlethal substitution. You have options if you wish to take all the prisoners. Your biggest issue here is constructs and undead, both of which the Vow of Peace ignores.

Vow of Peace gives you an aura that makes everyone incapable of fighting if you fail a save.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Tip: Don't make assumptions about people you don't know; you'll be wrong less often.
Bigger Tip: Do not use moving goal posts as a mask for being unable to support your position. You have spent pages in this thread saying that DnD is for combat and when someone calls you out on that fact you reapond by mplying it is not true in a self aggrandizing way.

Heck, earlier you claimed that turn undead should not be a considered factor because Vow of Peace permits their destruction but a few lines later claimed that immunity to nonlethal, a rarity outside of undead and constructs, means that nonlethal damage as a solution to encounters without killing is not good enough.


Pointing out that some options suck isn't stopping you from playing anything.

Rules do not prevent rule breaking: are they therefore worthless? Your evident goal was to chastise the OP for taking Vow of Peace because you do not think DnD should have it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Bigger Tip: Do not use moving goal posts as a mask for being unable to support your position. You have spent pages in this thread saying that DnD is for combat and when someone calls you out on that fact you reapond by mplying it is not true in a self aggrandizing way.

What are you talking about? My response to Nowhere was purely based on the fact that he has no clue how I play D&D.

If you want evidence that D&D is 90% combat, just crack open the rule books. Most of the rules are about fighting, as are feats, prestige classes, ect.


Heck, earlier you claimed that turn undead should not be a considered factor because Vow of Peace permits their destruction but a few lines later claimed that immunity to nonlethal, a rarity outside of undead and constructs,

Nonlethal damage isn't doing much against anything with regeneration either.


means that nonlethal damage as a solution to encounters without killing is not good enough.

Considering that Vow of Peace can keep you from fighting at all, that is correct.


Rules do not prevent rule breaking: are they therefore worthless?

What does that have to do with what you quoted?


Your evident goal was to chastise the OP for taking Vow of Peace because you do not think DnD should have it.

You would be entirely wrong. I mentioned that Vow of Peace is a terrible feat on the off chance that the OP was unaware of that fact.

As written, Vow of Peace heavily interferes with a key part of D&D: combat.

[bean illus]

D&D 3.5 is a game where you kill things and take their stuff.


...That's not going to be the case in 99% of most games.


Then D&D is the wrong game system for you, as that's what it is at its core.

Vow of Peace is untenable ... Because 99% of the game is combat

...

... wait for it ...

...



... with a key part of D&D: combat.

A careful rewording to a better position.

Damage/killing is part of DnD, but not 100%, or 99%, or right.

If dnd was only numbers less people would be attracted to it.
(Hey my 18 with +1 dam attacks your 15 with +2 dam. Wanna roll it or just look up the statistical average?)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Vow of Peace gives you an aura that makes everyone incapable of fighting if you fail a save.

The aura is a mere calm emotions effect. Relevant text:


Calm Emotions
(Player's Handbook v.3.5, p. 207)

Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Bard 2, Cleric 2, Healer 2, Savant 2 (Divine), Urban Druid 2, Law 2, Mechanus 2, Balance 2, Charm 2,
Components: V, S, DF,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: Creatures in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

This spell calms agitated creatures.
You have no control over the affected creatures, but calm emotions can stop raging creatures from fighting or joyous ones from reveling.
Creatures so affected cannot take violent actions (although they can defend themselves) or do anything destructive.
Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures.
This spell automatically suppresses (but does not dispel) any morale bonuses granted by spells such as bless, good hope, and rage, as well as negating a bard's ability to inspire courage or a barbarian's rage ability.
It also suppresses any fear effects and removes the confused condition from all targets.
While the spell lasts, a suppressed spell or effect has no effect.
When the calm emotions spell ends, the original spell or
effect takes hold of the creature again, provided that its duration has not expired in the meantime.

The radius is a mere 20 feet and if you have any sense you're finding a way to resist/ negate compulsions ASAP, regardless of the VoP character. Example; banner of law. The AoE for the prot' chaos is wider than the pacifist's calming aura. He can step out of the banner's AoE to parlay and everyone in 20ft of him gets to save if the banner falls; likely a very opportune moment to try and stop the fighting.

More importantly, if the enemy attempts to attack in any way, the effect simply stops working.

It's not simply "you can't fight near me. Nya :smallyuk:"

[ColorBlindNinja]

The radius is a mere 20 feet and if you have any sense you're finding a way to resist/ negate compulsions ASAP, regardless of the VoP character. Example; banner of law. The AoE for the prot' chaos is wider than the pacifist's calming aura. He can step out of the banner's AoE to parlay and everyone in 20ft of him gets to save if the banner falls; likely a very opportune moment to try and stop the fighting.

At low levels, getting immunity to compulsions is tricky.

Also, there's this line:


Creatures who leave the aura and reenter it receive new saving throws.



More importantly, if the enemy attempts to attack in any way, the effect simply stops working.

I admittedly missed that line of text. But that's still potentially one turn of doing nothing.


It's not simply "you can't fight near me. Nya :smallyuk:"

True.

[Kelb_Panthera]

At low levels, getting immunity to compulsions is tricky.

Outright immunity, sure. The example I gave is really cheap, effective immunity though. 8k for a flag that benefits everyone should be easy enough to take out of the party's incidentals fund. MIC suggests that splitting the cost 4 ways should have it easily in reach of a 6th level party and within the reach of a 4th level one if you're really worried about it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Outright immunity, sure. The example I gave is really cheap, effective immunity though. 8k for a flag that benefits everyone should be easy enough to take out of the party's incidentals fund. MIC suggests that splitting the cost 4 ways should have it easily in reach of a 6th level party and within the reach of a 4th level one if you're really worried about it.

Thanks for mentioning that item, I'll have to remember that one.

[lord_khaine]

Regarding calm emotion.. since the VoP char isnt concentrating on the effect, would it not mean that it expires as soon as someone leaves the aura..?
The spell also only block out violent actions. If you need to you can cast SoL spells, buffs, summon or so on, while waiting for the effect to expire.

[Arcanist]

Relevant text:

The spell and its effects leave more questions than answers.


What is a "violent action"?
Is it any action that results in any type of damage?
If so, does this apply to taking a readied action?
How about trip attempts?
Are non-lethal, non-damaging spells not considered "violent actions"?
Is using Intimidate a "violent action"?
How much are we allowed to defend ourselves?
Can we engage in a pre-emptive attack in self-defense?
Is a Turning Attempt considered "violent" against Undead?
Is using Polymorph Any Object, against a creature, and turning them into a cookie considered "violent"?
If we eat said cookie, is it considered violent?
etc.


For the sake of simplicity, would you believe it reasonable to just presume that a "violent action" would be anything that breaks a Vow of Peace?


At low levels, getting immunity to compulsions is tricky.

It's really not. Shape Soulmeld (Planar Ward) or just playing a Necropolitan is fine. I personally prefer Shape Soulmeld (Planar Ward) since it is a feat and can just be retrained out, but if retraining isn't allowed, going Necropolitan at early levels is fine and just getting killed and using some type of resurrection or raise dead also works as well when more options for immunity to compulsions and mind-affecting come online.

Alternatively, you can get the banner Kelb mentioned, but that is more of a group decision. Besides, you can always just spend the first round of combat buffing, summoning, readying an action, positioning yourself, etc. Just be productive.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Regarding calm emotion.. since the VoP char isnt concentrating on the effect, would it not mean that it expires as soon as someone leaves the aura..?

Your guess is as good as mine, it's a poorly written feat.


The spell also only block out violent actions. If you need to you can cast SoL spells, buffs, summon or so on, while waiting for the effect to expire.

But the character with Vow of Peace can't do that if your buddies intend to kill your enemies.

[Arcanist]

But the character with Vow of Peace can't do that if your buddies intend to kill your enemies.

The only thing you expressedly cannot do, is weaken or incapacitate your enemies per the feat. You can still buff your allies and summon stuff.


You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can kill them

So just buff your allies and summon stuff, assuming that is considered acceptable to fly through the calm emotion effect.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The only thing you expressedly cannot do, is weaken or incapacitate your enemies per the feat. You can still buff your allies and summon stuff.


So just buff your allies and summon stuff, assuming that is considered acceptable to fly through the calm emotion effect.

That doesn't prevent your Calm Emotions aura from stopping your allies from fighting.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But the character with Vow of Peace can't do that if your buddies intend to kill your enemies.

There's the core of your problem right there. Your buddies shouldn't have the intention to -kill- the enemy. Merely to defeat them. They're not bound, as you are, to use non-lethal force but merely to not take the extra step of using a coup-de-grace on enemies already downed. They are not compelled to hold back in any way once battle is joined and if the enemy bleeds out after being downed, so be it.

Given that -you- will likely be doing non-lethal damage, most enemies will probably drop before being put into the dying state. You can just walk away and leave them if you're not concerned about raising the alarm. If you are, bind them and toss them in a closet and come back when the mission is complete to either release them or haul them back to civilization to stand trial, as appropriate. Any you choose to release should have the non-interference oath extracted from them, of course, and if they break it then your allies are free to kill them without affecting you or them negatively.

Some -may- seek vengeance for your thwarting their designs. That's a risk of being an exalted character that holds mercy and respect for life as the highest good. If they do so in violation of a non-interference oath, they die just like they do in a normal game and you get XP for beating them twice.

Basically, you've -really- oversold the changes a pacifist brings to the game. It -is- rude to just spring it on the table because it -does- affect the behavior of you allies to a degree. It's just not a huge degree. Vow of poverty forcing the party to give up between an eighth and a quarter of the treasure the party finds (assuming a typical 4 person group, a by-the-book GM, and allowing for dubious interpretation) is arguably a bigger ask.

[Arcanist]

That doesn't prevent your Calm Emotions aura from stopping your allies from fighting.

Calm Emotion doesn't, to my knowledge, prevent you from taking the Readied action to respond to them trying to attack you.


There's the core of your problem right there. Your buddies shouldn't have the intention to -kill- the enemy. Merely to defeat them. They're not bound, as you are, to use non-lethal force but merely to not take the extra step of using a coup-de-grace on enemies already downed. They are not compelled to hold back in any way once battle is joined and if the enemy bleeds out after being downed, so be it.

I've already said something similar to this and they passively ignored it.


[...] The penalty only applies to the slaying of helpless and defenseless opponents, so basically, just don't go around letting your party members Coup de Grace'ing anything and everything. Thats it. They can still just one shot their enemies to -10 hp, but if they are reduced to -9 tell them to just back off.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Basically, you've -really- oversold the changes a pacifist brings to the game. It -is- rude to just spring it on the table because it -does- affect the behavior of you allies to a degree. It's just not a huge degree.

You allies can't act for at least one round if they fail a will save, and you're dead weight if they plan to kill their enemies. I don't think I'm overstating anything.

EDIT: Also, not all classes can buff their allies.



Calm Emotion doesn't, to my knowledge, prevent you from taking the Readied action to respond to them trying to attack you.



Creatures so affected cannot take violent actions (although they can defend themselves) or do anything destructive.

(Emphasis mine)


The spell's text is vague, but readied actions to attack would probably fall into the category of "violent/destructive".

[Kelb_Panthera]

You allies can't act for at least one round if they fail a will save, and you're dead weight if they plan to kill their enemies. I don't think I'm overstating anything.

You realize they can just walk 25 feet ahead of you or behind you, right? If you don't bother to take any more active steps to get around that effect.

Again, they're traveling with a pacifist. Why are they planning to explicitly -kill- their enemies rather than simply to defeat them? It's not that hard to say, "I won't stab anyone that's already down or otherwise helpless." They don't have to be dead to take their stuff unless you're after an organ or something.








(Emphasis mine)


The spell's text is vague, but readied actions to attack would probably fall into the category of "violent/destructive".

Doing nothing active is in no way violent or destructive. It's a purely defensive non-action. If you look for ways to interpret things with the intent to break other things, that's you breaking it, not the thing itself being broken.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You realize they can just walk 25 feet ahead of you or behind you, right? If you don't bother to take any more active steps to get around that effect.

Actually, it's a 20 foot radius, or a 40 foot circle.

If you have stand far away from everyone else to avoid screwing them over, that says something about how useful the feat is.


Again, they're traveling with a pacifist. Why are they planning to explicitly -kill- their enemies rather than simply to defeat them? It's not that hard to say, "I won't stab anyone that's already down or otherwise helpless." They don't have to be dead to take their stuff unless you're after an organ or something.

Yeah, Vow of Peace can work if the entire party decides to be pacifists, but I already said that.




Doing nothing active is in no way violent or destructive. It's a purely defensive non-action. If you look for ways to interpret things with the intent to break other things, that's you breaking it, not the thing itself being broken.

We were talking about readying actions to hit enemies, not doing nothing.

[Arcanist]

Actually, it's a 20 foot radius, or a 40 foot circle.

Assuming you're standing next to the Pacifist, and you move your maximum movement, how far away from the circle do you think you'd be?


Yeah, Vow of Peace can work if the entire party decides to be pacifists, but I already said that.

How is agreeing to not kill everything with a pulse the same? For the third time, the vow only prevents your allies from murdering a helpless target. All they have to do is just not use the coup de grace action and it's fine.


We were talking about readying actions to hit enemies, not doing nothing.

Wrong. We're talking about taking a readied action to defend yourself, something that is expressedly allowed.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Actually, it's a 20 foot radius, or a 40 foot circle.

If you have stand far away from everyone else to avoid screwing them over, that says something about how useful the feat is.

The VoP character is in the middle of the circle. You only have to be 25 feet away from him. That's less than a move action for most characters. Let him go first and he gets the first attacks made against him/ has a chance to end the fight before it begins. That's a -long- ways from screwing anyone. Sleeping near him means enemies have to make a save before they get a shot to coup-de-grace you if they manage to slip past whoever is on watch. Animals and animal intelligence creatures will rarely pass the save so they're just plain out of the rotation for enemies.

There are advantages to having an exalted pacifist around.




Yeah, Vow of Peace can work if the entire party decides to be pacifists, but I already said that.


Are you trolling right now?

"I won't deliberately kill helpless foes" and "I'll go out of my way to make sure the guys trying to stab me don't die when I stab them back" are not the same thing. The Vow only asks the former of your allies. The latter is just for the taker of the Vow himself. Your allies are perfectly capable of using lethal force without the express intent to kill.

Unless you do a thing that makes the enemy either literally or practically incapable of fighting back, you're not breaking your Vow with BFC or debuff options, not even then if your allies agree to whack 'em non-lethally if you hit them with such effects or do so yourself such that the enemy will probably drop before hitting the dying state and your allies have already agreed not to finish downed enemies.

There is -no- requirement that your allies become pacifists. Merely that they show some degree of mercy.



We were talking about readying actions to hit enemies, not doing nothing.

I know. The ready action is only an action in the mechanical sense. In terms of actually acting in the game world, it is deliberate inaction. It is preparing to do a thing, a thing you'll be perfectly capable of doing should the triggering circumstance occur since the calm effect will be released at that time. In any case, making a firm decision on how to act under particular circumstances is in no way violent or destructive in itself.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The VoP character is in the middle of the circle. You only have to be 25 feet away from him. That's less than a move action for most characters. Let him go first and he gets the first attacks made against him/ has a chance to end the fight before it begins. That's a -long- ways from screwing anyone. Sleeping near him means enemies have to make a save before they get a shot to coup-de-grace you if they manage to slip past whoever is on watch. Animals and animal intelligence creatures will rarely pass the save so they're just plain out of the rotation for enemies.

There are advantages to having an exalted pacifist around.

I repeat, if you can't stand near the party without screwing them over, that's a problem.




"I won't deliberately kill helpless foes" and "I'll go out of my way to make sure the guys trying to stab me don't die when I stab them back" are not the same thing. The Vow only asks the former of your allies. The latter is just for the taker of the Vow himself. Your allies are perfectly capable of using lethal force without the express intent to kill.

Except you have an aura that can potentially stop you from using lethal force.



To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm to any living creatureUnless you do a thing that makes the enemy either literally or practically incapable of fighting back, you're not breaking your Vow with BFC or debuff options, not even then if your allies agree to whack 'em non-lethally if you hit them with such effects or do so yourself such that the enemy will probably drop before hitting the dying state and your allies have already agreed not to finish downed enemies.



You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can kill them--

(Emphasis mine)


There is -no- requirement that your allies become pacifists.

Except, if they aren't pacifists, they have an aura to deal with, and they can't finish helpless enemies.


Merely that they show some degree of mercy.


How many parties are going to want to that?



I know. The ready action is only an action in the mechanical sense. In terms of actually acting in the game world, it is deliberate inaction. It is preparing to do a thing, a thing you'll be perfectly capable of doing should the triggering circumstance occur since the calm effect will be released at that time. In any case, making a firm decision on how to act under particular circumstances is in no way violent or destructive in itself.

Yeah, no, readying an action with the intention to attack them later is still violent.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I repeat, if you can't stand near the party without screwing them over, that's a problem.

Asking your allies to give parlay a -chance- before resorting to violence is hardly screwing them over. Dealing with the aura is trivial and won't even be necessary most of the time since enemies with no interest in parlay will waste no time breaking the effect. PCs are -rarely- in a position to lose their entire turn to the aura, anyway. They have to have not been caught by surprise, rolled higher than the entire enemy group on the initiative, and -stayed- within 20 feet of the pacifist during that first turn.






Except you have an aura that can potentially stop you from using lethal force.


You -do- know that can effect the enemy too? With greater frequency at that. It's an utterly trivial barrier for PCs to overcome.





(Emphasis mine)

The words that matter in that sentence are "so that your allies can kill them." Making a few -very- trivial (mostly verbal) concessions to you is not that complicated. "I'm willing to nauseate them if you're willing to switch to the flat of your sword until they recover" isn't difficult to run by somebody.


Except, if they aren't pacifists, they have an aura to deal with, and they can't finish helpless enemies.

The Aura is a speed bump and there's no compelling reason to kill helpless foes. I generally do in a normal game but changing that last step to binding instead of stabbing is virtually no change at all. Even edge cases, like a regenerative foe, can be dealt with using only slightly more effort and they demand more effort from normal parties too.



How many parties are going to want to that?

Not yours, it seems. Any number of others may. I wouldn't have an issue with it and I know one of the players in my group wouldn't while I'd hazard that either of the other two would probably be willing to deal. I suspect Arcanist and his group also wouldn't mind. The answer to your question is definitely "more than none" in any case.



Yeah, no, readying an action with the intention to attack them later is still violent.

Only in the same way sharpening a sword while you're on watch is. "Violent" thoughts and words are not real violence. They're a modern watering-down of the term "violent" and it's derivatives.

[AnimeTheCat]

How many parties are going to want to that?


A lot? It's a pretty common tactic in nearly every party I've played in to take at least one prisoner in most combat situations against intelligent creatures. Have you or your parties seriously never taken a goblin scout as a prisoner then interrogated them for information? I truly thought that was proper planning and intelligence gathering, especially with a diplomacy specialist (which most vow of peace holders are).

The only parties that didn't take prisoners were the one where we were mercenary warlords known for taking no quarter and one where we were in the service of a tyrant overlord in the processes of world domination. Otherwise, if we could capture an opponent or two and get info, we would. It usually takes 10-15 minutes irl and 20-30 minutes in game.


Yeah, no, readying an action with the intention to attack them later is still violent.

What about a readied action to disarm? Grapple? Trip? All of those are attacks but are very much non-violent as they do no damage, but mitigate a threat effectively.

[Arcanist]

I repeat, if you can't stand near the party without screwing them over, that's a problem.

Except, it doesn't screw over anyone who is smart enough to start with a move action to just move 25ft away from the Pacifist, and then attacking. At it's worst, it is an inconvenience.


Except you have an aura that can potentially stop you from using lethal force.

Shape Soulmeld (Planar Ward). Bam, you don't care about the Calm Emotion anymore.


Except, if they aren't pacifists, they have an aura to deal with, and they can't finish helpless enemies.

Since you care so much about the efficiency of actions, why are you unironically advocating to take a full-round action to coup de grace, when you can just leave them where they fall and not care?


How many parties are going to want to that?

The only time I have ever actually seen a character, in any game I've ever played, actually do the coup de grace action was because it made the character look like a bad ass tough guy. It served no other purpose because of the sheer rarity of mid-combat healing. Actually taking the time to kill a helpless opponent is actually pretty rare in most circles I know.


Yeah, no, readying an action with the intention to attack them later is still violent.

Yeah, in the same sense as making scary noises is violent. Better call the humane society and tell them to put down a few scary dogs.

[ColorBlindNinja]

SNIP

This conversation is going nowhere, so I'm not going to respond.


A lot? It's a pretty common tactic in nearly every party I've played in to take at least one prisoner in most combat situations against intelligent creatures. Have you or your parties seriously never taken a goblin scout as a prisoner then interrogated them for information? I truly thought that was proper planning and intelligence gathering, especially with a diplomacy specialist (which most vow of peace holders are).

The only parties that didn't take prisoners were the one where we were mercenary warlords known for taking no quarter and one where we were in the service of a tyrant overlord in the processes of world domination. Otherwise, if we could capture an opponent or two and get info, we would. It usually takes 10-15 minutes irl and 20-30 minutes in game.

And what do most parties do when they're finished with interrogations?

I'm willing to be most of them kill the prisoners.



What about a readied action to disarm? Grapple? Trip? All of those are attacks but are very much non-violent as they do no damage, but mitigate a threat effectively.

Dealing no damage != nonviolent.


Except, it doesn't screw over anyone who is smart enough to start with a move action to just move 25ft away from the Pacifist, and then attacking. At it's worst, it is an inconvenience.

And if the room is too small? Or if the Vow of Peace character needs healing?


Shape Soulmeld (Planar Ward). Bam, you don't care about the Calm Emotion anymore.

So I need to take a feat to stop the Vow of Peace character from interfering with my ability to fight?



Since you care so much about the efficiency of actions, why are you unironically advocating to take a full-round action to coup de grace, when you can just leave them where they fall and not care?

Because those enemies tend to seek vengeance. Plus, when all of your enemies are disabled, who cares about taking full round actions.




The only time I have ever actually seen a character, in any game I've ever played, actually do the coup de grace action was because it made the character look like a bad ass tough guy. It served no other purpose because of the sheer rarity of mid-combat healing. Actually taking the time to kill a helpless opponent is actually pretty rare in most circles I know.

Interesting, because when I play, we always take the time to Coup De Grace enemies.




Yeah, in the same sense as making scary noises is violent. Better call the humane society and tell them to put down a few scary dogs.

Yeah, no, you're getting ready to attack someone, not trying to scare them way.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This conversation is going nowhere, so I'm not going to respond.

Riiight. Couldn't be because you have no legitimate arguments against the things I've said.




And what do most parties do when they're finished with interrogations?

I'm willing to be most of them kill the prisoners.

Most. You don't have to. Rope & closet/ oath of non-interference. Out of the way is what matters. Dead is just one of the stickier methods.



Dealing no damage != nonviolent.

By the primary and most sensible definition of the word it does.


And if the room is too small? Or if the Vow of Peace character needs healing?

If the room is too small the enemy is also effected. There doesn't even necessarily need to be a fight and your allies are generally more likely to pass the save than mooks.

Him needing healing is unlikely but if he does then any number of ranged healing effects exists and you weren't going to spend that turn attacking anyway if you do have to get into touch range.


So I need to take a feat to stop the Vow of Peace character from interfering with my ability to fight?

It's a rock-solid use of a feat, regardless of potential pacifist characters; effective immunity to charms and compulsions is nothing to sneeze at. Also, banner of law; same thing.



Because those enemies tend to seek vengeance. Plus, when all of your enemies are disabled, who cares about taking full round actions.

Enemies noteworthy enough to worry about vengeance plots can have arrangements to come back from the dead. If they're disabled, you can move on without killing them.




Interesting, because when I play, we always take the time to Coup De Grace enemies.


I try to with a lot of characters but it's not a high priority. Skipping it rarely matters.



Yeah, no, you're getting ready to attack someone, not trying to scare them way.

Getting ready to attack is not attacking.

[Arcanist]

This conversation is going nowhere, so I'm not going to respond.

This just made me chuckle.


And what do most parties do when they're finished with interrogations?

I'm willing to be most of them kill the prisoners.

Well, when you've got a Vow of Peace character, you make them make an Oath of surrender. If they decide to break it, their life is forfeit and your less peaceful allies can do whatever they please to them.


Dealing no damage != nonviolent.

I'm thoroughly convinced you're a troll at this point.


And if the room is too small? Or if the Vow of Peace character needs healing?

Well besides the fact that you're stuck in a 40ft room (circular room) with no exit is a bit more of a pressing issue than fighting whatever is around you. Regardless, take a non-violent action and buff yourself before the action starts (assuming your enemies succeeded against the at minimum dc 14 saving throw to ignore the Calm emotion). At that point you can just diplomacy them, but I find it highly unlikely that you will ever be caught in such a situation unless you are pressured into it or doing a megadungeon campaign or something to that effect.


So I need to take a feat to stop the Vow of Peace character from interfering with my ability to fight?

If that is what you want to absorb from that statement, instead of the simplicity of how to just be immune to it, sure.


Because those enemies tend to seek vengeance. Plus, when all of your enemies are disabled, who cares about taking full round actions.

Words fail me. All you have to do, is beat them up, but not kill them and ask them to promise to not attack you again. What is so hard to understand about just not using a Coup De Grace? Further more, if a Full Round isn't a stretch, why do you make an exception with replacing your Coup De Grace with a Heal check to stablize? Of taking the incredibly minor extra steps of tying them up and then healing them, with a Heal check? You cannot claim to want efficiency out one head, and then advocate for this inefficiency from the next.

You can entirely skip tying them up and healing them, if you take the free action to talk and ask them for an oath of non-interferance.


Interesting, because when I play, we always take the time to Coup De Grace enemies.

Seems like a lot of work to me :smallsigh:


Yeah, no, you're getting ready to attack someone, not trying to scare them way.

I can't help but laugh at this point.

[lylsyly]

Why you think I quit talking to them? He obviously believes that the game is all about killing. Makes me wonder if he's confused about which edition the discussion is about.

[AnimeTheCat]

And what do most parties do when they're finished with interrogations?

I'm willing to be most of them kill the prisoners.


Usually, we either keep them and befriend them (diplomacy checks aren't that hard to make) or make a deal with the promise that if they double cross us they will be reading their last will and testament from their own entrails or something of that nature, then release them. Most of the time my parties are on the neutral leaning good or good side of the spectrum. Even a neutral character can see the benefit of having an ally on the inside.


Dealing no damage != nonviolent.

To be fair, this is an international forum and I'm not sure if English is a second language for you or no, but:

Nonviolent: using peaceful means rather than force, especially to bring about political or social change.

Peaceful: not involving war or violence.

Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

So, a nonviolent method is one that does not involve war or the use of physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Now, taking those three definitions in to account and the concepts put forward by the vows of nonviolence and peace, disarming an opponent, that is, take a weapon or weapons away from, or deprive of the power to injure or hurt, seems to be specifically a nonviolent means of handling a situation.

Grappling, that is, to seize hold of (someone), is also fitting within the confines of those definitions. You aren't involving war or violence, as you are not using force to hurt, damage, or kill anyone, merely apprehend or detain them.

Tripping, that is, rendering a target prone, is also nonviolent as it does not involve war or using force to hurt, damage, or kill anyone or anything, merely render the threat a non-issue by removing it in a non-violent manner.