could vow of poverty actually fit druid?

[King of Nowhere]

ok, we all know that the vop is usable as a storytelling tool but won't make your character stronger. and every once in a while someone asks about vop monk, which is really the worst at most things.

but i've never seen anyone discuss the vop on a druid. i think there are many reasons why the druid may actually get boosts from it over regular equipment

- druids are not very dependent on items, as they buff themselves. little loss there.
- druids have a hard time using armors with animal form. at best, it's much more expensive. vop gives a lot of armor bonus, which druids usually lack. vop does give very little natural armor, which the druid gets from barkskin+animal form with natural armor. so, good overlapping there. you could get to a really high armor class.
- in general, many items are difficult to use in animal form, or need to be made more expensive. so the druid get less boost for his money, further reducing the gap with vop.
- vop major weakness is lack of flight, which the druid gets easily
- vop gives its full enhancement bonus to all your attacks. if you are turned into an animal form with many different attacks, all of them are boosted to the full. this is difficult to achieve otherwise.

so far you're still at a loss, because you still lose access to quicken metamagic rod.
but what if we let the druid also give the vop bonuses to his animal companion? would you think in this mental experiment vop would actually become a favorable mechanic?

[Unavenger]

VoP on animal companions is very strong; on druids themselves it's a pretty reasonable alternative to mucking around with wilding clasps for everything but a bit weak. Putting it on both is probably roughly speaking equivalent to not having it on either in terms of how good it is, if not necessarily the specific ways in which it's good.

[Wildstag]

I have used Vow of Poverty on Druid-adjacent classes, but as I understand it, using it on a caster is slightly more forgiving than on a martial.

I do have it on good authority that using the VoP on a PrC such as Primeval works wonders, but note that even the archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20161031214913/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060616a) suggests speaking with your DM about this first, since nothing explicitly states that alternate forms work with the Vow. The Primeval build I use it on also uses Warshaper, which is called out in the link, so ymmv. The link also suggests a method of increasing the bonus to AC based off of the highest armor proficiency you lose in VoP.

Thematically, it can definitely fit the druid though, especially when paired with the Fist of the Forest PrC, but you would need a few non-caster feats for that, in addition to losing a caster level. A 1-level dip gets you a dip in the flavor, which can overlap with your Vow depending on how you word it. It also nets you a pretty sweet AC bonus in the form of Con-mod to AC, so yeah. I use all three PrCs on my VoP build, but then, that's a martial build.

[Zancloufer]

There is also a pile of Bonus Exalted feats that you get. Normally they wouldn't really be worth taking, but since you get 10 of them for free it's worth looking into.

Nymph's Kiss is nice for +1 skill points. Intuitive Attack lets you replace Str with Wis for damage. Exalted Wild Shape let's you slap the Celesital Template on any animal you can turn into and grants a few extra magical beasts. Touch of Golen Ice is usually bad, but if your using natural weapons 24/7 it can be pretty nasty.

There are a few others that give cute little bonuses (non-lethal damage with any [natural] weapon, tiny bonus damage vs evil, the ability to burn like a torch or deal small AoE damage vs undead,).

Overall it works thematically. You save on book keeping and it gives your druid a much higher floor. Might not be as silly in theory as a Druid can be, but IMHO the RP limitations of being "Exalted" probably hurt more than the loss of gear.

[gkathellar]

It's still not as good as items, but it is dramatically better than it is on virtually any other character class.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I do have it on good authority that using the VoP on a PrC such as Primeval works wonders, but note that even the archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20161031214913/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060616a) suggests speaking with your DM about this first, since nothing explicitly states that alternate forms work with the Vow. The Primeval build I use it on also uses Warshaper, which is called out in the link, so ymmv. The link also suggests a method of increasing the bonus to AC based off of the highest armor proficiency you lose in VoP.Given that the article you linked suggests that VoP is great for monk of all classes, I would take everything mentioned in it with a grain of salt the size of Mt. Rushmore.

[Wildstag]

Given that the article you linked suggests that VoP is great for monk of all classes, I would take everything mentioned in it with a grain of salt the size of Mt. Rushmore.

Well, sure, you can choose to judge the entire article on the contents of one line, or you can be open-minded and actually discuss the point I was making. Shame you chose the lazy option. Given that creatures with Alternate Forms (hengeyokai, lycanthropes, etc.) don't benefit from clasps that only work with Wild Shape, the bulk of my point still stands: talk with the GM to make sure they consider the ability usable in different forms. In the case of Wild Shape, it doesn't hurt to consult the GM. But sure, use a line I didn't reference for my point to invalidate the argument.


Intuitive Attack lets you replace Str with Wis for damage.

Alas, Intuitive Attack only works on the attack rolls, not for damage rolls.

[King of Nowhere]

There is also a pile of Bonus Exalted feats that you get. Normally they wouldn't really be worth taking, but since you get 10 of them for free it's worth looking into.

Nymph's Kiss is nice for +1 skill points. Intuitive Attack lets you replace Str with Wis for damage. Exalted Wild Shape let's you slap the Celesital Template on any animal you can turn into and grants a few extra magical beasts. Touch of Golen Ice is usually bad, but if your using natural weapons 24/7 it can be pretty nasty.

There are a few others that give cute little bonuses (non-lethal damage with any [natural] weapon, tiny bonus damage vs evil, the ability to burn like a torch or deal small AoE damage vs undead,).

Overall it works thematically. You save on book keeping and it gives your druid a much higher floor. Might not be as silly in theory as a Druid can be, but IMHO the RP limitations of being "Exalted" probably hurt more than the loss of gear.

yeah, wasn't commenting on feats because i'm not an expert on those, but some of them do fit a druid hitting with wild shape very well, and would give an actual boost over items

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Well, sure, you can choose to judge the entire article on the contents of one line, or you can be open-minded and actually discuss the point I was making. Shame you chose the lazy option. Given that creatures with Alternate Forms (hengeyokai, lycanthropes, etc.) don't benefit from clasps that only work with Wild Shape, the bulk of my point still stands: talk with the GM to make sure they consider the ability usable in different forms. In the case of Wild Shape, it doesn't hurt to consult the GM. But sure, use a line I didn't reference for my point to invalidate the argument. Honestly? Anyone who asserts that VoP is great with monk clearly has no idea how either of them works, and thusly cannot be relied upon to know what they're talking about. Monk is the poster-child for "near absolute worst fit with VoP." That's literally as basic as it gets.

[Gruftzwerg]

yeah, wasn't commenting on feats because i'm not an expert on those, but some of them do fit a druid hitting with wild shape very well, and would give an actual boost over items

If we are talking about a Wild Shape focused builds like Master of Many Forms / Warshaper, who already forfeits high lvl spells (and thus T1 status), it may be not that bad. For a regular/balanced or caster focused druid it is just to limiting. Definitely dumping her Tierlvl. But as said, can be fun for Wild Shape builds.

btw, Kensai is an option for noncasters (like monks) to overcome some of the limitations of VoP. Or better go with unarmed Swordsage/Kensai and get things like "Searing Charge" (charge + fly) and other nice thing to compensate the magic item loss.


Imho warlock & DFA are also often overlooked possible candidates for VOP. There are not so many mandatory magic items specifically tailored around the warlock/DFA. They don't need any expensive components for their invocation, get most important stuff as 24h buff (fly, blindsight, darksight). For a crowd control heavy warlock/dfa build the extra CHA would pay off imho. I'm not so good at possible "Humanoid Shape"(dfa only) abuse, but the extra stats could help there too.

maybe something like DFA 8/Kensai 10 to get Humanoid Shape + Draconic Flight and the Kensai stuff?

[Wildstag]

Honestly? Anyone who asserts that VoP is great with monk clearly has no idea how either of them works, and thusly cannot be relied upon to know what they're talking about. Monk is the poster-child for "near absolute worst fit with VoP." That's literally as basic as it gets.

Yes, and I agree with the monk statement, but you are ignoring the main point I was making: the comment on monks has no relevance to either this thread or my own point about why I linked the article, and at this point you’re just going on a ridiculous tangent using the laziest argument possible.

Now, if you’d like to argue the merits of the point I was making, then please, tell me why talking to the DM and making sure they agree that VoP works with Wild Shape is a bad idea. Tell me how the monk comment in the article makes that opinion that a player should talk to their DM using the “it’s not explicitly disallowed according to the text” argument is bad. Please, I’d love to hear your argument.

As is, the article, which was posted on the WotC site back in the day, was posted with a tentative seal of approval. It also seems to argue in favor of Wild Shape and Alternate Forms with VoP, so as far as this thread goes, you should be able to the bonuses in any form.

Additionally, the suggestion for DMs it gives that the VoP offer an additional +1 for each level of armor proficiency (including shields) would help out a druid with an additional +3 to AC. Granted, the VoP trades away the possibility of unique armor enhancements. Bonus AC is nice on any build.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Now, if you’d like to argue the merits of the point I was making, then please, tell me why talking to the DM and making sure they agree that VoP works with Wild Shape is a bad idea. Tell me how the monk comment in the article makes that opinion that a player should talk to their DM using the “it’s not explicitly disallowed according to the text” argument is bad. Please, I’d love to hear your argument.There's no reason it wouldn't work, barring houserules. That'd only work if no feats can be used while wild shaped, which is obviously false, since so many feats are explicitly to be used in wild shape. Natural Spell, as a particularly outstanding example. Even bringing that up as a point of possible contention was a bad idea on the writer's part, since nobody has ever (to my knowledge) gotten the idea that VoP wouldn't work while wild shaped, and giving bad DMs bad ideas is a bad idea.

[King of Nowhere]

yeah, there's no reason vop should not apply to wild shape. not only it says it nowhere in the description, but even by fluff and RAI there's no reason whatsoever to remove the vop boosts to wild shape.

so, let's sum it up: vop will allow a druid to be considerably stronger while wild shaped, thanks to some good overlapping buffs and some exalted feats that work well with high wis and natural attacks.
the druid will lose a fair bit of casting power due to not being allowed metamagic rods. everything else should be roughly the same, since a druid can replace most items with buff spells.
perhaps you lose a bit of armor overall by losing monk's belt, if you allow it to work that way (most people in this forum take it for granted, but i wouldn't).
if you allow it to work on your animal companion, then it also becomes much stronger. that's not supported by RAW, but it's not a completely unreasonable houserule/homebrew

as such, druid is perhaps the best fit with vop, as it does not lose too much and it's maybe the only one to gain some tangible benefit

is this a good summary?

[eggynack]

A well itemed druid is definitely going to be better off than a VoP druid. If you're just running random crap for items then VoP might pull ahead, but good druid items are really good. Rng of the beast, rods of extend/lesser extend spell, wild shape boosters, ring of counterspells, belt of battle, aurial sapphires, there's just a lot of strong stuff out there. The numerical benefits from VoP can't possibly match these qualitative advantages, and the big qualitative advantage from VoP, the bonus feats, they're good but not exactly necessary. A standard druid build can reasonably the ground you need to cover. Something like aberrant blood, greenbound, natural spell, aberration wild shape, then maybe one of the initiate feats, it does fine. More than fine, actually. All you're really missing is the buffed animal companion, and other builds can get that if you want it. Hell, you could go straight up exalted companion at first, exalted wild shape at ninth, and there ya go, most of the ground covered near identically.

That said, VoP is near certainly better for druid than it is for any other class. It raises to the level of, like, mediocre. Kinda below average. Not actively terrible. Which is unusual for the feat, because the feat is quite bad. As you note, druid is both one of the classes for whom lacking items is the least troublesome (cause spells are good), and one of the classes for whom having items is the most troublesome (ya gotta pay the wilding clasp tax on a lot of your items). On top of that, as stated below, druids get the best return from exalted feats. You're down two feats to start with, but then you get a return of two full feats, with exalted companion and exalted wild shape, and the other feats add up to, I dunno, maybe two more feats in terms of value? Decent deal. Most classes do not do nearly so well.

All in all, go for it if it's a thing you're interested in. It won't be that bad, and druids are real good so you're liable to be at the top of the party power curve either way. Also, as for giving VoP benefits to companions, exalted companion grants some intelligence and definite goodness to the companion, so you could always just have the companion take the feat too.


Nymph's Kiss is nice for +1 skill points. Intuitive Attack lets you replace Str with Wis for damage. Exalted Wild Shape let's you slap the Celesital Template on any animal you can turn into and grants a few extra magical beasts. Touch of Golen Ice is usually bad, but if your using natural weapons 24/7 it can be pretty nasty.

There are a few others that give cute little bonuses (non-lethal damage with any [natural] weapon, tiny bonus damage vs evil, the ability to burn like a torch or deal small AoE damage vs undead,).
Exalted companion is also great, allowing for VoP companions. Words of creation offers serious benefits if you're willing to go kinda deep build-wise. Nymph's kiss is good for everyone including druids. Oh, and one of those beasts from exalted wild shape is the blink dog, which is incredible. Notably, the celestial template option also grants Ex special qualities, so that's a sizable benefit. That druids get perhaps the best exalted feats in the game is one of the main things that makes the build okay. Most builds run out of actually usable exalted feats really fast. Druids do so marginally less quickly.



If we are talking about a Wild Shape focused builds like Master of Many Forms / Warshaper, who already forfeits high lvl spells (and thus T1 status), it may be not that bad. For a regular/balanced or caster focused druid it is just to limiting. Definitely dumping her Tierlvl. But as said, can be fun for Wild Shape builds.
I genuinely have no idea why this would be the case. One of the best things about the druid+VoP combo is that druids don't need items to do stuff. Cause they have spells. MoMF builds can also do a lot of things, cause it's a strong ability, but spells grant pretty much unmatched item non-reliance. Which is nice. Also, MoMF meaningfully reduces the utility of exalted wild shape, which is the best exalted feat, so there's some lack of synergy there. Like, I guess VoP lets you punch stuff better, but It all seems kinda marginal. Doubly so when you can get solid punch-forms either way.



Now, if you’d like to argue the merits of the point I was making, then please, tell me why talking to the DM and making sure they agree that VoP works with Wild Shape is a bad idea. Tell me how the monk comment in the article makes that opinion that a player should talk to their DM using the “it’s not explicitly disallowed according to the text” argument is bad. Please, I’d love to hear your argument.

As noted, I see no good reason to think that wild shape would turn off VoP benefits. Why would it? It really just makes no sense as a rules argument.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I used VoP to pretty solid effect on a Divine Minion in MoMF, but the sheer volume of wilding clasps I would have needed would have been cost prohibitive, plus I had a ton of extra options from MoMF's shifting. Druid "only" has animal forms and can reasonably be expected to spend time not wild shaped, so I don't see VoP being of great benefit to them. It's mostly useful if playing the item sub-game gets boring frustrating, but porting in PF's automatic bonus progression would probably be better.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Now, if only VoP druids could go inside buildings, look at artwork (even at a sideways glance to see what it is), or read a sign without losing all their benefits permanently.

[eggynack]

I used VoP to pretty solid effect on a Divine Minion in MoMF, but the sheer volume of wilding clasps I would have needed would have been cost prohibitive, plus I had a ton of extra options from MoMF's shifting. Druid "only" has animal forms and can reasonably be expected to spend time not wild shaped, so I don't see VoP being of great benefit to them. It's mostly useful if playing the item sub-game gets boring frustrating, but porting in PF's automatic bonus progression would probably be better.
I dunno why you'd ever not be in wild shape unless you need to talk and don't have a workaround for that. Especially if you have a form adding feat of some kind. That said, the ring of the beast and rod of extend spells being usable without wilding clasps does reduce that particular cost somewhat.

[Zancloufer]

Exalted companion is also great, allowing for VoP companions. Words of creation offers serious benefits if you're willing to go kinda deep build-wise. Nymph's kiss is good for everyone including druids. Oh, and one of those beasts from exalted wild shape is the blink dog, which is incredible. Notably, the celestial template option also grants Ex special qualities, so that's a sizable benefit. That druids get perhaps the best exalted feats in the game is one of the main things that makes the build okay. Most builds run out of actually usable exalted feats really fast. Druids do so marginally less quickly.

I think you might be able to squeeze 10 usable feats out of it actually. There is probably 1-2 at the end that your taking just because (though they would still grant a minute benefit) but the first 6 at least are legit useful and not just being taken because you have to.


Now, if only VoP druids could go inside buildings, look at artwork (even at a sideways glance to see what it is), or read a sign without losing all their benefits permanently.

Not sure I follow that train of thought. The VoP druid doesn't own any of those things as such their mere existence doesn't violate their vow. The use of public works or entering a building when invited doesn't really lead to any direct violation. Honestly sounds like your stretching RAW to punish someone for the mere mistake of existing.

[eggynack]

I think you might be able to squeeze 10 usable feats out of it actually. There is probably 1-2 at the end that your taking just because (though they would still grant a minute benefit) but the first 6 at least are legit useful and not just being taken because you have to.
I tend to think of it in terms of effective feat value. How many feats would you reasonably expect to spend on the feats you're getting? So, exalted wild shape and companion are one each. Fine feats that you could theoretically just take, so you break even with the cost immediately. Which is nice. Intuitive attack, words of creation (if you can take it), nymph's kiss, maybe touch of golden ice, these are, what, quarter to half? I dunno if I'd do an intuitive attack+touch of golden ice bundle, but I could imagine doing a words of creation+nymph's kiss bundle if I'm stretching a bit. Maybe call all of that 1.5 or so, putting you up to 3.5. Sanctify natural attack, nimbus of light, and animal friend kinda feel like they're between this quarter to half category and the dregs. I'll put the total at 3.875 on their basis (cause they're like an eighth).

So, then we get to the nothings or close to it. Defender of the homeland, lliira's blessing, vow of chastity, vow of purity, favored of the companions, gift of discernment. Just noticed my list is missing gift of faith for whatever that's worth (not much). Does that put it to four? A little more? A little less? I dunno. Drops closer to 3.5 if you can't afford words of creation, and a lot of people can't. Given the high value of druid feats, I'm arguably being charitable rather than uncharitable. Oh, and exalted companion probably stops being worth a feat if you can't give VoP to your companion, so that's a thing.

This state of things though, getting a reasonably clear cut feat profit, I think it's unusual for VoP. I suspect most classes are running an outright deficit and those remaining break even. And, as you note, while you're pretty inevitably going to hit feats that are absolutely worthless, it's gonna take awhile. Which is nice for the spirit if for nothing else. Oh, and you get exalted wild shape a level early. Pretty nice benefit.

Edit: Wow, gift of faith is weird. It protects from fear, despair (like crushing despair), and "similar mind-affecting effects", but not charms and compulsions. I assume that last thing applies only to the similar effects, but I think that covers literally all enchantments, even though they seem to want to cover specifically charm and dominate. It's interesting, cause the wording would otherwise probably cover anything that produces negative emotions. Which, y'know, still not the longest list, but I think there're some anger effects floating around. Kinda wondering if this feat does anything besides fear and despair. Wouldn't be worth much in any case, but it's a vaguely interesting question.

[Unavenger]

Now, if only VoP druids could go inside buildings, look at artwork (even at a sideways glance to see what it is), or read a sign without losing all their benefits permanently.

That's a massive stretch of the definition of "Using objects" and I think you're fully aware of that fact. If there were so much as a snowball's chance in hell of any DM (apart from, I suppose, possibly yourself) actually being that ridiculous about VoP then I might have more truck with it, but that can't be any less than deliberately reading it to be as stupid as possible.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Not sure I follow that train of thought. The VoP druid doesn't own any of those things as such their mere existence doesn't violate their vow. The use of public works or entering a building when invited doesn't really lead to any direct violation. Honestly sounds like your stretching RAW to punish someone for the mere mistake of existing.


That's a massive stretch of the definition of "Using objects" and I think you're fully aware of that fact. If there were so much as a snowball's chance in hell of any DM (apart from, I suppose, possibly yourself) actually being that ridiculous about VoP then I might have more truck with it, but that can't be any less than deliberately reading it to be as stupid as possible.Unfortunately, taking the RAW as is, you cannot use anything that isn't on the pre-approved list, which is extremely limited, if you want to retain your VoP status (which cannot be gotten back once violated). It does not include using buildings or doors or even flooring. Common sense isn't all that common, and the rules are not written to include it.

Houseruling is great, because you have to in order to make VoP at all functional, but at least realize that it is houseruling, because RAW it ain't.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Unless you are devouring that painting "observing" art is not synonymous with "using" it. Your example is hyperbolic to the point of not serving any particular use and declaring that anyone who attempts to employ the English definition of the word use to be "houseruling" is both
self-aggrandizing and not helpful to the conversation.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Unless you are devouring that painting "observing" art is not synonymous with "using" it. Your example is hyperbolic to the point of not serving any particular use and declaring that anyone who attempts to employ the English definition of the word use to be "houseruling" is both
self-aggrandizing and not helpful to the conversation.Question: What is the purpose of art? What use does one normally put a painting to? Is looking at a beautiful statue or painting using it?

And what are you not supposed to do with anything at all not on the specified list? If you said "use it," you're 100% correct.

[King of Nowhere]

Unfortunately, taking the RAW as is, you cannot use anything that isn't on the pre-approved list, which is extremely limited, if you want to retain your VoP status (which cannot be gotten back once violated). It does not include using buildings or doors or even flooring. Common sense isn't all that common, and the rules are not written to include it.

Houseruling is great, because you have to in order to make VoP at all functional, but at least realize that it is houseruling, because RAW it ain't.

seriously? i avoided answering at first because i thought it was a joke.
i mean, that RAW interpretation is commonly known, but NOBODY would ever take it as anything but a joke, right?

if we want to go down that path, since you are walking on the world, you are using the world. and the world is clearly a place full of magic, and it is a cohesive piece, so you are using a magic item. but nowhere in the world description does it say that this "world" magic item can be used by any class. so you cannot use it without ranks in use magic device, and so you get instantaneously ejected to outer space.
oh, let's take an example that's closer to RAW (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm):

In severe heat (above 110° F [42 °C]), a character must make a Fortitude save once every 10 minutes (DC 15, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d4 points of nonlethal damage.
[...]
Extreme heat (air temperature over 140° F [59°C]) deals lethal damage. Breathing air in these temperatures deals 1d6 points of damage per minute (no save).

well, there is a town called dallol, in ethiopia, where the average temperature year-round is 34 °C, and during the hot season the temperature stays around 45 °C for serveral hours. i guess the people there all have fort saves in the +50 range to survive, children included.
as for the second, inside a sauna the air temperature is normally around 90 °C. considering most people stay in the sauna around 10 minutes with no ill effects...

also from the same page

Corrosive acids deals 1d6 points of damage per round of exposure except in the case of total immersion (such as into a vat of acid), which deals 10d6 points of damage per round.

except that we have two workers falling into concentrated nitric acid (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141153/Construction-worker-jumps-vat-acid-save-colleague-fell-40ft-rotting-roof.html), remaining several rounds inside the stuff, and surviving. they should have taken several hundred points of damage; maybe they have 20 levels of barbarian?

what we learn here is that some rules are already dumb enough without people actively trying to make them even dumber.
and the vop is already something that is very fluff-oriented. applying raw over rai for it makes even less sense than it does for anything else.

[Kalkra]

I honestly haven't read every preceding post, but I'll just mention a few pieces of game-breaking tech.

I saw people talking about the RAW vs RAI reading, so I'm assuming that the OP is assuming that you can't just use things without owning them.

The prestige class Apostle of Peace lets you wear magic AC-boosting items. You could take a level of that, but it requires the other VoP which is even more poorly written (bacteria exist, after all), so the only logical and reasonable alternative is to take three levels of Illithid Savant and eat the brain of an Apostle of Peace. The OP mentioned Druid, so see if you can qualify with Aberration Wild Shape.

If Dragon Mag is legal, take Sculpt Self and get all the benefits of all the magic items without needing to own anything.

[liquidformat]

Now, if you’d like to argue the merits of the point I was making, then please, tell me why talking to the DM and making sure they agree that VoP works with Wild Shape is a bad idea. Tell me how the monk comment in the article makes that opinion that a player should talk to their DM using the “it’s not explicitly disallowed according to the text” argument is bad. Please, I’d love to hear your argument.

I agree with Eggy and Max here, reading through that article I get the feeling the writer doesn't actually understand how the rules work (which sadly isn't uncommon for the staff and writers of WotC). The bonuses from VoP aren't racial bonuses and are therefore independent of your form by RAW.


I used VoP to pretty solid effect on a Divine Minion in MoMF, but the sheer volume of wilding clasps I would have needed would have been cost prohibitive, plus I had a ton of extra options from MoMF's shifting. Druid "only" has animal forms and can reasonably be expected to spend time not wild shaped, so I don't see VoP being of great benefit to them. It's mostly useful if playing the item sub-game gets boring frustrating, but porting in PF's automatic bonus progression would probably be better.

Druids, MoMF, and Primeval are my favorites to play as and I have played all of them with and without VoP multiple times; it is just how you think about things and how you build.

All you need for druids to spend all day in wild shape is access to a form that can communicate, this can be as easy as being a baboon, ape, Swindlespitter, or so forth that can write/use sign language (drow sign language can be a lot of fun if you have a couple players with it) or having access to forms like giant eagle and urskans that can actually speak which you can gain access to through a single feat. As far as wilding clasps go the key is stacking magic item abilities onto a few items rather than having a bunch of items needing clasps. It is pretty straightforward to stack a bunch of abilities onto a vest or a amulet once you know what abilities can go where and once you have a vest of many pockets simply pulling wands, rods, and other items out to use is easy enough...

As far as VoP goes my favorite is actually using it on a Primeval, sure it is a bruiser with little casting I actually think it just just as well with VoP as with items and in some ways better. I normally like going with City Brawler Bear Totem Barbarian 3/Wild Shape Ranger 5/Fist of the Forest 2/Primeval 10 with dire puma and VoP actually works really well especially if you can get your DM to let Exalted Wild Shape to apply Celestial template to your primeval form. Using that build I have been in a few optimizer games where I got complaints from full casters for being to OP which I took pride in.

[Telonius]

Totemist probably loses the least, when it comes to VoP; but you can have a perfectly functional Druid without magical items.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

seriously? i avoided answering at first because i thought it was a joke.
i mean, that RAW interpretation is commonly known, but NOBODY would ever take it as anything but a joke, right?You obviously haven't played with some of the stupid DMs I've had to deal with.


if we want to go down that path, since you are walking on the world, you are using the world. and the world is clearly a place full of magic, and it is a cohesive piece, so you are using a magic item. but nowhere in the world description does it say that this "world" magic item can be used by any class. so you cannot use it without ranks in use magic device, and so you get instantaneously ejected to outer space.Yes, this is another bit of rules stupidity on VoP, although most campaign worlds don't consider the Material Plane/planet to be a magic item. An object on which there is magic, and in which there are certain places that are magic, but the world as a whole is not.


oh, let's take an example that's closer to RAW (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm):

well, there is a town called dallol, in ethiopia, where the average temperature year-round is 34 °C, and during the hot season the temperature stays around 45 °C for serveral hours. i guess the people there all have fort saves in the +50 range to survive, children included.
as for the second, inside a sauna the air temperature is normally around 90 °C. considering most people stay in the sauna around 10 minutes with no ill effects...

also from the same page


except that we have two workers falling into concentrated nitric acid (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141153/Construction-worker-jumps-vat-acid-save-colleague-fell-40ft-rotting-roof.html), remaining several rounds inside the stuff, and surviving. they should have taken several hundred points of damage; maybe they have 20 levels of barbarian?

what we learn here is that some rules are already dumb enough without people actively trying to make them even dumber.
and the vop is already something that is very fluff-oriented. applying raw over rai for it makes even less sense than it does for anything else.Dysfunctions in the rules, yes.

As far as VoP goes, the relevant passage is thus:


<Snip> To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions: You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick. You may wear simple clothes (usually just a homespun robe, possibly also including a hat and sandals) with no magical properties. You may carry enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag. You may carry and use a spell component pouch. You may not use any magic item of any sort </snip>You must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions. That list is extremely limited and extremely specific. It does not give any leeway whatsoever beyond "items used on your behalf." You could be carried through a doorway or hop on someone else's back to be carried through a building, but by the rules you are not allowed to enter or stay in a house on your own volition, because that is "using a material possession," even if that possession is someone else's, or that someone else is long gone.

At the very least, saying a VoP character can do so without permanently losing his vow is reasonable is a houserule, because the RAW is very specific and very explicit. Just because it's extreme doesn't mean it isn't RAW, because it totally is. Giving more leeway than what RAW allows is reasonable, yes. It's also a houserule, because it's going against very explicit RAW.

[danzibr]

VoP on animal companions is very strong; on druids themselves it's a pretty reasonable alternative to mucking around with wilding clasps for everything but a bit weak. Putting it on both is probably roughly speaking equivalent to not having it on either in terms of how good it is, if not necessarily the specific ways in which it's good.
Interesting nobody responded to this hilarity.

VoP on an AC... I love it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Interesting nobody responded to this hilarity.

VoP on an AC... I love it.

I've done it; it was fantastic. I gave my ghost tiger stigmata to be an emergency last line healer and he legit saved a PC with the feat.

[Thunder999]

Imho warlock & DFA are also often overlooked possible candidates for VOP. There are not so many mandatory magic items specifically tailored around the warlock/DFA. They don't need any expensive components for their invocation, get most important stuff as 24h buff (fly, blindsight, darksight). For a crowd control heavy warlock/dfa build the extra CHA would pay off imho. I'm not so good at possible "Humanoid Shape"(dfa only) abuse, but the extra stats could help there too.

You're forgetting that a solid chunk of warlock power is that you're very good at UMD and can craft your own items without needing the spells.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You're forgetting that a solid chunk of warlock power is that you're very good at UMD and can craft your own items without needing the spells.

I don't know if I'd go quite that far. It's defiintely a fairly useful portion of what makes up the overall warlock package. At the same time, you have to actually take the crafting feats on a feat starved class, else find workarounds for them that will make up at least a portion of the gold saved in crafting. The abilty to take 10 on UMD is also quite nice but pales in comparison to the array of invocations and other special abilities a warlock or warlock based build has.

If your'e really determined to put VoP on something, you could do a lot worse than warlock. It's not really any more hurt by the choice than any incarnum class or the dragonfire adept.

On the subject of the druid selecting VoP; if there's any class that can afford that choice, the druid is it. As others have pointed out, they're already paying a premium to use their gear in the wildshaped forms and less reliant on it because of the same. Between that and spells the druid can cover nearly all of the ground that gear normally would and will do just fine without it.

Also, disregard the comment in that rules of the game article on form changing affecting the benefits. That's hogwash. Neither the feat nor any of its benefits (save perhaps some of the bonus feats you've chosen) are reliant on your character's form and there's no precedent for losing feat benefits through form changing unless they -do- rely on some specific body part or ability score that's changed.

[Unavenger]

You could be carried through a doorway or hop on someone else's back to be carried through a building, but by the rules you are not allowed to enter or stay in a house on your own volition, because that is "using a material possession," even if that possession is someone else's, or that someone else is long gone.

If I say "James used the artwork", you almost certainly assume that he was using it to express himself (was the artist) or was using it for some purpose (James used the artwork as a shield). I don't think anyone would, if asked whether or not James had used the artwork for anything, say "Yes" if he'd only looked at the artwork. You might just say that someone used a doorway if prompted, but I don't think that walking through a doorway is using a material possession, unless you think the air that constitutes the doorway is a material possession which is just insane troll logic. And if you ask "Did James use the house for anything?" then "No, he was just there to see John" is a perfectly reasonable response. You aren't generally considered to use a house that you're not living in, even if you're there for a while.

You're basically trying to make "Use" have a meaning that almost nobody actually uses it for and then say that this is "More RAW". It isn't.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If I say "James used the artwork", you almost certainly assume that he was using it to express himself (was the artist) or was using it for some purpose (James used the artwork as a shield). I don't think anyone would, if asked whether or not James had used the artwork for anything, say "Yes" if he'd only looked at the artwork. You might just say that someone used a doorway if prompted, but I don't think that walking through a doorway is using a material possession, unless you think the air that constitutes the doorway is a material possession which is just insane troll logic. And if you ask "Did James use the house for anything?" then "No, he was just there to see John" is a perfectly reasonable response. You aren't generally considered to use a house that you're not living in, even if you're there for a while.

You're basically trying to make "Use" have a meaning that almost nobody actually uses it for and then say that this is "More RAW". It isn't.What use is most artwork than to look at or listen to it? Yeah, some artwork is functional, especially interactive artwork, but how often do you come across an interactive work in a fantasy setting that isn't Eberron?

[Unavenger]

What use is most artwork than to look at or listen to it? Yeah, some artwork is functional, especially interactive artwork, but how often do you come across an interactive work in a fantasy setting that isn't Eberron?

That's not what I'm saying. You just don't use the word "Use" when referring to looking at an artwork, not really. If you start saying "Use" to mean "Look at", even in that context, my guess is that you'll get a lot of funny looks.

"James used the painting."
"What? What do you mean he used it? What did he use it to do?"
"Well he looked at it."

If you say that someone "Used" a painting, with no other context, people will probably assume that they picked it up and started doing something with it, or that they at very least examined it closely in an active attempt to discern something from it, not just that they glanced at it. That's how we use the word "Use", I'm afraid.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

That's not what I'm saying. You just don't use the word "Use" when referring to looking at an artwork, not really. If you start saying "Use" to mean "Look at", even in that context, my guess is that you'll get a lot of funny looks.

"James used the painting."
"What? What do you mean he used it? What did he use it to do?"
"Well he looked at it."

If you say that someone "Used" a painting, with no other context, people will probably assume that they picked it up and started doing something with it, or that they at very least examined it closely in an active attempt to discern something from it, not just that they glanced at it. That's how we use the word "Use", I'm afraid.It's not a common use of the word "use," no.

But what use is music other than listening to it? What use is a mundane painting if you don't look at it? I guess you could use a statue as an animated guard or a hatstand, but statues are typically used as decorations, and thus their main use is to be looked at.

Just because the use is typically passive doesn't mean it's not still a use.

[Unavenger]

But what use is music other than listening to it? What use is a mundane painting if you don't look at it? I guess you could use a statue as an animated guard or a hatstand, but statues are typically used as decorations, and thus their main use is to be looked at.

Just because the use is typically passive doesn't mean it's not still a use.

Not all objects have a well-defined "use". Once, say, a load-bearing pillar is in place, no-one uses it at all. The only person who ever used it was its creator. It just does the thing that it's there for. Similarly, the artist uses their art to portray a message, but you don't say that someone uses a statue if they look at it. You say they're using a statue if they hit someone around the face with it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Not all objects have a well-defined "use". Once, say, a load-bearing pillar is in place, no-one uses it at all. The only person who ever used it was its creator. It just does the thing that it's there for. Similarly, the artist uses their art to portray a message, but you don't say that someone uses a statue if they look at it. You say they're using a statue if they hit someone around the face with it.Your definition of the word "use" is extremely narrow.

The dictionary has this to say for one of the definitions of the word "use":

be or become familiar with someone or something through experience.

Looking at a painting fits that definition, since paintings tend to be passive-use instead of active-use, but it still fits the word just fine.

Would you say that reading the writing on a page is using it? That's the purpose of the written word, right? To convey information for the writer, and to read for the reader? Even if it's just a single word?

What's the difference between ink on a page and paint on a page? Both are (ostensibly) to convey something, and to receive any benefit from it, you must look at it. Words require at least some amount of study and retention, whereas a painting may merely require a glance.

Either way, VoP is horribly written and needs houseruling, even if it's just to allow someone to walk down a city street or open a door without losing it permanently.

[Unavenger]

Either way, VoP is horribly written and needs houseruling, even if it's just to allow someone to walk down a city street or open a door without losing it permanently.

What was that Thurbane quote... oh yeah...


Saying that someone reading RAW differently than you is "home brewing or house ruling, but that's fine" doesn't make you right, it just makes you seem pompous.

I think it's relevant here. Reading "Use" in the way that almost anyone would read it isn't a house rule. It's just a common-sense reading of the text.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

What was that Thurbane quote... oh yeah...

I think it's relevant here. Reading "Use" in the way that almost anyone would read it isn't a house rule. It's just a common-sense reading of the text.Yeah. As I said. Houserules.

Because that's not what the rules actually say. You're actively changing the rules from how they're written.

You use an object that isn't part of your allowed items, no matter how passively? Bye-bye, VoP. That's what the rules say. They don't give any leeway for usage, active or passive. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No reading books, no looking at artwork, no opening a door, no staying in a house. You use it, you lose it. And I can back that up using RAW. Where's your RAW? Because I ain't seeing it. You can argue "but common sense!" all you want, but your "common sense" is VoP's houserules.

[Unavenger]

Yeah. As I said. Houserules.

Because that's not what the rules actually say.

You use an object that isn't part of your allowed items, no matter how passively? Bye-bye, VoP. That's what the rules say. They don't give any leeway for usage, active or passive. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No reading books, no looking at artwork, no opening a door, no staying in a house. You use it, you lose it. And I can back that up using RAW. Where's your RAW? Because I ain't seeing it. You can argue "but common sense!" all you want, but your "common sense" is RAW's houserules.

That's not what people actually mean when they say "use". What the rules say is "Use". If you say "The monk used the picture", does that sentence mean "The monk glanced at the picture?" No. That's not how the word "Use" is ever used. Does the sentence "James never used the house for anything, he was just there to see Josh" make sense? Yes, absolutely. It makes sense, it's a sentence you would innately understand, and lo and behold, we know that the word "Use" does not encompass merely existing within the confines of the house. Does "I don't recall James ever using that picture; he took one look at it and left it behind" make sense? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes that is a sentence that makes sense within the English language and lo and behold, we know that real people, in the real world, using real language, do not say "Use" when they mean "Look at", even in terms of artwork. Does "James read the instruction manual, but never used it" make sense? Yes. Does "James read the novel, but never used it" make sense? Probably not. We know what the word "Use" means in natural language and it's not nearly as open as you're trying to make it. You might as well argue that anyone who takes Vow of Poverty loses it immediately from the borderline-homeopathic concentrations of burned incenses that have accumulated in the air. That simply isn't how using things works.

You're trying to enforce a definition of "Use" so prescriptivist that even most prescriptivists would sigh at it. That's just not what anyone means when they say "Use".

I'm not houseruling. I'm just using words to use what they mean, not what one document says that they can, under some circumstances, mean.

[Tallyn]

Yeah. As I said. Houserules.

Because that's not what the rules actually say. You're actively changing the rules from how they're written.

You use an object that isn't part of your allowed items, no matter how passively? Bye-bye, VoP. That's what the rules say. They don't give any leeway for usage, active or passive. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No reading books, no looking at artwork, no opening a door, no staying in a house. You use it, you lose it. And I can back that up using RAW. Where's your RAW? Because I ain't seeing it. You can argue "but common sense!" all you want, but your "common sense" is VoP's houserules.

Wow, you're either the biggest jerk DM in the world, or you have the biggest jerk DM in the world, if you (or your DM) are enforcing Vow of Poverty like that.

A much more commonly accepted definition of use is:

use
verb
verb: use; 3rd person present: uses; past tense: used; past participle: used; gerund or present participle: using
1.
take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ.

[Silfir]

To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions

It says "material possessions", not "physical object". The vow only applies to the former.

Possession has a definition distinct from ownership - One is factual, the other legal. You possess something if you a) have control ever it and b) intend to possess it.

We generally assume that a piece of art that hangs in a building isn't in the possession of everyone who looks at it. It's in the possession of the current master of the house. (Not the owner: whoever currently occupies the house and decides who stays or goes. Could be the owner, could be a steward acting on behalf of the owner, a tenant, or even a squatter.) Even if you can argue that observing a piece of art, or a signpost, is akin to "using" it, sure as hell doesn't make your possession. I believe that means a VoP-adherent could enter an art museum and look at the pictures no problem, as long as that doesn't require a ticket - even if they got the ticket for free, it would be a material possession in itself.

Similarly, a VoP-adherent should be able to enter a building, as long as doing so doesn't make them the person who possesses the building. Entering the king's palace for an audience is fine. Entering an abandoned cottage in the woods in order to seek shelter is not. At that point you would intentionally exercise control over the building, thereby possessing it. A VoP-adherent would have to sleep outside, even as the party takes shelter.

To go back to the signpost example briefly - it would probably be considered to either not be in the possession of anyone, or in the possession of whoever the lord of the land is, since they likely put it there and are the most likely to care if anyone messes with it. By standing in front of it the VoP-adherent would, for the moment, become the person with the greatest degree of physical control over the sign, but just reading it doesn't constitute an intent to possess, even if it constitutes a "use".

There is a reason it says "material possessions" in that paragraph - it's not a synonym for "anything, really". At least that would be my reading. Carry on.

[Akal Saris]

Sidestepping the English grammar debate and getting back to the OP's topic, I used to have a DM that ran games where loot was comically under-par. As in, my 12th level ranger was using a masterwork longbow and had a normal chain shirt. So I actually planned out a VoP druid build for that DM's next game. Sadly, I never got a chance to use it, but I do think that the feat benefits work really well for a druid overall.

Maybe a totemist would be another good VoP candidate?

[Leon]

It works well. We have a VoP druid in a current game.
Although we are still low level so it hasn't unlocked much of the feat's potential yet. The running joke is that eventually the Bear companion will own a Condo and let the Druid stay there.

[Gruftzwerg]

It works well. We have a VoP druid in a current game.
Although we are still low level so it hasn't unlocked much of the feat's potential yet. The running joke is that eventually the Bear companion will own a Condo and let the Druid stay there.

lol^^

on second thought, wouldn't it be plausible to say that the animal companion would get 50% from the druids share, thus leaving only 50% for VoP to donate? I mean the druid is the one with the VoP and the animal companion shouldn't have to bear the burden. Imho it enforces roleplay restrictions, and from a rp point of view, the animal companion is equal to you (or your friend) and not your possession. Thus he should have equal rights on your share of the groups profits.

[Leon]

The druid gives it all away thus far, we haven't earn a lot on our own, most of our "earnings" have been taken by our employers. Maybe if the bear was awakened but no, it follows the druids instructions for the most part (its less interested in being vegan like the druid is to the druids dismay) and i would hazard a guess that anything it need would be within reason provided by our employers (We're a Circus when we are not adventuring or even wen we are since each player has two PCs and only one gets to go out adventuring at a time) like barding and such or future magical enchantments.

[YellowJohn]

lol^^

on second thought, wouldn't it be plausible to say that the animal companion would get 50% from the druids share, thus leaving only 50% for VoP to donate? I mean the druid is the one with the VoP and the animal companion shouldn't have to BEAR the burden.

Fixed that for you 😉

[NigelWalmsley]

Vow of Poverty Druid "works" in that your character is still functional and able to contribute in a way that, say, a VoP Fighter or Wizard is not, but it's only really a good idea if you figure out some way to cheat the feat so that your money goes to the rest of the party instead of being lit on fire. It's not just that the bonuses the feat gives you do not provide you with some of the things you need from items, it's that they're not worth as much as the money you lose.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Vow of Poverty Druid "works" in that your character is still functional and able to contribute in a way that, say, a VoP Fighter or Wizard is not, but it's only really a good idea if you figure out some way to cheat the feat so that your money goes to the rest of the party instead of being lit on fire. It's not just that the bonuses the feat gives you do not provide you with some of the things you need from items, it's that they're not worth as much as the money you lose.Meh. The rest of the group is fully justified in saying, "Well, if you don't want it, we're literally risking our lives for it, so we're taking it." Which is actually fine, if you consider your group to be a charity. I mean, if your group is literally going around saving people without being paid by the people you're saving (only expecting spoils of conquest for the monsters being slain), then your group actually is a charity, by definition: "Help or money given voluntarily to those in need." So long as the help is there, the money is optional. Do you know what you're explicitly allowed to donate money to? Now this both makes logical sense and is actually an exploit allowed by the rules, unlike that other stuff we were talking about upthread.

Plus, VoP figuratively castrates you. Unless you're a druid or psion (or, depending on the level/tier/optimization level of everyone else, a wizard or archivist), the group can do what they want to you, and you can't stop them because you've neutered yourself. If that pushes your character into leaving, well, you were a millstone around their collective neck anyway, a liability, and probably a burden, so good riddance. (Your party fighter is laying there dying, and he has an easily-reached potion but can't use it because he's dying, and your VoP wizard [without healing spells or the Heal skill] is right there, watching him die? Sorry, if you used that potion to save him, you'd lose your VoP, so he's out of luck. VoP actually encourages selfishness, which is stupid.)

Also, you only have to give away 50% + 1 cp of your share, by the rules. The rest can go wherever, so long as you're not using it. Feel free to give it to your (non VoP) animal companion or familiar, if you want, especially if you consider it a friend, rather than part of you. I know I consider my dog to be my friend and not an extension of me or a possession, so I certainly couldn't blame anyone else for feeling the same way.

[ciopo]

Yeah. As I said. Houserules.

Because that's not what the rules actually say. You're actively changing the rules from how they're written.

You use an object that isn't part of your allowed items, no matter how passively? Bye-bye, VoP. That's what the rules say. They don't give any leeway for usage, active or passive. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No reading books, no looking at artwork, no opening a door, no staying in a house. You use it, you lose it. And I can back that up using RAW. Where's your RAW? Because I ain't seeing it. You can argue "but common sense!" all you want, but your "common sense" is VoP's houserules.

Can I have in on some of this fun?

part 1: I was going to finagle about how "use a object" is explicitly defined, so moving inside a building or looking at art is not actually doing the defined standard action "use a object", and thus don't incur the VoP penalty, while opening a door (allegedly) does, to then elaborate that by this account if whatever action you take would not fall under the "use a object" standard action while in combat, it is therefore not something that imperils VoP,
but alas, "use a object" is so codified in 5e, in 3.5 it's apparently called manipulate instead, so nevermind that!

part 2: I'm fetching BoED in my native tongue ( italian) to see what finagling of RAW I can find in the translation.

To everybody arguing with the racoon in the playground: I don't think he's being particularly prescriptivist about this, he is right that as written, even something as stupid as using a blanket to sleep or some fire to cook would blow the VoP. it is also clear that isn't RAI. imho

[MaxiDuRaritry]

it is also clear that isn't RAI. imhoAgreed. I doubt they meant the horrible dysfunctionality of VoP to be the way it is, but unfortunately...

[NigelWalmsley]

It's a quibble, but VoP isn't dysfunctional. It's just bad. It does exactly what it sets out to do, it's just that it was designed by people who did not understand what abilities and resources characters need to be level-appropriate.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It's a quibble, but VoP isn't dysfunctional. It's just bad. It does exactly what it sets out to do, it's just that it was designed by people who did not understand what abilities and resources characters need to be level-appropriate.I don't think disallowing one to walk into a building/look at a statue/read a sign, and punishing someone for saving a friend/ally/bystander were intended.

[Gusmo]

If I'll be in a scenario where I don't expect to be getting great magic items anyway, due to DM stinginess or whatever other reason, and the DM won't force 'stupid good' aspects of playing an exalted character, I think VoP casters are excellent. You release yourself from a great deal of bookkeeping, and are still quite strong. Obviously there are technical issues with casters like wizards, so if you can't iron those out with the DM, druid is one class that works nicely.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If I'll be in a scenario where I don't expect to be getting great magic items anyway, due to DM stinginess or whatever other reason, and the DM won't force 'stupid good' aspects of playing an exalted character, I think VoP casters are excellent. You release yourself from a great deal of bookkeeping, and are still quite strong. Obviously there are technical issues with casters like wizards, so if you can't iron those out with the DM, a druid is one class that works nicely.This is true enough, so long as a few minor tweaks are done. Some benefits of having wealth are better than no wealth at all.

However, wizards work MUCH better than clerics do by RAW, which don't actually work at all under VoP. You've gotta have a holy symbol to cast most cleric spells, and guess what you can't use under VoP? Sans tweaks, of course. Or burning a feat or using a tattoo (prior to gaining VoP) to act as your holy symbol instead.

[Unavenger]

The other bizarro-troll-reading of course is that anything that can be used as an improvised simple weapon, which is practically anything you can hit someone over the head with or stab someone on the end of or shiv someone with or otherwise whack someone with, is - so long as it's neither magical nor masterwork - allowed.

So, sure, you can say "Existing inside a house counts as using that house." I can say "That house is actually a colossal improvised club." I mean all you need to do is add some booze and music and then the house really can be an improvised club.

[AvatarVecna]

[Enters thread asking "is VoP okay on druid"]
[everybody knows the answer is "yes, because its basically impossible to **** up druid"]
[of course, everybody is now discussing how VoP is poorly written]
"VoP DoEsNt LeT YoU UsE DoOrS"

@OP Talk with your DM about common-sense limitations for VoP - something that makes sense to both of you without being quite as universally-limited as VoP is technically written. If your DM insists on using VoP exactly as written, with all the absolutely bonkers interactions that come with that, call the police. Playing VoP completely by RAW on purpose is a sign that you're playing with a sadistic lunatic, and either they already have a kidnapped cutie chained up in the attic, or you're about to be that cutie.

[King of Nowhere]

It's a quibble, but VoP isn't dysfunctional. It's just bad. It does exactly what it sets out to do, it's just that it was designed by people who did not understand what abilities and resources characters need to be level-appropriate.

or perhaps they did, and didn't want the "ascetic lifestyle" to be a minmaxing tool. You want to play an exhalted good character that forsakes material possessions, you got to pay a price for it. if you're as powerful as you would be, you're not really making any sacrifice, and you're invalidating the whole premise.
the vop lets you be functional enough to still carry your weight within the party, while making you definitely weaker than you'd be otherwise. because your vow must have some consequence.

I have no intention to play a vop druid (was only a mental experiment), but I do have two vop builds that I may want to play, both for the fluff. one for wizard (a wizard condemning the elitism and isolationism of the magical community, wanting to spread magic among the common people, use it to improve the lives of all. And of course, if your end goal is common housewives using prestidigitation to make their laundry, you can't afford 50 gp for a page). One, refluffed, for a monk (a wizard has no weapon and armor, but is stronger than a fighter. so, the less you have, the stronger you will be! if i give up weapons, magic, gear, then i will be INVINCIBLE!!! in this concept, the vop bonuses are refluffed as the result of training from hell, and it could have some benefits as they would work in antimagic. on the other hand, any advantage is counteracted by having a monk with a vow of poverty :smalltongue:)
in both cases, i expect the characters to be sensibly weaker than what they'd be with regular gear, but it's a price i gladly pay for the story perks.


This is true enough, so long as a few minor tweaks are done. Some benefits of having wealth is better than no wealth at all.

However, wizards work MUCH better than clerics do by RAW, which don't actually work at all under VoP. You've gotta have a holy symbol to cast most cleric spells, and guess what you can't use under VoP? Sans tweaks, of course. Or burning a feat or using a tattoo (prior to gaining VoP) to act as your holy symbol instead.
well, putting aside that any RAI reading would allow some other meager material possessions (after all, it is originally inspired by real world religious orders who would bear some simple holy symbols, like a crude wooden cross), you could still have your holy symbol sewn into your clothing. or, since you are allowed to carry food for one day, you could carve your holy symbol out of a piece of bread.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

well, putting aside that any RAI reading would allow some other meager material possessions (after all, it is originally inspired by real world religious orders who would bear some simple holy symbols, like a crude wooden cross), you could still have your holy symbol sewn into your clothing. or, since you are allowed to carry food for one day, you could carve your holy symbol out of a piece of bread.That's both ridiculous and hilarious.

[NigelWalmsley]

I don't think disallowing one to walk into a building/look at a statue/read a sign, and punishing someone for saving a friend/ally/bystander was intended.

The feat very obviously does not work that way. We don't need to borrow trouble here, it's a crappy feat, it doesn't also have to be mechanically nonfunctional.


making any sacrifice, and you're invalidating the whole premise.

This is just the Stormwind Fallacy. The fact that your character is bad if you take VoP doesn't deepen the impact of the feat, it just makes your character bad. If your character was instead not bad, your roleplaying decision would be just as valid. The premise of the feat is "forsake material possessions" not "suck at your job". That it does both instead of only the former is a failure of design, nothing more and nothing less.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The feat very obviously does not work that way. We don't need to borrow trouble here, it's a crappy feat, it doesn't also have to be mechanically nonfunctional.As I've said numerous times now, the feat IS nonfunctional, and it needs to be houseruled to make it work. And there's no shame in admitting that. Unless you wrote the rules, anyway. In which case, shame on you. :-P

[King of Nowhere]

That's both ridiculous and hilarious.

Just like the strict interpretation that you can't have a holy symbol. and that's the beauty of it :smallcool:



This is just the Stormwind Fallacy. The fact that your character is bad if you take VoP doesn't deepen the impact of the feat, it just makes your character bad. If your character was instead not bad, your roleplaying decision would be just as valid. The premise of the feat is "forsake material possessions" not "suck at your job". That it does both instead of only the former is a failure of design, nothing more and nothing less.

not really. the stormwind fallacy stems from the idea that optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive.
but this is a specific case where you are, specifically, making a sacrifice. so you should lose something.
this is doubly true because you will have to beg some buffs from your team. just like a poor would have to beg, with the wov of poverty there will be some effect you can't replicate that you must beg from your party. and this is also part of the reason you must agree with your party before taking exhalted feats

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Just like the strict interpretation that you can't have a holy symbol. and that's the beauty of it :smallcool:It's definitely ridiculous that they specified "you can ONLY use things on this list" and then made a very small and restrictive list, yes.

[NigelWalmsley]

As I've said numerous times now, the feat IS nonfunctional

Yes, and you'll notice the number of people pointing out that you're wrong. Because you're wrong.


but this is a specific case where you are, specifically, making a sacrifice. so you should lose something.

Yes, you lose the ability to use items. Because you are playing a character that has made the decision not to use items. The feat is supporting a character concept. If you wanted to be a guy with no items who sucks, you could just not buy items. The point of the feat can't be to have there be a cost, because the cost is there with or without the feat. The point of the feat is to support a concept that would otherwise be very bad.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Yes, and you'll notice the number of people pointing out that you're wrong. Because you're wrong.It's funny how I'm wrong despite being able to very clearly spell out direct quotes in the rules themselves that perfectly back up my assertions, whereas nobody else can.

[InvisibleBison]

not really. the stormwind fallacy stems from the idea that optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive.
but this is a specific case where you are, specifically, making a sacrifice. so you should lose something.
this is doubly true because you will have to beg some buffs from your team. just like a poor would have to beg, with the wov of poverty there will be some effect you can't replicate that you must beg from your party. and this is also part of the reason you must agree with your party before taking exhalted feats

I don't think Vow of Poverty is supposed to make your character less powerful. The various bonuses the feat gives you are intended to make up for the loss of items, making the "sacrifice" purely a roleplay thing, not a mechanical thing. Of course, it doesn't work that way, but that's just because the people writing the game didn't know what they were doing.

[King of Nowhere]

Yes, you lose the ability to use items. Because you are playing a character that has made the decision not to use items. The feat is supporting a character concept. If you wanted to be a guy with no items who sucks, you could just not buy items.

there is a vast gulf between using a vop and not using items without any kind of other compensation. A character with vop is certainly weaker, but still capable of contributing meaningfully.
there is also a vast gulf between "using a suboptimal build" and "sucking"

of course, it's also possible that it was not intentional, that the people who made it really thought that it was enough to compensate for items. perhaps they expected the other characters to spend all their gold on some of the worst rubbish that plagues the dm handbook. or perhaps they tuned it for the kind of noobish players who would actually spend their gold on rubbish.


It's funny how I'm wrong despite being able to very clearly spell out direct quotes in the rules themselves that perfectly back up my assertions, whereas nobody else can.
{Scrubbed}

that said, if you consider an obvious RAI to be "houseruling", suit yourself. as long as you agree that it's the only sane way to use the vop, then we're all on the same page

[Kelb_Panthera]

FWIW, using the guidelines for pricing, including making direct comparisons to existing items, VoP is actually worth -more- than WBL. You could dumpster dive and outdo it, certainly, by skipping some of the more minor stuff and approximating others rather than matching them directly but the by the book prices for exact matches (or as near as you can get with the DR and trueseeing) add up to a fair bit more.

As such, I doubt the devs genuinely intended it to be less powerful even if that did end up being the fact on the ground. :smallmad:

[King of Nowhere]

speaking of rules lawyering, i have a better argument:

the vop specifies that you can carry "enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag". however, it does not specify that the food must be fit for a humanoid, nor does it specify anything about the bag except that it has to be nonmagic. it does not specify that you can use the food for its designated purpose, but since you don't get the capacity to skip eating before mid levels, it can be inferred.
the draconomicon illustrates several rituals in which dragons eat their hoard. even without that, at least gold dragons are known to eat gemstones. Hence, by the stated conditions, you are allowed to carry a dragon hoard. in fact, since it won't sustain you for a day in case you eat it, a dragon hoard is still less food than you could carry.
as for the bag, that's your skin. you can't get any more poor than that, it certainly fits the requirements. only, you have to consider that the whole universe outside of your body is the bag. that can be easily justified mathematically, as once you set a boundary (your skin, in this case) then what is inside and outside is defined arbitrarily. it's a well-known mathematical paradox that to make the biggest room, you can trace a box on the ground, jump in and say "i am outside".
so, you are not using any magic items, you are merely carrying "food" (that won't sustain you for more than a day) and that food is certainly inside your designated bag.

conclusion: it is true that the vow of poverty generally forbids you from looking at art. however, a piece of art can be considered food, and using food for its designated purpose is one of the stated exceptions. so, you are ok looking at art.

alternatively, the vop allows you to carry and use a non-magical, non-masterwork weapon. since a piece of art, or a door, or a house, can all be used as improvised weapons, there you go, you are again allowed to use them.

furthermore, that magic ring around your finger, that necklace around your neck, those are not magic items you are carrying, those are merely food that is inside your bag. and you certainly cannot be held responsible if they cause some status conditions on you, no more than you could be held responsible if some outside magical condition affected you. you are not using magic items, you are carrying food in a bag, and that's it. hence, you can use the vop and still be fully geared.

if we are trying to subvert the rules while following the letter, we may as well do so in our favor

[MaxiDuRaritry]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

that said, if you consider an obvious RAI to be "houseruling", suit yourself. as long as you agree that it's the only sane way to use the vop, then we're all on the same page

{Scrubbed}

[Leon]

since you are allowed to carry food for one day, you could carve your holy symbol out of a piece of bread.

Avant thee undead, i cast you back with the power of my hot cross bun...

[NigelWalmsley]

It's funny how I'm wrong despite being able to very clearly spell out direct quotes in the rules themselves that perfectly back up my assertions, whereas nobody else can.

Really? There's a direct rules quote that says that "being in a house is using it"? Your arguments aren't based on RAW, they're based on the semantics of particular English words.


there is a vast gulf between using a vop and not using items without any kind of other compensation.

Yes, there is. Because the intention of VoP is to eliminate the mechanical inferiority of people who don't have magic items. The fact that it only does so partially is a design failure. I'm glad we agree.


there is also a vast gulf between "using a suboptimal build" and "sucking"

Sure. Not every build that is less powerful than the most powerful acceptable build sucks. But that's not where VoP is. It's not that VoP is worse than someone who is cheesing every inch of power they can get out of Incantatrix is, it's that if you offered most people the ability to have it for free, they wouldn't take it. That seems like something it is entirely reasonable to describe as "sucking".

[gkathellar]

It's funny how I'm wrong despite being able to very clearly spell out direct quotes in the rules themselves that perfectly back up my assertions, whereas nobody else can.

You're not wrong. You're probably even right, it's just that you're right in a way that is completely useless, because any DM who would enforce your reading of VoP is (a) not worth playing with, (b) is being fundamentally dishonest about the fact that they just want to ban VoP for whatever reason, and (c) is probably a serial killer. The accuracy of your RAW is irrelevant, because most of us cannot imagine a situation where it would ever matter.

Let me give a comparison: there's an argument to be made that you can apply sneak attack damage to an intimidate check in PF. Is this cute? Yes. Will it ever come up in a real game? No. That's the position your point is in.

[King of Nowhere]

{Scrubbed}

i don't know what was in the scrubbed post, but i assume that my original post was misunderstood.
there was no inflamatory intent in my post. i was trying to hammer the concept that we were not accepting a strict raw that obviously goes against the intent of the rule to be a valid argument.
i realize now how it could have come across as more aggressive than intended. i apologize if there is a need for it
the point is that this game was not written by lawyers for lawyers, it must be taken with a pinch of salt.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I played VoP Druid. It was fine, still weaker than if I had magic items, but not that much worse. I enjoyed it, overall.
I prefer it even more on a Master of Many Forms (which can be Druid, but I prefer Ranger and being focused around the wild shape entirely)


Interesting nobody responded to this hilarity.

VoP on an AC... I love it.

Conversely...an animal companion w/o VoP tied to a Druid with VoP is nearly worthless.
I had to argue for a long, long time w/ my DM about letting my animal take VoP as well, even though the AC was effectively abiding by my vow either way.
The way I see it...animals don't get flaws or classes w/ bonus feats, and their HD progression is behind a PC. So feats are very precious to them, and sacking two of them on VoP (that doesn't kick in until 3rd HD and missing two bonus exalted feats, not that there's a ton of exalted bonus feats an AC can even use) is a significant cost.
From my experience...VoP doesn't really make AC super powerful. It gives it a better armor class than a normal AC, and slightly weaker offensively than a normal one (who can rack up stat boosters and other enhancements on the cheap via party hand-me-downs). The VoP basically just keeps it from turning into utter fodder.

EDIT: Should also point out what may not be obvious.... That beyond a certain level, a VoP druid's "animal" companion will actually be an Int 3 magical beast, due to Exalted Companion feat. Mine was.

[Endarire]

If you're in a game where you barely get any wealth, VoP may be worthwhile. (I was in one but I didn't have the feats to spare to get VoP.)

[Mnemius]

I've played a druid with VOP in a campaign with a DM/GM that was... very loot heavy.
Game had a lot of newbies, and he was letting them play all sorts of monster races with no real drawbacks, so I figured fine, I'll try a VoP Druid.

Shape shifting into a blink dog was fun. We leveled quick, ended up going from 1 to 15 over the course of a summer. (Yes, I took the feat at 15 to shapeshift into cold magical beasts)

Intuitive Attack + touch of golden ice was fun. The gentleman running the game did do heavy loot and tossed some random buffs on us, like at level 15 each player got to pick an element to be immune to.

But my druid was threatening enough at 15, that we ended up fighting a dracolich with some custom abilities... included a breath weapon... that did 24 dice of fire, 24 dice of cold, 24 dice of acid, 24 dice of electric, and 24 dice of sonic damage.

Probably a good thing. If I'd survived, the bard and I was in talks about touring with me as a singing cryohydra... (Nymph's Kiss charisma boost and all... I had built do be an animal diplomancer with the extra feats... but bard always got to do that fun. GM got tired of me miming stuff while shapeshifted and I was randomly blessed with still being able to talk while wild shaped.)