VoP and doorhandles

[Twurps]

Triggered by numerous mentions over the years, including this recent thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?634263-3-5-Mundane-VoP-Build) I'm starting this thread to do something I would normally shy away from for it's utter uselessness, and that is: Discuss RAW.

The specific RAW to discuss? taking the 'Vow of Poverty' feat, only to lose it once one uses a door handle (or washes dishes, apparently, but lets start with the door handle.)
So I ask you: why would lose your VoP feat when using a door handle?

Now normally I would open with my own arguments, as to why you shouldn't lose the feat. In this case however I wouldn't know where to start, because I simply can't find where this is coming from. So for now my simple position will be: "No you shouldn't lose the feat for using a door handle, because nothing in the feat says you should." I'm fully prepared and even intend to change that position though based on arguments presented.

As things like this have a tendency to go off the rails quickly, let's stipulate some ground rules.
1) For once, I'm not interested in how the feat should work. I'm pretty sure I know how it should work, and in that reading, it works just fine for my group.
2) If you claim something to be RAW, please quote the relevant RAW, including a reference to the relevant source (including page numbers please!). I'll reference the VoP feat itself right here: Book of Exalted Deeds, page 48. So we can all assume that to be common knowledge from now on.
3) As we're discussing pure RAW, I'm inclined to be open to the somewhat more obtuse readings than I would normally be, but obtuseness goes both ways. If it comes to it, I might split the arguments up in 'sensible RAW' and 'obtuse RAW' to counter in kind. (And yes there is such a thing as 'sensible RAW'. Even RAW require interpretation, as without interpretation one cannot have language at all, feel free to discuss even this point, but not in this thread please)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Vow of Poverty:
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, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly. You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff. If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.BoED p48.

You cannot use any material possession except what's listed there. If you use a door-handle, which is a material possession (even if it's possessed by whoever owns the building) that's not on the list, you lose the feat forever.

VoP RAW is d-u-m dumb.

[icefractal]

It's not a position I hold, but I'm guessing it comes from a very literal reading of the first sentence:

To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions

However, that interpretation is contradicted a few sentences later:

You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.

Riding on the fly is as much or more interaction than turning a doorknob.


Also, I forgot how dumb some of the feat's interactions are. It's fine for someone else to use a Scroll of Heal on you, benefiting only you - but it's forbidden for you to use someone else's Scroll of Heal on that person (because, say, you're a Cleric or have UMD and they aren't/don't), which would be the more charitable action by any metric. :smallconfused:

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It's not a position I hold, but I'm guessing it comes from a very literal reading of the first sentence:


However, that interpretation is contradicted a few sentences later:


Riding on the fly is as much or more interaction than turning a doorknob.RAW, those are specific exceptions, which, yes, is dumb.

Also, a doorknob is not a magic item someone else can use on your behalf if you're the one needing to use it.

[Quentinas]

Wait...could this RAW be expanded to the road? As a VoP character would be using the road to walk no?

[Thurbane]

Now I'm imagining a VoP character as some kind of weird vampire-variant, who can't use a door handle unless he knows that no one owns the building, so it doesn't count as a "possession".

I don't even wanna know what a VoP character does after answering the call of nature: obviously TP is a possession. Good thing you stop needing to eat at higher levels.

Can you bathe? Is water a possession? Soap almost certainly is. A toothbrush definitely is.

Maybe it's like the potion example, you have to stand there while your party members wipe your botbot, wash you, brush your teeth, comb your hair.

Just to add the stupidity of a strictly RAW reading of the feat, can you use ammo? You're allowed to carry simple weapons, but is ammo technically a weapon?

Just as an aside, I recently stumbled on an answer to VoP divine casters not being allowed holy symbols: the Worldly Focus feat from FoE.

[mattie_p]

Just as an aside, I recently stumbled on an answer to VoP divine casters not being allowed holy symbols: the Worldly Focus feat from FoE.

It's hilarious and oh so 3.5-ish that the RAW answer that allows an Exalted Cleric of (presumably) a good deity, who has taken a sacred vow to be even more exalted in return for exalted benefits, to actually cast spells,is to take a feat called "Worldly Focus."

[Twurps]

wow, that actually makes a lot more sense than I had anticipated. thanks both.

First of: let me start by agreeing that RAW is dumb.

Now to the argument:
"you must not ... use any material possessions" fails to stipulate who's material possessions are referenced and so one could argue the default is 'owned by anybody', as those are all material possessions. evaluation: Somewhat obtuse, but within reason, and a compelling argument. Unless...

Counterargument1: They clearly mean VoP-person's own possessions fails my own rule of quoting RAW. Also: "you must not'own or use'" explicitly mentions 'owning' and 'using' as different things. If they meant your own possessions, ruling out having them should be enough. there's no need ruling out using them as well, unless they really did mean material possessions owned by other people too. Evaluation: fails to counter the argument.

Counterargument2: possessions of other people are not 'off limits' as clearly stated a few lines later:

You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.
If one can ride a 'ebony fly', surely one can use a door handle. And by extension, we should default back the material possessions clause to 'material possessions owned by the VoP-person.
Evaluation: Counters the argument. The argument leaves room for ambiguity. This text removes that ambiguity by specific examples. Unless...

Counter-Counter argument 2: the quoted text follows this wording:

with the following exceptions
Hence: anything after that are specific exeptions, and not general clarifications of the feat. Therefore, they don't serve as clarification of previous ambiguity.
Evaluation: Strong argument, fully counters counterargument 2, unless...

Counter3argument2: The line "To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions" is a prohibition. Therefore any exceptions offered by the line "with the following exceptions" should be 'allowances'. The list of allowances is:

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.
After this, the next sentence starts with:

You may not use...
that is a prohibition again, and therefore can't be part of the list of exeptions as started earlier. This means the list of exeptions ends here, and what follows is a continuation of what one can and (mostly) cannot do within the bounds of the feat. That would render the feat text (without the specific exeptions) as:
Vow of Poverty:

To fulfill your vow, you must:
-not own or use any material possessions.
-You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly. You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.
-If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.
Parsing for clarity mine
As the line regarding the ebony fly is NOT an exeption, it still is a clarification of the ambiguity introduced in the first sentence.
Evaluation: Strong argument. It requires interpretation of 'when do the exeptions end', but implicitly: so does any other reading as the list has to end somewhere. (if not, the line "If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it. " would be part of the exeptions as well).

So I'm now going with(short version):
The Ebony Fly example is NOT an exeption, therefore holds as an argument that the 'material possessions' part includes only possessions owned by the VoP person.

Note: thinking this through took a while, as did writing it down. I started this post after 3 answers, so please consider me ninja'd by any post after that. I'll get to those (if any) later.

[Ramza00]

These rules as written conversations are religious theological debates :smallsigh:

[Particle_Man]

Maybe a way to split the difference is you are allowed the use of a building, including its door knobs on its doors, if the owner of the building allows it (like a friend saying “you are welcome into my home” or a public building that welcomes all people (like a courthouse that allows observers). This would mean you, like a (“Buffy”/“Angel” vampire), could not enter someone’s home without their permission but VoP people are not the trespass-kill-loot type of adventurer anyhow.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Maybe a way to split the difference is you are allowed the use of a building, including its door knobs on its doors, if the owner of the building allows it (like a friend saying “you are welcome into my home” or a public building that welcomes all people (like a courthouse that allows observers). This would mean you, like a (“Buffy”/“Angel” vampire), could not enter someone’s home without their permission but VoP people are not the trespass-kill-loot type of adventurer anyhow.But do VoP characters suck blood like they suck XP? And just suck in general?

[AvatarVecna]

RAW has been slightly altered so that the list of exceptions is easier to parse as a list:


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, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.
You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.

If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.

That's pretty straightforward. "You must not own or use any material possessions", with a few exceptions: non-magic/non-masterwork simple weapons, simle non-magic clothes, a simple non-magic sack or bag, one day's worth of food, and a spell component pouch. You can't use magic items of any kind, but if one is owned by somebody else and it's used on your behalf, the universe doesn't hold that against you.

The RAW is very clear-cut and unambiguous. It's very nonsensical, but there's no question: if we're taking a reading of the restrictions rather than making assumptions about designer intention or common sense, then you cannot use doors, buildings, or roads. Anything that could be material possessions that isn't weapons, clothes, food, bag, or spell component pouch is illegal.

EDIT: As far as "you don't have to use the door handle to open a door" (an argument from the thread that spawned this one), the door is a material possession too, and getting through a door opening requires either an open door or requires you to "use the door" in some fashion, breaking the vow.

[OracleofWuffing]

EDIT: As far as "you don't have to use the door handle to open a door" (an argument from the thread that spawned this one), the door is a material possession too, and getting through a door opening requires either an open door or requires you to "use the door" in some fashion, breaking the vow.
Does destroying a door count as using a door, and if so, what if the door is [Evil]?

[Saintheart]

If it's going to be a RAW debate, you have to define what a 'material possession' is first. Can't see that anyone's done that yet. The books don't define the phrase, so we're cast back on whichever dictionary definition best suits your argument.

However, generally a material possession is understood as something you own, something you have property in, or a something that's one of your 'belongings'. 'Material possession' generally has the baked-in implication that it belongs to you. That remains the case even if the sentence contains a tautology that you cannot own or use a material possession. Poor grammar by the writers doesn't change the meaning of the phrase.

I doubt a door is a material possession unless you've ripped it off its hinges and you're carrying it around.

[AvatarVecna]

Does destroying a door count as using a door, and if so, what if the door is [Evil]?

It probably doesn't count as using a door, although that's part of where we run into the general limitation on Exalted feats:


This book introduces a new type of feat: the exalted feat. 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).

So, it's unclear what "the highest moral standards" are, and what qualifies as "an evil act", at least as far as RAW in concerned. However, we know for sure that the RAW holds the vow-taker to such standards, even if we don't know what those standards are. There is an easy argument to make that destroying another's personal property for the sake of your own convenience is far from an Exalted Good act.

But of course, this is getting into interpretation and DM judgement and what counts as good or evil - which falls within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. While I've not read all the books to know for sure, I feel fairly confident saying that there's no RAW clearly stating that destroying a door owned by somebody else is an evil act.

[AvatarVecna]

If it's going to be a RAW debate, you have to define what a 'material possession' is first. Can't see that anyone's done that yet. The books don't define the phrase, so we're cast back on whichever dictionary definition best suits your argument.

However, generally a material possession is understood as something you own, something you have property in, or a something that's one of your 'belongings'. 'Material possession' generally has the baked-in implication that it belongs to you. That remains the case even if the sentence contains a tautology that you cannot own or use a material possession. Poor grammar by the writers doesn't change the meaning of the phrase.

I doubt a door is a material possession unless you've ripped it off its hinges and you're carrying it around.

Material possessions are things that belong to somebody, things that fall under property rights. The closest we could get to a RAW on material possessions is in-universe property rights and laws pertaining to them. The part of the vow about using material possessions doesn't just apply to material possessions you own. Just because you can't carry around a door, or a wall, or a building, doesn't mean that therefore nobody owns it and it isn't a material possession. Unless this is some kind of ruin unclaimed by any living being as their legal property, that door belongs to somebody, and that makes it a material possession, and so if you use it, you've broken your vow.

So the real strategy for abusing RAW VoP, clearly, is to institute or travel to an anarchic society that doesn't have or respect property rights. If nobody owns anything, then nobody can own that door, and it's not really a material possession, and therefore you can use it freely.

[bekeleven]

These rules as written conversations are religious theological debates :smallsigh:

I'm not the first to comment that a lot of these forums is basically nerd talmud. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud)

[AvatarVecna]

These rules as written conversations are religious theological debates :smallsigh:

In general yeah, and this one in particular can even get.into tye exact nature of good and evil since it's directly relevant to the mechanics.

[Twurps]

I'm not the first to comment that a lot of these forums is basically nerd talmud. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud)

Indeed. which is why I normally steer clear, but let's just say I had an itch to scratch.

I'm staying away from the whole 'what is good and what is evil' thing. In the best of circumstances, that's a whole debate in itself, and with 'the highest moral standards' being brought in, even more so. Instead, back to RAW. AvatarVecna is on to something here. Parsing is a thing.


RAW has been slightly altered so that the list of exceptions is easier to parse as a list:
You have parsed your list in an easy to understand way. However: is that parsing RAW? There's other parsing options available to us as well. lets explore:

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, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.
You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.


If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.
I agree that with this parsing, using door handles (or doors at all) is out.

But parsing could also be like this:
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, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.
You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.
If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.


Now this parsing doesn't make any sense, if fact the whole text becomes nonsense. So this parsing is out. Why do I present it then? Well: This example goes to show that we need to end the list of exeptions somewhere, and that somewhere is not well defined by the parsing of the original text. Hence: Judgement has been used in the first parsing presented. And I'm debating that judgement. With a similar amount of judgement, the parsing could be like this:
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, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf

you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.
You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.


If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.

Why would the first listing end where I've ended it? Well: because and exception to something you can't do, should be something you can do. The list of things you can do, and can therefore be read as an exception, ends where I've ended the parsing.
But Twurps: you've applied judgement. Applying judgement isn't RAW!
Yes I've used judgement. However: any other parsing of the text also requires judgement. The text needs parsing, or it breaks down (as in the second parsing example). Therefore, anybody arguing a VoP-person can't use doors has also applied judgement, consciously or otherwise. So: 'pot vs Kettle'.



The RAW is very clear-cut and unambiguous. It's very nonsensical, but there's no question: if we're taking a reading of the restrictions rather than making assumptions about designer intention or common sense, then you cannot use doors, buildings, or roads. Anything that could be material possessions that isn't weapons, clothes, food, bag, or spell component pouch is illegal.
Note I have not argued designer intent, nor common sense. (all current readings, including my own, defy both I think, but as I said in the OP: lets not discuss how the feat should work) Yet I've arrived at a different conclusion, so maybe RAW isn't as clear-cut?




EDIT: As far as "you don't have to use the door handle to open a door" (an argument from the thread that spawned this one), the door is a material possession too, and getting through a door opening requires either an open door or requires you to "use the door" in some fashion, breaking the vow.

Ok, my bad for not using blue for sarcasm. That was just a joke, not a serious argument.

[AvatarVecna]

Indeed. which is why I normally steer clear, but let's just say I had an itch to scratch.

I'm staying away from the whole 'what is good and what is evil' thing. In the best of circumstances, that's a whole debate in itself, and with 'the highest moral standards' being brought in, even more so. Instead, back to RAW. AvatarVecna is on to something here. Parsing is a thing.


You have parsed your list in an easy to understand way. However: is that parsing RAW? There's other parsing options available to us as well. lets explore:

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, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.
You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.


If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.
I agree that with this parsing, using door handles (or doors at all) is out.

But parsing could also be like this:
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, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.
You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.
If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.


Now this parsing doesn't make any sense, if fact the whole text becomes nonsense. So this parsing is out. Why do I present it then? Well: This example goes to show that we need to end the list of exeptions somewhere, and that somewhere is not well defined by the parsing of the original text. Hence: Judgement has been used in the first parsing presented. And I'm debating that judgement. With a similar amount of judgement, the parsing could be like this:
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, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf

you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.
You may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.


If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.

Why would the first listing end where I've ended it? Well: because and exception to something you can't do, should be something you can do. The list of things you can do, and can therefore be read as an exception, ends where I've ended the parsing.
But Twurps: you've applied judgement. Applying judgement isn't RAW!
Yes I've used judgement. However: any other parsing of the text also requires judgement. The text needs parsing, or it breaks down (as in the second parsing example). Therefore, anybody arguing a VoP-person can't use doors has also applied judgement, consciously or otherwise. So: 'pot vs Kettle'.

Your argument seems to be that one list is "you can't do A, except for B, C, and D" and one list that is, "you can't do E, except for F and G", and since it doesn't specifically call out doors as something you're not allowed to use, you're therefore allowed to use doors. The written rules are: "you must not own or use any material possessions" and "You may not use any magic item of any sort", with both having a few specific exceptions where you are allowed to do something the general rule has forbidden. Doors are not on the list of specific materials possessions allowed, and as most doors aren't magic, they are not magic items that can be used on your behalf by another. If a VoPer were to find an unowned door, they could use it. If one were to find an owned door that was itself a magic item, they could not use it, but somebody else could use it on their behalf.

"I turned my brain off and triple-negative'd my way into misunderstanding the basic words on the page" doesn't mean the RAW isn't clear-cut. The parsing is arbitrary in that it exists to help show the sentence structure in the block of text that is the feat, but putting it into one or two lists doesn't change the words on the page.

EDIT: Like, I'm just straight-up having difficulty even parsing your argument. You seem to be saying "it doesn't say I can't use doors", except it 100% says "you can't use things except this list of things" and doors isn't on that list of things. Would you like a second attempt to explain your point of view?

[Rynjin]

It probably doesn't count as using a door, although that's part of where we run into the general limitation on Exalted feats:



So, it's unclear what "the highest moral standards" are, and what qualifies as "an evil act", at least as far as RAW in concerned. However, we know for sure that the RAW holds the vow-taker to such standards, even if we don't know what those standards are. There is an easy argument to make that destroying another's personal property for the sake of your own convenience is far from an Exalted Good act.

But of course, this is getting into interpretation and DM judgement and what counts as good or evil - which falls within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. While I've not read all the books to know for sure, I feel fairly confident saying that there's no RAW clearly stating that destroying a door owned by somebody else is an evil act.

I can settle this pretty easily.

Kings have a divine right to rule, therefore everything they do is good

So entering every room like Kuzco (youtube_share;ZX-n1VeASW4]https://youtu.be/ZX-n1VeASW4?t=28) is perfectly acceptable

As we also know, obeying your parents is likewise a righteous virtue, so if it's good enough for Timmy's dad it's good enough for an Exalted character


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrnXNwqWLUA

Using the doorknob though? Only villains or worse plebeians would commit such a venal act

[AvatarVecna]

I can settle this pretty easily.

Kings have a divine right to rule, therefore everything they do is good

So entering every room like Kuzco (youtube_share;ZX-n1VeASW4]https://youtu.be/ZX-n1VeASW4?t=28) is perfectly acceptable

As we also know, obeying your parents is likewise a righteous virtue, so if it's good enough for Timmy's dad it's good enough for an Exalted character


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrnXNwqWLUA

Using the doorknob though? Only villains or worse plebeians would commit such a venal act

"I ascribe to a nihilistic utilitarian view on morality. And ultimately, none of my actions are good or evil because in the end, the heat death of the universe will claim us all and there's nothing I or anybody else can do about that. We are all but dust in the wind, and the so-called consequences of our actions are merely slight fluctuations in the grand destiny of the universe. Therefore, nothing I do would constitute an evil act, and thus I'm incapable of breaking my vow in that manner."

But also maybe don't try this argument at the game table because the only thing worse than gamers arguing about game rules is anyone arguing about religion or politics or morality. There are quicker and easier ways to end your friendship with a handful of people at once.

[Thurbane]

Surely Krusk isn't evil?

http://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1447549900091.png

[King of Nowhere]

interesting logical conundrum.
of course we all know the RAI of the issue, but the raw looks clear.

On the other hand, the DMG states many times that the rules are not to be taken too strictly (I don't have my copy here to make exact references, and my copy is in italian anyway so i couldn't reference exactly). So, I can make an argument that by following strict RAW, you are violating RAW.
This would result in a logical snag in the space-time continuum that would destroy the whole universe.
The in-game universe, of course.


Maybe a way to split the difference is you are allowed the use of a building, including its door knobs on its doors, if the owner of the building allows it (like a friend saying “you are welcome into my home” or a public building that welcomes all people (like a courthouse that allows observers). This would mean you, like a (“Buffy”/“Angel” vampire), could not enter someone’s home without their permission but VoP people are not the trespass-kill-loot type of adventurer anyhow.

I'm now picturing a holy crusader assaulting the villain's lair, but being twarted by a closed door. They can certainly kill the villain and his minions because they are EVIL, but they can't enter the lair unless invited...

[Twurps]

EDIT: Like, I'm just straight-up having difficulty even parsing your argument. You seem to be saying "it doesn't say I can't use doors", except it 100% says "you can't use things except this list of things" and doors isn't on that list of things. Would you like a second attempt to explain your point of view?

The parsing argument I made needs to be viewed in combination with my earlier post with all arguments and counterarguments. As that one is quite long, lets try the shorter version.

1) 'Door use is banned' argument hinges on the 'possessions' part to mean anybody's possessions, not just the VoP-person (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25135523&postcount=2).

2) That argument can be invalidated because the text later goes on to clarify whose possessions are meant. Most prominently by the ebony Fly thing (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25135529&postcount=3).

3) 'Door use is banned' argument now hinges on the fact that the ebony fly thing is just a specific exception (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25135532&postcount=4). If the ebony fly thing is just a specific exeption, it doesn't counter point 1.

4)Parsing is needed to know if point 3 holds. Parsing as you presented makes the ebony fly a specific example, so point 2 fails. 'door use is banned' holds.
However: Parsing as I presented it, makes the ebony fly thing not a specific exception. So point 3 fails, meaning point 2 holds, meaning point 1 fails. VoP person can use doors.

That is about as simple as I can make it, and includes all arguments I've seen presented in this topic so far.

[Kitsuneymg]

I guess you can’t use an outhouse either. Or the road to the next town.

Can you use your time? Whether wisely or unwisely doesn’t matter I guess, unless an unwise use of time is evil because it’s a waste of time, and waste is bad.

[Telonius]

Trying to step very carefully because of forum rules here - but possession generally implies individual possession, in those sorts of vows. If there were a group of people who took a vow of poverty, they would likely treat a "public good" (that is, something that isn't owned individually but there for everybody), as not a possession and therefore not a violation of the oath. Some groups might extend that to the group itself: that if something isn't owned by the members individually but by the group generally, it would count as okay to have and use.

"Material" possession is kind of important here too. Using your own time, or education, or something like that, isn't a material thing.

[Thane of Fife]

The parsing argument I made needs to be viewed in combination with my earlier post with all arguments and counterarguments. As that one is quite long, lets try the shorter version.

1) 'Door use is banned' argument hinges on the 'possessions' part to mean anybody's possessions, not just the VoP-person (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25135523&postcount=2).

2) That argument can be invalidated because the text later goes on to clarify whose possessions are meant. Most prominently by the ebony Fly thing (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25135529&postcount=3).

3) 'Door use is banned' argument now hinges on the fact that the ebony fly thing is just a specific exception (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25135532&postcount=4). If the ebony fly thing is just a specific exeption, it doesn't counter point 1.

4)Parsing is needed to know if point 3 holds. Parsing as you presented makes the ebony fly a specific example, so point 2 fails. 'door use is banned' holds.
However: Parsing as I presented it, makes the ebony fly thing not a specific exception. So point 3 fails, meaning point 2 holds, meaning point 1 fails. VoP person can use doors.

That is about as simple as I can make it, and includes all arguments I've seen presented in this topic so far.

I think that the bit about the Ebony Fly is clarifying what using a magic item means, not providing a specific exception based on ownership. It's saying that having a spell cast on you from a wand, scroll, or staff, or riding an ebony fly that was activated by someone else, counts as benefiting from someone else's use and not using it yourself. The bit about drinking a potion your friend gives you might appear to contradict that, but based on the first half of the sentence, I think that is clumsily referring to another character administering a potion to you, and saying that such would not count as you using the potion.

I think that this is basically in agreement with the SRD section on Using [magic] Items (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#usingItems), which generally refers to activating them and not to interacting with the results of their activation.

[AvatarVecna]

The parsing argument I made needs to be viewed in combination with my earlier post with all arguments and counterarguments. As that one is quite long, lets try the shorter version.

1) 'Door use is banned' argument hinges on the 'possessions' part to mean anybody's possessions, not just the VoP-person (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25135523&postcount=2).

2) That argument can be invalidated because the text later goes on to clarify whose possessions are meant. Most prominently by the ebony Fly thing (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25135529&postcount=3).

3) 'Door use is banned' argument now hinges on the fact that the ebony fly thing is just a specific exception (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25135532&postcount=4). If the ebony fly thing is just a specific exeption, it doesn't counter point 1.

4)Parsing is needed to know if point 3 holds. Parsing as you presented makes the ebony fly a specific example, so point 2 fails. 'door use is banned' holds.
However: Parsing as I presented it, makes the ebony fly thing not a specific exception. So point 3 fails, meaning point 2 holds, meaning point 1 fails. VoP person can use doors.

That is about as simple as I can make it, and includes all arguments I've seen presented in this topic so far.

Alright, that's helpful and I can see what you're saying now. To address it: the problem with your argument is that 2 is incorrect.


You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.

2 is only correct if you read the above sentence and assume that the ebony fly example means that "things used on your behalf" applies to non-magic items. Which it doesn't. The ebony fly is not a specific exception, it's an example of the exception provided earlier in the same sentence, which is about magic items used on your behalf (not just material possessions in general).

"You can benefit from magic items used on your behalf" is pretty clear-cut about the kinds of things can be used by others on your behalf (specifically, magic items). Thus, doors that aren't magic items can't be used on your behalf, because there is no exception made for the use of non-magic items regardless of how you parse the paragraph (since the parsing argument is only really about whether magic items have to follow the rules about material possessions, or just the rules about magic items).

If you parse the two parts of the paragraphs as being completely separate from each other, there is no stipulation in the "material possessions" section to indicate that other people's possessions can be used on your behalf - that stipulation only exists in the magic item section, and it is explicitly only about magic items being used on your behalf. So regardless of whether it's parsed as one part or two, that exception doesn't apply to material possessions in general, it only applies to magic items.

Parsing does potentially have a weird effect on the RAW, though: if we assume things are parsed the way you were talking about before, then essentially you're reading Vow Of Poverty as saying that magic items are not material possessions (or at least, they don't have to follow VoP's "material possession" rules, just VoP's "magic item" rules). It's assuming that these two rules are separate from each other and apply to different groups:


you must not own or use any material possessions


You may not use any magic item of any sort

Parsing RAW in this way does create a weirdness: if magic items are not a subset of material possessions for the purposes of Vow Of Poverty, then a VoP-er is allowed to own magic items, they're just not allowed to use them (although once again, others can use those magic items on the VoP's behalf). Granted, I think it's silly to assume that magic items don't have to follow the material possession rules, but if you read them as separate parts of the rules, you could totally have a VoP-er with a backpack full of scrolls and wands and things like that. So long as he doesn't use them!

I think there exists some ambiguity in VoP that can't be parsed without bringing in interpretation or adjudication of some kind: VoP largely focuses around forbidding you from "using" things, but what kind of things can even be "used"? Can you use a sword? That seems like a yes, seems intuitive, "I use the sword" parses. Can you use a tent? Yeah that parses. Can you use a door? That kinda parses - most people don't talk like that usually, but if somebody said they used the door, you'd understand what they meant. Can you use a building? That's kinda weird - it makes sense to say "I used the house for shelter", but people don't usually talk like that. Houses aren't the kind of thing you generally "use". That line has to get drawn somewhere, and because the RAW doesn't include a definition of "use", we can't really say where that line definitively is.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I think there exists some ambiguity in VoP that can't be parsed without bringing in interpretation or adjudication of some kind: VoP largely focuses around forbidding you from "using" things, but what kind of things can even be "used"? Can you use a sword? That seems like a yes, seems intuitive, "I use the sword" parses. Can you use a tent? Yeah that parses. Can you use a door? That kinda parses - most people don't talk like that usually, but if somebody said they used the door, you'd understand what they meant. Can you use a building? That's kinda weird - it makes sense to say "I used the house for shelter", but people don't usually talk like that. Houses aren't the kind of thing you generally "use". That line has to get drawn somewhere, and because the RAW doesn't include a definition of "use", we can't really say where that line definitively is.The house thing is because we "use" houses often enough in various ways that we tend to use phrases for those specific actions rather than using the word "use." For less common actions, however, it makes sense. "I used the house as cover to shield me from the explosion," for instance. Not something you typically do with a house, so there's no typical phrase for it.

But yes, houses are possessions, and yes, they are used for things. They're not on VoP's allowed list, either, so...

It's weird that an ally can use a magic tower shield to give you cover but not a nonmagical one. That is weird, right? Not just me?

[AvatarVecna]

It's weird that an ally can use a magic tower shield to give you cover but not a nonmagical one. That is weird, right? Not just me?

It's very weird. But that's RAW for you. A properly-written Vow Of Poverty (probably) doesn't read like this for a bunch of reasons. Life is complicated enough that the reasonable way to write it would be to list specific things you can't do, rather than say "you can't do anything other than [exceptions]", but that would still be an awful lot of minutiae and it'd probably end up multiple pages long.

[Khatoblepas]

Clearly the solution to opening doors as someone with VoP is to Craft the door into quarterstaves, since you CAN use quarterstaves, and having a functionally infinite amount of them isn't disallowed:


You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick.

If only improvised weapons were classed as simple, then you could just wield any item as a weapon. But alas, any wooden barrier in our way must be crafted for us to use it. It'll take no time, just punch the door and it'll instantly turn into quarterstaffs.

[bekeleven]

I remember back in the day before I signed up for the wizards forums. I was playing a Vow of Poverty fighter. At one point we got a +1 greatsword and the DM told me, "Looks good for a fighter." I just frowned and said, "I can't use magical items. Vow of Poverty."

He looks over his DM screen at me and responds, "What? But you'd be using it to vanquish evil. Take the sword."

And that's the story of how two people with 0 system mastery balanced the most controversial feat in the game.

[AvatarVecna]

I remember back in the day before I signed up for the wizards forums. I was playing a Vow of Poverty fighter. At one point we got a +1 greatsword and the DM told me, "Looks good for a fighter." I just frowned and said, "I can't use magical items. Vow of Poverty."

He looks over his DM screen at me and responds, "What? But you'd be using it to vanquish evil. Take the sword."

And that's the story of how two people with 0 system mastery balanced the most controversial feat in the game.

Man I wish my DM would allow a feat designed to replace magic items to stack with magic items. Sounds pretty balanced to me. :smalltongue:

[bekeleven]

Man I wish my DM would allow a feat designed to replace magic items to stack with magic items. Sounds pretty balanced to me. :smalltongue:

We eventually settled that I could have 2 magical weapons (sword+bow), and standard nonmagical adventuring gear (backpack, bedroll, rations, arrows, etc.) Which goes a long way to making the feat actually functional!

Also, to bring it back to this thread, I could... you know, use doors and stuff.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

We eventually settled that I could have 2 magical weapons (sword+bow), and standard nonmagical adventuring gear (backpack, bedroll, rations, arrows, etc.) Which goes a long way to making the feat actually functional!

Also, to bring it back to this thread, I could... you know, use doors and stuff.Sounds like a great use for a +1 riverine metalline/morphing/sizing weapon. It can be practically anything, and a very useful multitool as a result.

[Twurps]

Alright, that's helpful and I can see what you're saying now. To address it: the problem with your argument is that 2 is incorrect.

You make a good point there. Either you parse it as different arguments, or you don't. I was kinda mixing the two. So argument 2 fails either way you parse it. Sorry VoP-dudes: doors are out! :P

Funny how you mention one can have magic items, just not use them as a dysfunction. That actually isn't a dysfunction. it's very useful. A VoP dude is supposed to donate his part of the treasure to the poor. Without this: how is he supposed to get his part of the magical items to the poor? "Hi there poor person. Worry no longer, I shall alleviate your suffering! Al you have to do is cross the Forrest of horrible beasts, then descend into the cave of deadly bat-swarms until you reach the lake of burning lava. At it's shores, you'll find enough magic items to support you and your family for generations! Have a nice day!"

The real dysfunction is that there's no such caveat for bringing your non-magic treasure to the poor.

As I haven't seen any new arguments in a while, nor came up with any myself. I think I'll call it for the 'doors are out' camp defintively now. Thanks all for the contributions. All that's left now is to actually build that tibbit, meowing at the door.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Do note that VoP characters only have to give "most" of their loot to charity. That is, over 50%. So 50.01% goes to charity; the rest can go to the party. Or better yet, give 100% of the loot to the party, which is now a governmentally-recognized charity organization working to protect civilization from world-ending threats, or whatever.

[Thurbane]

If you take the Spell Hand feat, you get Open/Close SLA 1/day (as well as Mage and and Tenser's Floating Disc). Although I'm not sure if this would still count as "using" the door handle anyway.

Never noticed the wright limit on Open/Close before, may not be useful for a lot of doors anyway.

Obviously the door handle issue will be easier to deal with for caster-y types who can simply teleport past or phase through doors.

Wild Cohort and train an ape to open doors for you? I'm assuming VoP does not restrict having cohorts or similar?

[OracleofWuffing]

Kings have a divine right to rule, therefore everything they do is good
Well, everything they do is Lawful. Otherwise, that divine right could be granted by an [Evil] Divinity, and they would be doing [Good] no matter how many puppies they kick.

Then again, I guess that does explain Pelor.

[Thurbane]

Maybe there is some kind of exalted group or organisation that has non-VoP members who volunteer their time opening doors etc. for VoP characters? :smallbiggrin:

They also have a small fleet of Ebony Flies for rapid deployment and taxi services. :smalltongue:

[Remuko]

Clearly the solution to opening doors as someone with VoP is to Craft the door into quarterstaves, since you CAN use quarterstaves, and having a functionally infinite amount of them isn't disallowed:



If only improvised weapons were classed as simple, then you could just wield any item as a weapon. But alas, any wooden barrier in our way must be crafted for us to use it. It'll take no time, just punch the door and it'll instantly turn into quarterstaffs.

but would not breaking the door count as using the door for crafting materials for the quarterstaffs?

[bekeleven]

Maybe there is some kind of exalted group or organisation that has non-VoP members who volunteer their time opening doors etc. for VoP characters? :smallbiggrin:
Speaking of the Talmud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbos_goy)

[pabelfly]

Do note that VoP characters only have to give "most" of their loot to charity. That is, over 50%. So 50.01% goes to charity; the rest can go to the party. Or better yet, give 100% of the loot to the party, which is now a governmentally-recognized charity organization working to protect civilization from world-ending threats, or whatever.

The feat is at least well-written enough to call that out:


Having a character in the party who has taken a vow of poverty should not necessarily mean that the other party members get bigger shares of treasure

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The feat is at least well-written enough to call that out:"...should not necessarily" is the key phrase, there.

If the party is considered a charity (and given how many parties make the world a better place from all the monsters they kill and people they help), you're explicitly allowed to give the money to them. What better way to help the most people than by saving your nation and/or world from destruction repeatedly?

[Particle_Man]

I'm now picturing a holy crusader assaulting the villain's lair, but being twarted by a closed door. They can certainly kill the villain and his minions because they are EVIL, but they can't enter the lair unless invited...

There is a Deep Space Nine joke about that. There was a group of heroes that felt doomed and were willing to make an almost-certain suicide run vs their enemy to try for just a small desperate chance of victory . . . but they could not get past the locked door.

[King of Nowhere]

Wait, i got the solution:
By wop, you can't use possessions, right?
But what counts as a possession? Now, there are many possible definitions, but since this thread is about finding raw loopholes, i'll define "possession" as something with a price.
And the dmg gives no price for doors. Maybe there is something in the stronghold builder book, but it's 3.0 and therefore there's enough of an argument that it does not count.
Hence, doors have no cost, and they are not possessions, and a vop character can use them. Or carry an infinite amount in their inventory xD

[AvatarVecna]

You make a good point there. Either you parse it as different arguments, or you don't. I was kinda mixing the two. So argument 2 fails either way you parse it. Sorry VoP-dudes: doors are out! :P

Funny how you mention one can have magic items, just not use them as a dysfunction. That actually isn't a dysfunction. it's very useful. A VoP dude is supposed to donate his part of the treasure to the poor. Without this: how is he supposed to get his part of the magical items to the poor? "Hi there poor person. Worry no longer, I shall alleviate your suffering! Al you have to do is cross the Forrest of horrible beasts, then descend into the cave of deadly bat-swarms until you reach the lake of burning lava. At it's shores, you'll find enough magic items to support you and your family for generations! Have a nice day!"

The real dysfunction is that there's no such caveat for bringing your non-magic treasure to the poor.

As I haven't seen any new arguments in a while, nor came up with any myself. I think I'll call it for the 'doors are out' camp defintively now. Thanks all for the contributions. All that's left now is to actually build that tibbit, meowing at the door.

It's not a dysfunction regardless because the rules aren't contradicting themselves. And it's only the case if you read "magic items" as not being "material possessions".


Wait, i got the solution:
By wop, you can't use possessions, right?
But what counts as a possession? Now, there are many possible definitions, but since this thread is about finding raw loopholes, i'll define "possession" as something with a price.
And the dmg gives no price for doors. Maybe there is something in the stronghold builder book, but it's 3.0 and therefore there's enough of an argument that it does not count.
Hence, doors have no cost, and they are not possessions, and a vop character can use them. Or carry an infinite amount in their inventory xD

That's not how it works. 3.0 material that isn't overridden by 3.5 material is grandfathered in. If the DMG or some other 3.5 source doesn't give a price for doors, then we default to the 3.0 rule - in this case, the SBG costs.

[Thurbane]

How about intelligent artifacts?

They have no listed price, and being intelligent you could argue that they are beings, rather than possessions (IIRC intelligent magic items are considered Constructs).

It would have to be a non-weapon, non-clothing artifact, since magical weapons and clothes are expressly forbidden.

[edit] Never mind, just re-read it:


You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf—you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly.

So, it would have to be an item that was capable of activating itself, so you are not technically "using it", it is "using itself on your behalf".

Would also need to be able to move itself without you "carrying" it.



Also, just had another thought. A corpse or body is considered an object, I believe. If a companion dies, you can't carry him to a church to be Raised. :smallsigh:

Unless you could feasibly eat the corpse in one day, then it's fine. :smallbiggrin:

[bekeleven]

Also, just had another thought. A corpse or body is considered an object, I believe. If a companion dies, you can't carry him to a church to be Raised. :smallsigh:Sometimes. Other times it's more convenient to the rules if they're a creature with the dead condition.

[ciopo]

I sidestep the "own or use" issue of VoP by applying it on a metagame level : to own or use something for the purpose of VoP, means you have to track it on your character sheet. You don't necessarily have to write it down even if it's just a temporary thing.

Anything that doesn't require writing it down on the "equipment" sheet is fair game : opening a door, sleeping on a bed, having the party pay for a meal at a restaurant, traveling by ship etc are all okay. Picking up a sword to make an attack is not, because even if you know the statblock by heart, it is something that you would need to record. Picking up a sword to pass it over to a party member is no problem. Intent matters :)

It get a bit wonky when it comes to mounts : are you "owning" something forbidden if your class has an animal companion? what about an animal that you rear and train yourself? is riding an horse "forbidden"?

[King of Nowhere]

That's not how it works. 3.0 material that isn't overridden by 3.5 material is grandfathered in. If the DMG or some other 3.5 source doesn't give a price for doors, then we default to the 3.0 rule - in this case, the SBG costs.

In that case, i can still hope there is no written price for common doors specifically. It can still work; unless the door has something special, it is still not a material possession, merely part of one. And the vop say nothing of using parts of possessions.

Another possible scapegoat could be to make a vow of turning metal bars several times per day, as a token of devotion.
Why not? Some people vow to stop shaving, i can vow to turn metal bars? You should respect other religions.
And if some evil mastermind has rigged some of those metal bars to some diabolical machinery so that a possession will be used when one is turned - with the clear intent of trying to make me fall - yhen i take no responsibility.
I mean, if a villain rigged an altar of heironeous so that praying on it caused an innocent to die, a paladin haplessly praying on the altar would not bear any sin.
Yes, i am hapless. The machinery opening the door is all hidden inside, and with no trapfinding skillls i can't be expected to know about it

[InvisibleBison]

But what counts as a possession? Now, there are many possible definitions, but since this thread is about finding raw loopholes, i'll define "possession" as something with a price.

That's not how it works. If the game doesn't provide a definition for a term, you have to use the normal dictionary definition. You can't just make up your own definition.

[Remuko]

It get a bit wonky when it comes to mounts : are you "owning" something forbidden if your class has an animal companion? what about an animal that you rear and train yourself? is riding an horse "forbidden"?

I don't/wouldn't count living things as "possessions". You don't own lives. Pets, mounts, animal companions etc should be absolutely acceptable.

[Twurps]

Ok. Guess I'm back after giving this some more thought.

So by the stricktest RAW reading: doors are out. I won't contest that for now. Something was still bugging me though. I had difficulty figuring out what is was, but Remuko (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25137107&postcount=41) triggered me in another thread, and now I know. So here goes:

With the slightest bid of effort/interpretation, it should be very clear what is meant by the feat. I really don't think the feat is written all that bad. Yes it requires some interpretation and many a 'RAW diehard' will maintain that no amount of interpretation is allowed, and therefore VoP is written badly*. However: VoP can't be the only piece of text requiring some interpretation right? I mean: apart from the usual 'drown healing', 'kobold are true dragons' etc. Any piece of text should require some interpretation, and break down without it. So I went bookdiving for a good 30 second before finding my first example: Power attack!

Now either I've been playing power attack wrong all these years, or it is actually a great debuff tool.


On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

You'll notice it doesn't specify who's attack and damage rolls are affected. Therefore by the logic applied to VoP earlier, it should apply to all attack rolls by all players, npc's and monsters alike. So Bob the fighter can hold off the horde of orcs coming down the corridor by simply power attacking for full, never hitting and never getting hit, whilst his magic user buddies prepare to finish the fight with 'non attack roll' stuff/spells.

Does Power attack have an equally bad rep? Or do you playgrounders really play power attack as a debuff tool and I was just missing out? Have I missed a clarification somewhere?



*Now if I was the author, I might argue that my intentions were never to write a RAW proof book. If you can't make it work in your games the way it is, buy another book/play another game, whatever... But that's a discussion for another day.

[Voldine]

*scrubbed* because it means Vow of Poverty characters can't exist at all because everything is owned or claimed by something. Forget roads, the LAND itself is possessed by someone. Forget doors, you can't get within miles of any building that sits on land owned by anybody because that would be making use of the land! You can't get around it by flying either, you're still within the commonly-recognized definition of property boundaries. Even in the wilderness you're within SOME deity's domain, and therefore making use of something owned by an entity!

*scrubbed* otherwise every character loses Vow of Poverty the second they take the feat because they were BREATHING and are thus making use of the oxygen produced by trees owned by whatever local lord or deity of air/nature.

[Twurps]

Keep in mind it was supposed to be a fully RAW thread. As I explicitly stated in my OP. Nobody here is claiming this is the how it should be played in a real game. (As far as I can tell).

Having said that: My Power attack question still stands.
I know what it is supposed to do, and I'm not advocating to use it any other way. But holding it to same RAW standards as VoP, would the result be as wonky as VoP's?
Or is there something I've missed?

[noob]

Now you actually found an use for fighters.
Congratulations.
Now I am thinking about applying this reading to my game.
Oh sorry I realised this interpretation is only in English: power attack in the language the players of my table speak does not have this debuff power.

[JoeNapalm]

By the absurd assumptions of these arguments, the RAW doesn't say you can breathe air, either.

Making you an oxygen thief.

Along with anyone making this argument. :mitd:


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[MaxiDuRaritry]

By the absurd assumptions of these arguments, the RAW doesn't say you can breathe air, either.

Making you an oxygen thief.

Along with anyone making this argument. :mitd:


-Jn-
Ifriti SophistIf it were a tank of air, sure. But as far as I know, nobody "owns" air otherwise.

[Voldine]

If it were a tank of air, sure. But as far as I know, nobody "owns" air otherwise.

You're wrong. Clearly if opening a door disables VoP, so does breathing because Air is a possible cleric domain and therefore all air belongs to deities.

The logic is just as sound.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You're wrong. Clearly if opening a door disables VoP, so does breathing because Air is a possible cleric domain and therefore all air belongs to deities.

The logic is just as sound.You're only making RAW even more stupid, if that actually is the case.

[noob]

Now I am imagining an undead doing the vow of poverty.

[Brackenlord]

No need for undeath, it just means only vowers of 12th level and beyond can actually fufill their VoP.

[Unavenger]

The purpose of a door is to prevent people moving through a doorway. If anything, closing, not opening, the door would count as using it.

Not that it matters, as a door can be an improvised greatclub, thus making it a nonmagical, nonmasterwork simple weapon, and therefore falling under the very first exceptions clause. He who lives by the RAW shall die by the RAW, after all.

[Segev]

While I am all for pedantic readings of the RAW for its amusement value as well as to find interesting interactions, and even to identify dysfunctions, I do not think the readings that say you can't use a doorknob hold water.

As noted, the line, "...though you may benefit from items used on your behalf--" explicitly includes examples of you using something somebody loans or even gives you for the express purpose of using.

Equally shaky is the claim that you can't use a scroll of heal on an ally even though you could benefit from an ally using one on you. You're providing a service to them - using the scroll on them - not using something on yourself.

The real problem with VoP's RAW is, yes, where you draw that line. I think the RAW actually do a very good job of using examples to spell it out: you can benefit from others using items on you, and can share in benefit of items being used, but you can't take long-term advantage of this to own-without-owning something "on [permanent] loan" to you. The biggest gray area is the potion thing, which you explicitly may do, and the question of whether you can be a pack mule for others. That's going to have to be a DM call on where the line is drawn, because nothing says you can't carry somebody else's stuff for them, but there is a fairly clear "you know it when you see it" line between "carrying somebody else's stuff and occasionally or even regularly using it on their behalf" and "carrying 'somebody else's' stuff and using it 'on their behalf.'" The DM would draw that line, because there's just no way to codify every possible situation. The RAW provide sufficient examples that I think most DMs could make that ruling, even if not all DMs would agree on that ruling in all cases.

[JoeNapalm]

If it were a tank of air, sure. But as far as I know, nobody "owns" air otherwise.

"Look, he owns all the air (https://youtu.be/EAVp5tZKgYw) south of Beijing."


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[OracleofWuffing]

The purpose of a door is to prevent people moving through a doorway. If anything, closing, not opening, the door would count as using it.
There's a silly little trick in Minecraft where you install a door (which is "closed" by default) rotated ninety degrees from where you need it, then "open" it, causing it to block the path that it would have blocked had the door been placed in a normal orientation. There exist mobs that try to break down doors, but will not do so if the door is open, so they don't target such doors. I know that's drifting away from RAW, I'm not entirely certain if doors even have an "open" and "closed" state by RAW, but the overall point is that the two states are relative so there's wiggle room.

... I am now picturing an evil revolving door, as well. :smalltongue:

[Voldine]

You're only making RAW even more stupid, if that actually is the case.

No. It's just the logical conclusion of the train of thought that begins with "using a door violates Vow of Poverty." A ludicrous premise has an equally ludicrous conclusion.

[Saintheart]

And we can't even get around it by leaving the door slightly open, because even if it's not a door, it is still a jar.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

No. It's just the logical conclusion of the train of thought that begins with "using a door violates Vow of Poverty." A ludicrous premise has an equally ludicrous conclusion.So you're saying that if someone breaks the door of your house down IRL, you can't do anything because it's not your property? Because that's what it's sounding like.

[Twurps]

reasonable stuff

I fully agree Segev, and I actually think it's a well written feat. Yes is required more interpretation than most feats, but so does the entire 'highest moral standards' of the book. I like that. some people don't. To each their own.

It's just that I heard the doorhandle thing so often, and I really didn't understand where it comes from. Now I do. Doesn't mean I have/want to actually use it in a game mind you. I'm just happy I get the reference now.

And as for the 'highest moral standards': it seems like people hold this book itself to higher standards as well. I mean: I've never seen power attack get the same flack.
So maybe part of the bad rep is also just people not liking the feat and going out of their way to find ways to dislike it? (NOT directed at anybody in this thread: I asked for the most strict RAW reading, and that's what I got. So thanks)

[noob]

I fully agree Segev, and I actually think it's a well written feat. Yes is required more interpretation than most feats, but so does the entire 'highest moral standards' of the book. I like that. some people don't. To each their own.

It's just that I heard the doorhandle thing so often, and I really didn't understand where it comes from. Now I do. Doesn't mean I have/want to actually use it in a game mind you. I'm just happy I get the reference now.

And as for the 'highest moral standards': it seems like people hold this book itself to higher standards as well. I mean: I've never seen power attack get the same flack.
So maybe part of the bad rep is also just people not liking the feat and going out of their way to find ways to dislike it? (NOT directed at anybody in this thread: I asked for the most strict RAW reading, and that's what I got. So thanks)

Power attack simply does not have the same meme potential.

[Thurbane]

If we to read a strictly RAW version of VoP, there are things that would be more problematic than door handles.

I believe roads were brought up: that would mean a VoP character couldn't set foot on the King's Road, for instance. Travelling along a road is most definitely using it, and, especially in feudal settings, someone nearly always owns the roads, rather than them being public property.

Would being on a mount negate this? Can VoP characters "own" a mount? If not, you better hope you have at-will fly, or a party member strong enough to carry you.

[noob]

I can now imagine a vampire saying they took the vop in order to get people to open doors for them.
"Sir you do not breath" "Yes because it would break my vow of poverty"