PDA

View Full Version : Book of Exalted Cheese?



Jimp
2008-03-24, 05:14 PM
I just read the BoED being called the Book of Exalted Cheese in another thread.
I'm just wondering why it has gotten this name.

Talya
2008-03-24, 05:23 PM
Probably because of someone reading vow of poverty and mistakenly thinking it was overpowered due to not thinking things through.

Other than Words of Creation, there isn't much in the book that would qualify as "cheesy."

monty
2008-03-24, 05:30 PM
I haven't really looked into the abuse potential, but it has some interesting stuff. My favorite: Vow of Poverty. You trade money, magic items, and two feats for, by 20th level:
11 bonus feats (if you take it at first level by being human or taking flaws)
Endure Elements
Big AC bonus (and a deflection bonus)
Exalted Strike (makes all your weapons magic [and good] anyway)
No need to eat, drink, or breathe
Bonuses to 4 of your abilities
Natural armor
Immunity to detect thoughts and stuff like that
Damage Reduction
Energy Resistance
Freedom of Movement
Regeneration
True Seeing

Could conceivably be overpowered if you played it right.
Also, it makes for really interesting roleplaying. I'm planning to add a goblin Apostle of Peace to my current campaign as a cohort when I can get it.

Tengu
2008-03-24, 05:36 PM
VoP is overpowered only if your DM is stingy on money and magical items, which means he deserves having a VoP character in his campaign as the reason most DMs do that is because they want to have a hip, dark and edgy Low Magic world that DND is not made to represent.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-24, 05:38 PM
Probably because of someone reading vow of poverty and mistakenly thinking it was overpowered due to not thinking things through.

Other than Words of Creation, there isn't much in the book that would qualify as "cheesy."

There's actually a bunch of stuff.

-The Amulet of Retribution. Anything hitting me in melee takes half the damage it deals? Really?
-The Starmantle Cloak. And I take half the weapon damage I'd otherwise take? Really?

-Some spells--like that one that does Wisdom damage on a SUCCESSFUL save (or it might just be no-save), and a lot of it.

Words of Creation, on the other hand, isn't actually cheesy.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-24, 05:38 PM
General consensus on the charop boards is that Vow of Poverty, while it could "conceivably" be overpowered, is factually underpowered as compared to regular WBL, and is only worth taking if you DM hands out significantly less wealth than that, or possibly if you're playing a druid.

However, the BOEC has some other items in it that may be considered cheesy, such as the Vow of Nonviolence's +4 bonus to your save DCs, which can be overpowering for e.g. Beguilers.

puppyavenger
2008-03-24, 05:39 PM
I haven't really looked into the abuse potential, but it has some interesting stuff. My favorite: Vow of Poverty. You trade money, magic items, and two feats for, by 20th level:
11 bonus feats (if you take it at first level by being human or taking flaws)
Endure Elements
Big AC bonus (and a deflection bonus)
Exalted Strike (makes all your weapons magic [and good] anyway)
No need to eat, drink, or breathe
Bonuses to 4 of your abilities
Natural armor
Immunity to detect thoughts and stuff like that
Damage Reduction
Energy Resistance
Freedom of Movement
Regeneration
True Seeing

Could conceivably be overpowered if you played it right.
Also, it makes for really interesting roleplaying. I'm planning to add a goblin Apostle of Peace to my current campaign as a cohort when I can get it.

so sauce on your druid-steak?

Saph
2008-03-24, 05:40 PM
It's not really all that cheesy. There are a few slightly overpowered or badly worded spells (like Starmantle and the Starmantle Cloak) but not that many.

Anyway, just have a look at the amount of work it requires to be Exalted-level Good by the BoED's standards. It's enormous. I'd say that anyone who can actually manage that and keep it up for a whole campaign deserves a few goodies.

- Saph

Frosty
2008-03-24, 05:42 PM
Exalted characters make your average Paladin look like shifty crack dealers who pimp prostitutes on the side (if male) or *are* prostitutes on the side (if female)

Dode
2008-03-24, 05:45 PM
I always thought the nastiest thing in the BoED was Touch of Golden Ice. Reqs: Con 13+, Good Alignment and it lets you deal the equivalent of a 1200 gp poison on all your unarmed and natural attacks for free.

monty
2008-03-24, 05:46 PM
so sauce on your druid-steak?

Pretty much.

"I'm not allowed to wear any armor or use magic items? So what?"

Tokiko Mima
2008-03-24, 05:46 PM
I'd like to add ravages and afflictions to the list of 'could be cheesy' things. They're poisons that only affect evil creatures. They're ideal for poisoning a villages well. Only evil people would suffer or die! :smalltongue:

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-24, 05:50 PM
The saint template is the most undervalued template in the game by level adjustment against abilities, except possibly half-minotaur and half-ogre.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-24, 05:54 PM
The saint template is the most undervalued template in the game by level adjustment against abilities, except possibly half-minotaur and half-ogre.

Feral. stupid character minimum

monty
2008-03-24, 06:05 PM
The saint template is the most undervalued template in the game by level adjustment against abilities, except possibly half-minotaur and half-ogre.

Oh yeah, forgot about the saint. If you manage to get past my higher AC, damage reduction, immunities, and protective SLAs/supernatural abilities, you take damage from hitting me. Then I just fast heal the damage away and beat the crap out of you.

And that's not all.

sonofzeal
2008-03-24, 06:12 PM
The saint template is the most undervalued template in the game by level adjustment against abilities, except possibly half-minotaur and half-ogre.
Agreed. The text even pretty much comes out and states that it's overpowered. The drawback is in the RP restrictions - you can never, ever, even once, even if you got Atoned afterward, have committed an evil act. That's pretty brutal, you have to admit. But yeah, as long as you keep inside the lines you're the next best thing to Divine Rank 0.

Tengu
2008-03-24, 06:20 PM
Really?


Yareely on, love.

Sorry, I had to say that.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-24, 06:29 PM
Yareely on, love.

Sorry, I had to say that.

...
aaaaaaaaaargh.

Tengu
2008-03-24, 06:40 PM
Judging from that sound, I just turned Reel into my loyal zombie. Come, undead slave, let's save some kids from a burning orphanage and then conquer the world!

Bag_of_Holding
2008-03-24, 06:43 PM
so sauce on your druid-steak?


Nah, a druid with magic items and a couple of wilding clasp can be much better.

Glyde
2008-03-24, 08:13 PM
It's all a matter of:

Why does everyone care so much about balance in a game where the DM can just kill you at will? Where imagination is the true name of the game?

Has D&D really fallen that much? It's like reading the WoW forums or something.

Animefunkmaster
2008-03-24, 08:21 PM
Nah, a druid with magic items and a couple of wilding clasp can be much better.

Agreed. Items are generally better anyway as you can choose what you need and can pick up things on the fly that will help in a certain situation... like paying some cash for disruption weapons... basically tailoring your gear against the enemy.

Ravages have never been too useful, most VoP eventually take it as other exalted feats tend to be... difficult. The most successful build I can make with it was warforged utilizing VoP, VoNv, and VoP with Apostle of peace, utilizing stigmata + mitigate suffering and was a healer. Sure it sounded fun as the bleeding warforged that hugged his allies to make them better, while preaching nonviolent ways… but after 5 minutes it was about as fun as playing a rolled up carpet.

sonofzeal
2008-03-24, 08:24 PM
It's all a matter of:

Why does everyone care so much about balance in a game where the DM can just kill you at will? Where imagination is the true name of the game?

Has D&D really fallen that much? It's like reading the WoW forums or something.
If your DM has to smite your characters on a regular basis, something is wrong. :smalltongue:

Glyde
2008-03-24, 08:31 PM
Players shouldn't be stupid enough to warrant DM smiting. Unlike a video game where the stats and stuff are hard-coded into the game, you can change stuff in D&D as you see fit as it's all just stuff on your character sheet.

I have no idea why people complain about balance in a game that should just be taken as a guideline.

Tengu
2008-03-24, 08:35 PM
If the DM has to heavily modify the rules of the game so some of the players can actually contribute to its mechanical parts (as mechanics is an important part of the game - without it, at least half of the satisfaction from overcoming obstacles is gone) without feeling overshadowed, then something is wrong. That is why balance is important - so everyone can have fun, no matter how experienced with the specific system the DM and the players are.

Sinfire Titan
2008-03-24, 11:34 PM
Probably because of someone reading vow of poverty and mistakenly thinking it was overpowered due to not thinking things through.

Other than Words of Creation, there isn't much in the book that would qualify as "cheesy."

Vow of Peace is far more OPed than Words of Creation. Huge AC bonuses, the ability to break non-magical weapons that hit you, and a calming aura, for the low, easy price of two other feats? One of which can be a bonus feat granted by VoP? Which then allows you to enter Apostle of Peace?

That and Vow of Nonviolence are the only feats in the book I ban. Both of them change too much of the game for me to allow. I may like IC RPing, but those feats are a bit much.

Now, I'm all for diplomacy and such, but those feats take it too damn far. Hell, the restrictions on Vow of Peace are almost negligible. Think about an Apostle of Peace in the Ravenloft setting. Just ponder that for a moment. Sends a chill down my spine, thinking about the benefits he received with next to no drawbacks.

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-25, 12:27 AM
Players shouldn't be stupid enough to warrant DM smiting. Unlike a video game where the stats and stuff are hard-coded into the game, you can change stuff in D&D as you see fit as it's all just stuff on your character sheet.

I have no idea why people complain about balance in a game that should just be taken as a guideline.
I believe that this is the Dausuul Fallacy, or as I call it, the "Perfect World" Fallacy. This is were you assume that X is okay because in a perfect world, its not a problem because it gets fixed by the perfect people living there(Note, the Dausuul fallacy only applies to the perfect Dm, as written). My question is, what if someone makes a mistake while balancing the game(nerf samurai/soulknife or buff Druid/wizard/cleric)?
Answer: We get a horrible mess instead of a semi-workable game.

skywalker
2008-03-25, 01:56 AM
Vow of Peace is far more OPed than Words of Creation. Huge AC bonuses, the ability to break non-magical weapons that hit you, and a calming aura, for the low, easy price of two other feats? One of which can be a bonus feat granted by VoP? Which then allows you to enter Apostle of Peace?

That and Vow of Nonviolence are the only feats in the book I ban. Both of them change too much of the game for me to allow. I may like IC RPing, but those feats are a bit much.

Now, I'm all for diplomacy and such, but those feats take it too damn far. Hell, the restrictions on Vow of Peace are almost negligible. Think about an Apostle of Peace in the Ravenloft setting. Just ponder that for a moment. Sends a chill down my spine, thinking about the benefits he received with next to no drawbacks.

I think the primary drawback there is that no one else winds up having any fun. A character such as you describe is nigh-required to keep his companions from killing those who have surrendered, those who are helpless, and other various questionable acts that most D&D players enjoy alot.

Did you not read the part of those feats that says, not only can you never deal lethal or ability damage, and that you cannot adventure with anyone who doesn't take prisoners, show them mercy, attempt to redeem them, etc?

To the thread at large, BoED was written right at the cusp of the 3.0/3.5 switchover. There are a couple PRCs with full CL progression, etc. I think it was more broken back when it was first written, before an edition's worth of sploitz was discovered by us and the charop boards.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-25, 02:10 AM
VoP isn't that great when you consider you're giving up the potential for:

Permanent +5 inherent bonuses on all your stats
Persistent +6 enhancement bonuses to all your stats.

+5 to all your saves
+5 attack bonus, damage bonus, and +5 worth of special effects enhancements on your weapons.
Up to 15 AC from armor, plus effects (Granted, Actually wearing Mountain Full Plate is insane, but still)

etc, etc.

The BoED is lame though, not for VoP, but for other overpowered things, and their inane definition of "good" which ends up reading as good=stupid.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-25, 02:13 AM
Up to 15 AC from armor, plus effects (Granted, Actually wearing Mountain Full Plate is insane, but still)Bearskin Ironwood Mountain Full Plate. The AC technically stays when you Wildshape, but the Encumbrance and Armor Check penalties go away. It's more useful than a dip in Monk.

dman11235
2008-03-25, 02:37 AM
I find it's only cheese if you ignore the requirements. Granted there are a few ways you can abuse it if you ignore RAI, but staying within the bounds of the fluff it can be quite balanced. Even the Saint template, which for a +2 LA makes you immune to three energies, grants fast healing, a massive AC boost for some classes, and more, can be fairly balanced. It is for one actually more of an LA than that, since you have to pay off the experience first, which takes more xp than just leveling up twice (it's figured at the adjusted ECL). Also, you may never have committed an evil act. Never. That's really hard to do, harder than you think.

Point is, if you play with the RP aspects of the book, it's quite balanced. If you ignore that, it gets wonky.

Khanderas
2008-03-25, 02:55 AM
It's all a matter of:

Why does everyone care so much about balance in a game where the DM can just kill you at will? Where imagination is the true name of the game?

Has D&D really fallen that much? It's like reading the WoW forums or something.
I kinda FULLY agree.
Rocks fall, everybody dies, is something a DM can have happen.
You inherit a +OMGWTF sword of <Cheezus> on your <whatever> birthday.
Resting in a rope trick while clearing out basement 1 of the evil overlord castle... also something a DM may do.

I smirk on half of the optimisation suggestions and "monks suck" threads.
Point of DnD is to make a good story and have a good time. Any and all attempts at "winning" (such as killing the Tarrasque at level 13) will be met by resistence if I DM it. (A friend of mine wanted to top my DM'ing so we killed Dracula via a deux-ex machina at level ONE (turns out dracula lived in a house with removable curtains, hah, or should I say "lol")).

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-25, 02:59 AM
I've always heard of it as the Book of Exalted Dumbness, myself. The only thing I use from there is Intuitive Attack (which ought not be an Exalted feat), and Ranged Smite.

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-25, 03:02 AM
I kinda FULLY agree.
Rocks fall, everybody dies, is something a DM can have happen.
You inherit a +OMGWTF sword of <Cheezus> on your <whatever> birthday.
Resting in a rope trick while clearing out basement 1 of the evil overlord castle... also something a DM may do.

I smirk on half of the optimisation suggestions and "monks suck" threads.
Point of DnD is to make a good story and have a good time. Any and all attempts at "winning" (such as killing the Tarrasque at level 13) will be met by resistence if I DM it. (A friend of mine wanted to top my DM'ing so we killed Dracula via a deux-ex machina at level ONE (turns out dracula lived in a house with removable curtains, hah, or should I say "lol")).
Congratulations, you have/are a good Dm. Now what about the new ones? I guess we can screw them, cause they should just know how to run a good game the minute they pick up the books. Sometimes, it would be nice to have a system that doesn't make it harder on the new guys on the block.

Or, to give the same reply as last time:

I believe that this is the Dausuul Fallacy, or as I call it, the "Perfect World" Fallacy. This is were you assume that X is okay because in a perfect world, its not a problem because it gets fixed by the perfect people living there(Note, the Dausuul fallacy only applies to the perfect Dm, as written). My question is, what if someone makes a mistake while balancing the game(nerf samurai/soulknife or buff Druid/wizard/cleric)?
Answer: We get a horrible mess instead of a semi-workable game that hinders the ability of players to enjoy themselves or to get to tell their story.

Note: I call it the God Fallacy, also. Because you can't assume that everyone who picks up the game is Omnicent and infallible.

Kantolin
2008-03-25, 04:46 AM
Balance helps keep the fighter from spending his turns trying gallantly to get into the balor's range to full attack him, shifting his paradigm into 'Heroic Swordsman/Knight who slays dragons' to 'funny'.

Balance also would help two people aiming at being frontliners be on par with each other, to prevent having a monster that autohits one and can't strike the other, resulting in one of them actually doing what he wants to do and the other from being 'funny'.

Balance also helps Mr. Smashem whos concept is he hits really hard from completely outshining Dexy the artful swordsman in every single situation either is in, making Dexy 'funny'.

If I want to sit around being useless, it's a heck of a lot easier to do that with a balanced system than to accidentally discover that the seventh level cleric I intended for a 'backup fighter' is actually the only person causing relevance in the encounters and I have to sit down with the DM to figure out how to smack around my damage output so the DM can throw monsters at us that are below 'Abtardedly threatening so only I can handle it' and above 'Incredibly weak monsters that the monk can handle'.

Normally, though, I don't want to sit around being useless. Nor do I want to be dramatically better than my allies. I'm fond of teamwork-oriented games where everyone can do their part. Well, and where one of the parts isn't 'Be incredibly useless when combat happens'... unless someone intentionally does so, upon which it'd be nice for them to actually be useless when combat happens and not accidentally be solving all battles on turn one with glitterdust.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-25, 05:09 AM
Bearskin Ironwood Mountain Full Plate. The AC technically stays when you Wildshape, but the Encumbrance and Armor Check penalties go away. It's more useful than a dip in Monk.

I'm impressed. That may very well be the only rational use of Mountain Plate.

hewhosaysfish
2008-03-25, 05:27 AM
If I want to sit around being useless, it's a heck of a lot easier to do that with a balanced system than to accidentally discover that the seventh level cleric I intended for a 'backup fighter' is actually the only person causing relevance in the encounters

QFT

The goal of "balance" is not for all characters to be equal but for them to be comparable; and by comparable I don't just mean they should be "in the same ball-park", I mean there should actually be some way to compare them, some measure of "Character Power" that allows you to say "these characters are equal", "this character is more powerful than this one", maybe even "this character is roughly twice as powerful as this one".

That way, if you want to put all players on an even footing then you (the GM) can do so by putting all characters on an even footing i.e. the same "character power".
If you (the GM) think magic should logically be teh pwnrz, then you can have this too, by declaring that all magic users have 10 times the "character power" of other characters.
If you (a player) think it would be an enjoyable and/or enlightening experience to hide at the back while the rest of the party handle all the encounters, then you can play a character with a significantly lower "character power" than the rest of them.

If you don't have such a measure of "character power" and you are aiming for one of the goals above, then you're left having to guess and hope or maybe to try and derive some explicit measure of "character power" from what is implicit in the structure of the rules.

3.5 includes such a system. You're probably thinking of it right now. They called it "character level" and it didn't really work.

From what I know of 2nd ed, they attempted to measure "character power" in terms of XP. Two characters with the same XP total could be wildly different levels but would (hopefully) be equal in terms of power. I don't know enough to comment on how well it worked.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-03-25, 07:27 AM
The saint template is the most undervalued template in the game by level adjustment against abilities, except possibly half-minotaur and half-ogre.

Eh, you have to have a ton of exalted feats to do it though.

Also, words of creation - you do quite quickly amalgamate a ton of nonlethal damage through its use.

Vow of Poverty is overrated, but I like it on a character. Also, has anyone seen the (semi)-official epic progression for VoP on the WotC boards? It's awesome.

OK, DivR 0 at 40th level is fairly badass, but, by that point, you've earnt it.

Sir_Leorik
2008-03-25, 08:57 AM
I played in a game a few years ago where one player conned the DM into letting him play a Cleric with VoPoverty. The DM in question did not own BoED, and didn't seem to realize just what the character could and couldn't do. First of all, holy symbols are possessions according to BoED's definition. That's right, a cleric can't cast Divine Spells that require a Divine Focus under VoP. DM let that one slip right by. Spells with a material component cost were the next to be allowed. The player had his cleric cast Shield Other all the time, even though there is an inexpensive focus for the spell, and one time cast augury, even though I pointed out that the spell's material component costs money. The long and the short of it is that the PC cleric was just as greedy as everyone else in the party, and there was nothing "exalted" about her behavior.

I doubt I would ever allow anything from BoED unless I had thoroughly checked it, and explained the ramifications to the player. I certainly wouldn't allow a player to use it in a Ravenloft campaign. ("The Dark Powers feel that your purity is giving them a migraine, so they've kicked you out of the Demi-plane. Do you have another character concept?") I also agree that the "mature themes" of BoED and BoVD are ridiculous. The views on "good" and "evil" are cartoonish at best, and should be ignored.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-03-25, 09:06 AM
I played in a game a few years ago where one player conned the DM into letting him play a Cleric with VoPoverty. The DM in question did not own BoED, and didn't seem to realize just what the character could and couldn't do. First of all, holy symbols are possessions according to BoED's definition. That's right, a cleric can't cast Divine Spells that require a Divine Focus under VoP.

Summon holy symbol? It's an orison. Also, the designers have said multiple times that you should be able to swap the weapon/spell component for the symbol. It's even very feasible to have your weapon as the holy symbol.


DM let that one slip right by. Spells with a material component cost were the next to be allowed.
The player had his cleric cast Shield Other all the time, even though there is an inexpensive focus for the spell, and one time cast augury, even though I pointed out that the spell's material component costs money.

Should be paid for out of XP - th BoED puts it at a rate of 5gp = 1XP. Also, note that they can have a bag of inexpensive spell components.


The long and the short of it is that the PC cleric was just as greedy as everyone else in the party, and there was nothing "exalted" about her behavior.

Then they aren't using VoP, and so have wasted a feat.


I doubt I would ever allow anything from BoED unless I had thoroughly checked it, and explained the ramifications to the player. I certainly wouldn't allow a player to use it in a Ravenloft campaign. ("The Dark Powers feel that your purity is giving them a migraine, so they've kicked you out of the Demi-plane. Do you have another character concept?") I also agree that the "mature themes" of BoED and BoVD are ridiculous. The views on "good" and "evil" are cartoonish at best, and should be ignored.

Sure, but the whole idea of 'good' and 'evil' are fairly terrible in DnD anyway (what do you mean, no consequentialism?)

Talya
2008-03-25, 09:11 AM
This is what happens when you make assumptions without reading.


I played in a game a few years ago where one player conned the DM into letting him play a Cleric with VoPoverty.

What's the con? That's perfectly legitimate, very hard to play, and certainly not overpowering.


The DM in question did not own BoED, and didn't seem to realize just what the character could and couldn't do. First of all, holy symbols are possessions according to BoED's definition.

Vow of Poverty doesn't prevent you from having possessions. The items you possess must be inexpensive, non-masterwork, non magical. You cannot wear armor, you may use only simple weapons. And yes, you may carry a holy symbol. (Most use wood.) So this...


That's right, a cleric can't cast Divine Spells that require a Divine Focus under VoP.

...is completely false, and this...


DM let that one slip right by.

...was, intentionally or not, the correct choice.


Spells with a material component cost were the next to be allowed.

Again, there is a way with VoP to do this, although costs something else from the player.


The player had his cleric cast Shield Other all the time, even though there is an inexpensive focus for the spell, and one time cast augury, even though I pointed out that the spell's material component costs money.

Again, entirely possible.


The long and the short of it is that the PC cleric was just as greedy as everyone else in the party, and there was nothing "exalted" about her behavior.

Now you come to another issue. While VoP characters must demand their share of the loot (for the purpose of donating it...they cannot use it), they cannot act like loot-whore greedy pigs and keep the vow.



I doubt I would ever allow anything from BoED unless I had thoroughly checked it, and explained the ramifications to the player.

Good call for any material.


I certainly wouldn't allow a player to use it in a Ravenloft campaign. ("The Dark Powers feel that your purity is giving them a migraine, so they've kicked you out of the Demi-plane. Do you have another character concept?")

Another good call. Not all material is suited to every setting.


I also agree that the "mature themes" of BoED and BoVD are ridiculous. The views on "good" and "evil" are cartoonish at best, and should be ignored.

Maybe if your idea of "Cartoonish" is more mature oriented anime.

The views on "good" and "evil" are exceptional, and actually make it make sense. See, in reality, "good and evil" don't even exist, we make it up, and human understanding of Good or Evil varies greatly from person to person. That simply doesn't work in a game, it needs to be absolute, and they did an incredible job of making it feel real.

Talya
2008-03-25, 09:15 AM
Sure, but the whole idea of 'good' and 'evil' are fairly terrible in DnD anyway (what do you mean, no consequentialism?)

The whole idea of 'good' and 'evil' is fairly terrible in real life, as well. Furthermore, consequentialism leads to the fact that what most people consider "evil" typically wins out in reality, and therefore isn't really evil. That simply wouldn't work in a game like this.

Sir_Leorik
2008-03-25, 09:26 AM
Should be paid for out of XP - th BoED puts it at a rate of 5gp = 1XP. Also, note that they can have a bag of inexpensive spell components.


Ah, I didn't realize that. The problem was that neither did the DM. My point still stands: the DM allowed into his campaign a rules item he barely understood, the player never spent XP on his components or foci, and the player got all the benefits of VoP without any of the penalties. As for the holy symbol, the FAQ discusses this.


How do the equipment restrictions put on a character
by the Vow of Poverty feat affect class-defining items?
(Examples include a cleric’s holy symbol, a wizard’s
familiar, a samurai’s daisho, and a paladin’s mount.)

The Vow of Poverty feat is very specific about the items
that a character can own while gaining the benefits of the feat
(see page 48 in Book of Exalted Deeds for details). It
specifically disallows ownership of masterwork or magic
weapons, and thus a samurai who chooses this feat must give
up the possession of his daisho (his pair of masterwork
weapons). A holy symbol does not appear on the list of eligible
items, and thus a strict reading of the feat would disallow the
item.

A familiar, special mount, or animal companion isn’t a
material possession, and thus a character with Vow of Poverty
isn’t restricted from gaining the benefits of such creatures.
Remember that the Vow of Poverty feat, like most of the
material found in Book of Exalted Deeds, is intended for mature
campaigns that are capable of handling difficult role-playing
issues—it’s not intended for most hack-and-slash games. A
cleric who must give up his holy symbol (effectively
preventing him from turning undead or casting any spell that
requires a divine focus) could be a very interesting challenge
for a player who’s “done it all” and wants to try something
unusual.

The FAQ also says:


Can a character avoid breaking the Vow of Poverty
feat’s restrictions by declaring his weapon to be an
ancestral relic, signature weapon, legacy weapon, or other
special kind of weapon?

No. The Vow of Poverty feat (Book of Exalted Deeds 48)
very clearly states that you may not own or use any material
possessions, with exceptions listed in the feat’s description.
The Sage strongly suggests that if you’re trying to find
ways around the various Vow feats in BoED, you may be
missing the point of the feats. (The book doesn’t bear the
mature audiences warning just for subject matter, but also for
approach to character creation.) These feats are intended to
open up interesting roleplaying opportunities without unduly
punishing a character’s playability. In the case of the Vow of
Poverty, the intent is to allow what would otherwise be a
severely underpowered character (one without possessions) to
retain viability in the game. Finding ways to retain one’s
possessions while still benefiting from the feat defeats the
entire purpose of the feat!

The player in question wanted the benefits of the VoPov feat, and was not interested in roleplaying in a more mature way.

TheMeanDM
2008-03-25, 09:31 AM
One of the interesting "work arounds" that you can (apparently) do when building a character (if your DM doesn't consider all the ramifications, obviously):

1) DM sets the level of the character creation (say, level 16)
2) PC creates character using WBL 14, and buys as many stat-increasing books as possible.
3) PC gives up all wealth at level 15, taking VOP for level 15
--- PC, according to the VOP rules, immediately gets ALL the benefits of VOP at 15th level and below (including stat bonuses!)
---when he becomes 16th level, he is a 16th level VOP character, but spent a good portion of his money during his "previous life" as a greedy git :smallamused:

Easy-peasey-mac-and-cheesey.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-25, 10:02 AM
One of the interesting "work arounds" that you can (apparently) do when building a character (if your DM doesn't consider all the ramifications, obviously):

1) DM sets the level of the character creation (say, level 16)
2) PC creates character using WBL 14, and buys as many stat-increasing books as possible.
3) PC gives up all wealth at level 15, taking VOP for level 15
--- PC, according to the VOP rules, immediately gets ALL the benefits of VOP at 15th level and below (including stat bonuses!)
---when he becomes 16th level, he is a 16th level VOP character, but spent a good portion of his money during his "previous life" as a greedy git :smallamused:

Easy-peasey-mac-and-cheesey.

Would actually be losing something relative to VoP from level 1 if there where more then 2 good Exalted feats for any given character (okay three for Druids).

Duke of URL
2008-03-25, 10:06 AM
I always thought the nastiest thing in the BoED was Touch of Golden Ice. Reqs: Con 13+, Good Alignment and it lets you deal the equivalent of a 1200 gp poison on all your unarmed and natural attacks for free.

The drawback is a DC that doesn't scale with level. I think it's insanely overpowered for a low-level monk (or early in a wildshaping druid's career), but at higher levels, the DC is too low to be effective more than the 1-in-20 chance of rolling a natural 1.


PC, according to the VOP rules, immediately gets ALL the benefits of VOP at 15th level and below (including stat bonuses!)

Except the bonus feats.

lumberofdabeast
2008-03-25, 10:22 AM
One question. Would it be possible for someone to get a tattoo of the holy symbol of their god, and then use that as their divine focus?

Because shooting a beam of light from my forehead that drives the undead away would be awesome.

The_Blue_Sorceress
2008-03-25, 10:25 AM
The BOED isn't too cheesy. I'm currently playing in a game with three exalted party members, and we've yet to experience any gouda moments. We're also an underoptimized party, and my fighter hasn't taken any exalted feats yet, but in all honesty, unless you're a skilled optimizer with a DM that will let you get away with all sorts of things, you're really not going to have too many problems. We've encountered more trouble RP the exalted alignment than we have benefitted from from our various feats, PrCs and powers.

-Blue

Talya
2008-03-25, 10:28 AM
As for the holy symbol, the FAQ discusses this.



Note that a holy symbol can be a chip of wood or small stone with a deific symbol crudely scratched into it. It also can be etched onto a weapon.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-25, 10:41 AM
Note that a holy symbol can be a chip of wood or small stone with a deific symbol crudely scratched into it. It also can be etched onto a weapon.

Doesn't matter, not allowed by RAW.

Talya
2008-03-25, 10:46 AM
Yes, it is. Is a VoP character capable of holding a stone or peice of wood? Or a simple weapon?

They are, so it's allowed by RAW.

Duke of URL
2008-03-25, 10:49 AM
Doesn't matter, not allowed by RAW.

Debatable.


Divine Focus (DF)

A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character’s faith.

Nowhere does this describe exactly what said holy symbol must be, only that it has spiritual significance and is appropriate to the character's faith. Since most deities have a favored weapon that is classified as a simple weapon, there's no reason the character cannot attach spiritual significance to such a weapon, which he is allowed to possess.

That aside, I cannot believe the RAI would prohibit a Cleric (or other divine caster) from having a holy symbol of negligible trade value (a simple wooden symbol, for instance), especially considering that a spell component pouch is allowed.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-25, 10:55 AM
Debatable.



Nowhere does this describe exactly what said holy symbol must be, only that it has spiritual significance and is appropriate to the character's faith. Since most deities have a favored weapon that is classified as a simple weapon, there's no reason the character cannot attach spiritual significance to such a weapon, which he is allowed to possess.

That aside, I cannot believe the RAI would prohibit a Cleric (or other divine caster) from having a holy symbol of negligible trade value (a simple wooden symbol, for instance), especially considering that a spell component pouch is allowed.
Wait, when was a spell component pouch allowed? I thought you needed eschew materials for VOP Wizard.

sonofzeal
2008-03-25, 11:01 AM
Wait, when was a spell component pouch allowed? I thought you needed eschew materials for VOP Wizard.
Spell Component Pouches are fine, but wizards are boned anyway because, hey, no spellbook. :smallwink:

Godna
2008-03-25, 01:06 PM
Tattoos maybe? Sure he will look like he fell in with a biker gang but he a swell guy.

Tacitus
2008-03-25, 01:59 PM
I might also add Incarnates to the list of characters that cheese the Vow of Poverty, especially if you can get your DM to allow you to make 'Exalted' soulmelds. Not that I've bluffed anyone into that, never. >.>

Can't have a magic item where you bind a soulmeld? Who cares? True, they lack the focus items, but a NG Incarnate just begs for exalted status as they are (big surprise) their alignment incarnate.

Eldariel
2008-03-25, 02:48 PM
Spell Component Pouches are fine, but wizards are boned anyway because, hey, no spellbook. :smallwink:

In reality, all that is stupid nitpicking and no DM is ever going to disallow a Holy Symbol or Spellbook just because a book has a slightly ambiguous wording on the subject. Following RAW to a limit is fine, but there's the 'too far'; RAW is only ever a guideline.

dman11235
2008-03-25, 04:29 PM
It's true, wizards are inherently shallow and uncharitable.

Anyway, VoPov has a specific list of stuff allowed, and holy symbols are not on that list. And yes, a wooden holy symbol costs 1 gp. It's in the equipment section, on the chart. However, it would be dumb to penalize a cleric or paladin for having a piece of rock or wood and carving it themselves roughly to resemble a holy symbol. Or even less than that.

And MoI VoPov isn't cheese per se, it's just a thematically appropriate and oh-so-juicy option. They don't get an inherent boost from doing this. It does work better (a little) than items, as there aren't very many items that an incarnate needs.

Glyde
2008-03-25, 04:41 PM
One question. Would it be possible for someone to get a tattoo of the holy symbol of their god, and then use that as their divine focus?

Because shooting a beam of light from my forehead that drives the undead away would be awesome.

Yep. My character's fur has the pattern of her holy symbol on it and she uses that as her divine focus. A tattoo would be much more reliable than something like a birth mark like that though.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-25, 04:44 PM
Yep. My character's fur has the pattern of her holy symbol on it and she uses that as her divine focus. A tattoo would be much more reliable than something like a birth mark like that though.My backup right now is a Paladin who has the holy symbol of Heironemous scarred into his chest. He's not even VoP, he's just awesome.
:smallcool:

EvilElitest
2008-03-26, 03:09 PM
Exalted characters make your average Paladin look like shifty crack dealers who pimp prostitutes on the side (if male) or *are* prostitutes on the side (if female)

all paladins have to be exalted FWI
from
EE

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-26, 04:22 PM
Nowhere does this describe exactly what said holy symbol must be, only that it has spiritual significance and is appropriate to the character's faith. Since most deities have a favored weapon that is classified as a simple weapon, there's no reason the character cannot attach spiritual significance to such a weapon, which he is allowed to possess.

Weapons are not Holy Symbols per RAW.
Holy Symbols are not described in great detail, but the equipment section does give a few clues. Most importantly, they are unique items and not part of other items such as weapons.


That aside, I cannot believe the RAI would prohibit a Cleric (or other divine caster) from having a holy symbol of negligible trade value (a simple wooden symbol, for instance), especially considering that a spell component pouch is allowed.

A wooden Holy Symbol costs 1 gp and is not on the list of items that are exempt.

Zincorium
2008-03-26, 04:40 PM
Holy symbols are not on the list of allowed items.

Monks are nonproficient in unarmed strikes.

You can heal from negative hitpoints to 0 by drowning yourself.

Etc.

It is a retarded rule, almost certainly an unintentional oversight, and no DM should penalize a cleric for having a holy symbol that's suitably plain unless they just don't want that player to have fun.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-26, 04:47 PM
Holy symbols are not on the list of allowed items.

Monks are nonproficient in unarmed strikes.

You can heal from negative hitpoints to 0 by drowning yourself.

Etc.

It is a retarded rule, almost certainly an unintentional oversight, and no DM should penalize a cleric for having a holy symbol that's suitably plain unless they just don't want that player to have fun.

Your other two examples are "errors" on a whole different level.

But I agree that it makes a suitable house rule, it is after all supposed to be for mature players.

However, allowing holy symbols a part of armor or weapons is not reasonable and clearly not RAW.