VoP

[Jallorn]

I'm trying to get a DM to go for this VoP fix, but he's convinced that there is no problem with normal VoP. I would like to ask that you playgrounders help me to convince him to see my side with a board (this one) that discusses just why VoP as is sucks, and, hopefully, explains why the fix is more balanced.

[Hirax]

VoP is a newb trap like as much as whirlwind attack. I don't favor a linear progression like you lay out, I'd prefer a system where you pick and choose what features you get as you advance, but one way or the other VoP as written is BoED is weak.

[Gnaritas]

VoP is a newb trap like as much as whirlwind attack. I don't favor a linear progression like you lay out, I'd prefer a system where you pick and choose what features you get as you advance, but one way or the other VoP as written is BoED is weak.

Yes yes, calling his DM a newb will get him convinced.

[Vangor]

The only problems I find with VoP are the feat requirements and limitations for some classes (spellbooks). VoP should not be as powerful as wealth by level, but the initial feat and VoP itself being a feat makes voluntary poverty and absolute charity seem a supposed route for power (as all feats are) rather than a character facet. This runs counter to the idea of being worthy of Exalted feats.

May include levitation and eventual flight, but the linked fix seems to be how to avoid any negative aspects of magical items such as shopping, bookkeeping, or loss, not that this, while better than current VoP, is really equal to wealth for every character.

Just play a character of charity and ignore the feats.

[Hirax]

Yes yes, calling his DM a newb will get him convinced.

I'm amused you chose to read my post that way.

But seriously, VoP as given in BoED permanently gimps you on attacks, AC, ability scores, and saves compared to what non-VoP party members will have at ANY level. If exalted feats didn't generally suck this would mitigate these losses somewhat. But most of them do suck unfortunately, and the few okay ones would scarcely get used on the same character.

[Snake-Aes]

I'm trying to get a DM to go for this VoP fix, but he's convinced that there is no problem with normal VoP. I would like to ask that you playgrounders help me to convince him to see my side with a board (this one) that discusses just why VoP as is sucks, and, hopefully, explains why the fix is more balanced.

Wings of Flying already beats VoP in usefulness for noncasters.

[Starbuck_II]

I'm amused you chose to read my post that way.

But seriously, VoP as given in BoED permanently gimps you on attacks, AC, ability scores, and saves compared to what non-VoP party members will have at ANY level. If exalted feats didn't generally suck this would mitigate these losses somewhat. But most of them do suck unfortunately, and the few okay ones would scarcely get used on the same character.

Lets not exaggerate. I'm sure, it works it low levels.
You can't afford full plate till 4th if follow WBL.
Look at levels 1-4:
1st level: +0 Chain shirt (without ACP/SF/Weight)
2nd level: +1 Chain Shirt
4th level: +1 weapon.

Also bonus feats, but mostly eh.

[Ragnarok'n'Roll]

I think VoP is fine as it is and isn't nearly as bad as people moan about.


Personally I like VoP for the fact that I don't have to worry about loot at all (besides donating my share asap). I also know that by level XX I will have the equalivant of a ring of endure elements, ring of sustance, +2 orge gauntlets etc. Not having to worry about what equipment the DM throws in my path or if we'll get to a shop before we die is nice

If you build your character with the bonuses you get in mind you can plan for some nice synergy that really minimizes how far behind you end in equipment/power after level 15. I don't mind even giving up some gp worth of equipment just for the security of knowing what I am going to get 5 levels down the road.


I don't allow the VoP 'fixes' in my game but they are popular. My attitude is if VoP is so broken, then don't use it.

[Ragnarok'n'Roll]

VoP as given in BoED permanently gimps you on attacks, AC, ability scores, and saves compared to what non-VoP party members will have at ANY level.

Completely and utterly untrue.

[Jallorn]

I think VoP is fine as it is and isn't nearly as bad as people moan about.


Personally I like VoP for the fact that I don't have to worry about loot at all (besides donating my share asap). I also know that by level XX I will have the equalivant of a ring of endure elements, ring of sustance, +2 orge gauntlets etc. Not having to worry about what equipment the DM throws in my path or if we'll get to a shop before we die is nice

If you build your character with the bonuses you get in mind you can plan for some nice synergy that really minimizes how far behind you end in equipment/power after level 15. I don't mind even giving up some gp worth of equipment just for the security of knowing what I am going to get 5 levels down the road.


I don't allow the VoP 'fixes' in my game but they are popular. My attitude is if VoP is so broken, then don't use it.

So your argument is that if someone sees a mechanic that they like but that is poorly executed, they should forget it?

Perhaps a little background would help this conversation. I'm playing a Centaur Druid who has traded his wild shaping and his armor for some monk and ranger abilities (as per the UA variant) and Spontaneous summoning for Bardic Knowledge. He is a wise mentor type (like his inspiration Chiron) and has no need for possessions, being able to survive just fine on his own. He is good aligned, but hardly an exalted character, so aside from VoP and Nymph's Kiss, none of the exalted feats appeal to him. He also doesn't rely all that much on his magic (So very rarely does he use flashy or powerful spells), preferring to use it mostly just for utilitarian purposes, and enter combat directly himself. VoP as is would be a serious gimp and provide him with a host of abilities he doesn't want or need and that don't make sense for him to have. That's why I want the fix. I haven't said this to my DM yet, but I don't even plan to take advantage of the flight or sustenance, since, again, they don't particularly fit the character.

[Jallorn]

Completely and utterly untrue.

Compare any class that has a moderate dependency on magic items between a VoP and non-VoP form, and you will find that the VoP class is severely weakened.

[Talbot]

*Shameless Plug*

You may want to try and get him to ok this VOP alt instead.... it grants a lot less stat/offensive boosts while bumping up survivability and giving a little more flexibility.

[Ragnarok'n'Roll]

Compare any class that has a moderate dependency on magic items between a VoP and non-VoP form, and you will find that the VoP class is severely weakened.

level 1 monk non-vop has 4 AC less than a monk with vop. Everything else is pretty much equal...

The orginal statement was any class at any level. I said it was untrue and it is.

[Ragnarok'n'Roll]

So your argument is that if someone sees a mechanic that they like but that is poorly executed, they should forget it?

More along the lines of I personally don't think it's poorly executed but if you do, then maybe its not for you.

However,

You seem to have an interesting character concept in mind so I'd say all the power to you about approaching your DM with options and trade-offs to make your character 'fit' your ideas. I just disagree that VoP is 'teh broken'

[Thrice Dead Cat]

At low levels, VoP is at least equal as having real monies for some characters, but as you progress it turns into a limited 80% standard WBL. Unless through race or some form of permanent aid, most VoP characters will never be able to fly or gain terribly much in the way of weapon enhancements, armor enhancements and general wondrous items, some of which can be crucial for Not Dieing (TM).

[Milskidasith]

The only problems I find with VoP are the feat requirements and limitations for some classes (spellbooks). VoP should not be as powerful as wealth by level, but the initial feat and VoP itself being a feat makes voluntary poverty and absolute charity seem a supposed route for power (as all feats are) rather than a character facet. This runs counter to the idea of being worthy of Exalted feats.

May include levitation and eventual flight, but the linked fix seems to be how to avoid any negative aspects of magical items such as shopping, bookkeeping, or loss, not that this, while better than current VoP, is really equal to wealth for every character.

Just play a character of charity and ignore the feats.

I do not understand why you think the vow of poverty thing should weaken a character, or why you think characters should be weaker because they are exalted. They're incredibly good, not incompetent.

Also, the linked fix, save the epic progression of it that is given later, burns a feat and all your WBL in order to get you bonuses that, while good, don't give you the benefits of specific magic items you might need, such as, say, a belt of battle, or scrolls for more spells known, or items that can copy feats for you (gloves of the balanced hand). While that VoP is certainly worth taking, it's not overpowered, and the notion that a feat should actively make a character weaker simply doesn't make sense to me.

[Hirax]

level 1 monk non-vop has 4 AC less than a monk with vop. Everything else is pretty much equal...

The orginal statement was any class at any level. I said it was untrue and it is.

Fair enough, at low levels the difference is trivial you're right, the gap only gets wider and wider though.

[Vangor]

I do not understand why you think the vow of poverty thing should weaken a character, or why you think characters should be weaker because they are exalted. They're incredibly good, not incompetent.

I did not say characters should be weaker because they are exalted, but being good for the rewards is not worthy of being exalted, and trying to reap rewards of being equal or better than what wealth could buy you in terms of what is important in d&d, magical enhancements and abilities, is counter to the idea of charity. I would argue all good characters are essentially weaker individually than evil counterparts, but the important aspect of good characters is building reliable, trustworthy relationships which evil characters cannot necessarily do. For a charitable character worthy of being exalted, I would be willing to bet most anyone who recognizes you would be willing to offer help you truly could not buy, which is what voluntary poverty should entail, not a lack of bookkeeping your magical items.

You're giving away all of your wealth for charity, not throwing a bunch of gold towards a ritual. The vow is extreme, eclipsing merely having a code of conduct.

While that VoP is certainly worth taking, it's not overpowered, and the notion that a feat should actively make a character weaker simply doesn't make sense to me.

Notice in my explanation vow of poverty would not be a feat because a feat making a character weaker absolutely does not make sense to me either. If a vow of poverty'esque feat were to be made as many people expect to rival wealth by level without real drawbacks, we should just call this "Absorb Magical Equipment".

[Demons_eye]

level 1 monk non-vop has 4 AC less than a monk with vop. Everything else is pretty much equal...

The orginal statement was any class at any level. I said it was untrue and it is.

All right I give the one non VoP monk a monks belt and a ring of deflection. Yes WBL wise hes not right but if you found those things for a boss fight, or DM just decided to, VoP monk is gimped.

[Milskidasith]

I did not say characters should be weaker because they are exalted, but being good for the rewards is not worthy of being exalted, and trying to reap rewards of being equal or better than what wealth could buy you in terms of what is important in d&d, magical enhancements and abilities, is counter to the idea of charity. I would argue all good characters are essentially weaker individually than evil counterparts, but the important aspect of good characters is building reliable, trustworthy relationships which evil characters cannot necessarily do. For a charitable character worthy of being exalted, I would be willing to bet most anyone who recognizes you would be willing to offer help you truly could not buy, which is what voluntary poverty should entail, not a lack of bookkeeping your magical items.

So... you are arguing that exalted characters should be weaker because they are exalted. That's exactly what you are saying, even if you are reframing the question by saying less "Exalted is weaker" as "Exalted can't do all the things evil can do because friendship is more important than metagame concepts."

Expanding on that point: The VoP feat is a metagame concept. Just because a character has it doesn't mean he knows "I'm getting more value than most people of my skill would with the gold they get by adventuring, but everybody who seems to get granted this power has the same specific abilities while people who use items get variety and can sacrifice benefits they don't want." All he really has to know, and even this may not be entirely necessary, is just that his devotion to whatever gives him power. That doesn't mean the character is metagaming, even if the player wants to play a really devout holy man without sacrificing competency. There are probably plenty of people with an actual vow of poverty in the campaign world that don't get anything, and, likewise, you can easily refluff a VoP character as being item'd out the wazoo, as long as he still gets the specific benefits.

You're giving away all of your wealth for charity, not throwing a bunch of gold towards a ritual. The vow is extreme, eclipsing merely having a code of conduct.

Yes, and that doesn't mean it has to be so extreme as to cause an effect on purely metagame aspects of the game. Just because he's vowed to be poor does not mean that he knows he's magically getting more benefit than rich people (which he isn't necessarily; again, flexibility versus straight benefits; MAD classes get a lot more than SAD classes out of VoP, and item dependent builds can't really use the VoP effectively). Not only that, but again, being merely fluff, you could just say the guy carries around all the magical gear he wants with VoP (custom made, if you want to explain why it advances constantly), but that it only gets set benefits and it's arcanomagnetic signature disrupts the phlebotinium based pseudo-magickey-science of other items.

Notice in my explanation vow of poverty would not be a feat because a feat making a character weaker absolutely does not make sense to me either. If a vow of poverty'esque feat were to be made as many people expect to rival wealth by level without real drawbacks, we should just call this "Absorb Magical Equipment".

That's another example of refluffing. Refluffing is a good thing for the game. I cannot possibly see how giving up all your wealth for no mechanical benefit can ever be good for the game, just because, metagame-wise, you are very weak.

Basically, here's how I see it:

VoP is, mechanically, giving up access to flexibility in equipment in order to get generic benefits.

The fluff attached is one of extreme devoutness and intentional poverty, but that doesn't have to be the case.

Fluff and crunch are interchangeable.

Therefore, VoP can be taken by any character, regardless of fluff, to get set benefits without flexibility. Whether they absorb excess magic from equipment due to a mutation, have their own custom built gear that they can't wear with other things, or actually do just get powers due to their devoutness to their cause, it's still there.

Likewise, the fluff of vow of poverty, forswearing material wealth, does not necessarily imply the crunch. Not all poverty stricken people can say "Hey, I'm poor, slap on some stat boost."

In short-er: There is no reason playing a character who is devout about not having possessions needs to hinder you metagame-wise, and there is no reason that wanting to get an easy magic item package in a box requires you to play a really devout poor person.

[Vangor]

So... you are arguing that exalted characters should be weaker because they are exalted. That's exactly what you are saying, even if you are reframing the question by saying less "Exalted is weaker" as "Exalted can't do all the things evil can do because friendship is more important than metagame concepts."

Again, not what I said. I said, "I would argue all good characters are essentially weaker individually," but this is strictly by playing as good characters. Mechanically I see no reason to weaken them and no way this makes sense. They should not be weaker purely because they are exalted, but they will be weaker individually because they are exalted, because they will ignore rewards and expend resources and further where a less good character would not. This is all this meant.

Poverty is an entirely different aspect because the weakness is being without such items. This is unavoidable.

That doesn't mean the character is metagaming, even if the player wants to play a really devout holy man without sacrificing competency.

If your character would not have chosen to be charitable without a fixed vow of poverty, you are metagaming. The world down the road becomes too difficult with standard buffs, and therefore he leaves the path of poverty. Except, you "fixed" poverty, and therefore he stays with poverty because this is not so bad. And this is the problem is you preemptively metagame in such a way he never has to choose a life of hardship as far as your campaign is concerned.

There is no reason playing a character who is devout about not having possessions needs to hinder you metagame-wise, and there is no reason that wanting to get an easy magic item package in a box requires you to play a really devout poor person.

You seem to have missed my initial point, "This runs counter to the idea of being worthy of Exalted feats." If you are concerned lack of possessions will hinder your statistics, divest the roleplay aspects. Every discussion of VoP seems to steer towards how bad and what a trap the feat is, which I am not arguing, but everyone starts from this position a heavily roleplay invested feat needs to be mechanically more balanced.

This is why I also said, "the linked fix seems to be how to avoid any negative aspects of magical items." If this is all a person wants a person will have no argument from me. However, if a person wants to be exalted by way of charitable deeds, I'll mention they seem to be ignoring exactly what this entails.

[Kaww]

Try VoP, Vow of nonviolence, Vow of peace, Saint With high Con and Cha. That is not weak. Hell it's better than damage reduction. If someone succeeds to attack you chances are his weapon will crumble and deal no damage. Play it with someone who charms and dominates and it's a breaker of minds. I have a lvl 6 bard with dc 25 charm person. If you think this is not overpowered what is?

[Milskidasith]

Again, not what I said. I said, "I would argue all good characters are essentially weaker individually," but this is strictly by playing as good characters. Mechanically I see no reason to weaken them and no way this makes sense. They should not be weaker purely because they are exalted, but they will be weaker individually because they are exalted, because they will ignore rewards and expend resources and further where a less good character would not. This is all this meant.

Yes, you are saying good characters should be weak. I don't understand how I could be any more clear with this: Saying good characters should be incapable of being as effective in combat due to being good is saying they should be weak, regardless of if the justification is that doing so would break the flavor or if you just give them mechanical penalties.

If your character would not have chosen to be charitable without a fixed vow of poverty, you are metagaming.

This makes no sense at all. I honestly cannot comprehend the view that the only way you aren't metagaming when playing a VoP character is to have been willing to play somebody who was utterly incapable of doing anything against level appropriate foes due to having no equipment.

Not only that, but not everybody builds from fluff first; plenty of people go crunch first, then fluff. Neither is any better or worse than the other, and neither is metagaming, which isn't even inherently bad because, to a degree, it is necessary. If all you are saying is that taking the VoP in order to offset having no cash is making a choice based on the power of the character, I say... so what? The character doesn't choose the feat, the player does, and you can refluff it however you want, and you shouldn't have to play a horribly underoptimized character just to fit your concept. In this case, if you absolutely refuse to refluff, then yes, metagaming is a very good thing, much like metagaming to know how your spells work or when you've hit or missed or about the entire concept of saving throws is a good thing; playing with characters who did not know about the system at all would be nearly impossible and tremendously unfun.

The world down the road becomes too difficult with standard buffs, and therefore he leaves the path of poverty. Except, you "fixed" poverty, and therefore he stays with poverty because this is not so bad. And this is the problem is you preemptively metagame in such a way he never has to choose a life of hardship as far as your campaign is concerned.

This is all fluff. It has nothing to do with the crunch. The two are separate. You don't have to actually play a character that is woefully incompetent at everything to play somebody who is a man who gave up all material possessions due to devoutness, and I am fairly certain a standard adventuring life is high in hardship. Even then, it does not matter. The only metagaming that exists in this situation is the fact that the player doesn't want to be incompetent, which is perfectly reasonable. The player does not have to suffer hardships just because the character concept does, much like players don't have to be eloquent to play high charisma characters.

Again, taking the VoP feat if you are a character who doesn't want items for whatever reason is, if it is metagaming, certainly not bad in any way whatsoever.

You seem to have missed my initial point, "This runs counter to the idea of being worthy of Exalted feats." If you are concerned lack of possessions will hinder your statistics, divest the roleplay aspects. Every discussion of VoP seems to steer towards how bad and what a trap the feat is, which I am not arguing, but everyone starts from this position a heavily roleplay invested feat needs to be mechanically more balanced.

You've entirely missed my point. The point is this: It doesn't matter what the fluff is. The fluff is irrelevant to the crunch. The crunch is irrelevant to the fluff. The vow of poverty is an exalted feat, yes (although the rework isn't) so it does come with certain restrictions... but the player is the guy who chooses the mechanical aspects of the character, and the character is the one who is roleplayed. The player doesn't have to be a perfect exalted person in real life to play one, and, likewise, he doesn't have to be willing to endure the hardship of being completely without any kind of bonuses in a game designed towards getting them just because he wants to play somebody who swore off magic items.

The point is basically this: In the campaign world, the characters don't know about feats anyway. If a guy has the vow of poverty feat, he doesn't know "I took the vow of poverty so I don't have to use items," he just knows "Insert explanation (absorbing magic, cusstom and preset items, being devout towards a cause) gives him strength." Likewise, nobody in the campaign knows that he has the feat; he just does those things. The player making decisions to make the character more effective does not, in any way, make the character greedy for being more effective.

This is why I also said, "the linked fix seems to be how to avoid any negative aspects of magical items." If this is all a person wants a person will have no argument from me. However, if a person wants to be exalted by way of charitable deeds, I'll mention they seem to be ignoring exactly what this entails.

Character /=/ player. Likewise, being mechanically competent doesn't matter for roleplaying. NPCs don't know you have the vow of poverty, and players don't have to be willing to go without all mechanical usefulness to play a character who wants to go without items.

Point summarized: The character and the player, the roleplaying aspects and the mechanics, the fluff and the crunch, whatever you want to define them as, are different.

All of your arguments deal with how "The character isn't worthy of being exalted because he wants to be competent" and stuff like that, but it intentionally clouds what should otherwise be clear; the character wants to achieve his goals, the player wants him to be competent. The fluff says he's poor and doesn't use items, the crunch says that he's got a way to not be useless while still maintaining that. The roleplaying says that he's an exceptionally devout man, the mechanics say that he's a mildly competent fighter by the numbers.

If a player wants to play somebody who is very devout and self sacrificing, the player himself does not need to be self sacrificing. He doesn't have to be weak and get criticized for metagaming by picking up a feat that allows his concept to work at all.

[Jallorn]

-snip-
If your character would not have chosen to be charitable without a fixed vow of poverty, you are metagaming. The world down the road becomes too difficult with standard buffs, and therefore he leaves the path of poverty. Except, you "fixed" poverty, and therefore he stays with poverty because this is not so bad. And this is the problem is you preemptively metagame in such a way he never has to choose a life of hardship as far as your campaign is concerned.
-snip-

You are forgetting that metagaming is acceptable when creating a character. As long as you are consistent, then it's generally ok. In fact, constructing a character's stats is inherently a metagame concept. So you see a nice feat and decide to build an aspect of your character's personality around it, great, I see no problem with it. It wouldn't be much fun to play a character who can't do anything because he's poor, now would it? You are hung up on the idea that forsaking items has to make you weaker, but that's just dumb when it comes to playing a hero. Heroes in stories who forsake material goods are often superhuman to some extent, because they have adapted to the world without the crutch of items most people have. He's not a simple aesthetic monk, he's a hero, one in a thousand, if not more, so yeah, I think that the feat should be balanced with a character who doesn't have it. That said, the advantage of not being able to lose those powers is certainly worth a small drop in approximate wealth balance.

[Milskidasith]

That said, the advantage of not being able to lose those powers is certainly worth a small drop in approximate wealth balance.

And the inability to be flexible with those powers, leaving you many that, as a non MAD character, you probably won't lose, along with giving less ability to pump one stat or buy specific gamechanging (for their level) items, like anklets of translocation or the belt of battle, is worth a nice drizzle back into the wealth bucket.

[Ozymandias9]

Yes, you are saying good characters should be weak. I don't understand how I could be any more clear with this: Saying good characters should be incapable of being as effective in combat due to being good is saying they should be weak, regardless of if the justification is that doing so would break the flavor or if you just give them mechanical penalties.

Scenario: A dragon attacks the town and burns down the orphanage. There are two adventurers in town, one good and one evil. Together the adventurers slay the dragon and take its horde. The good adventurer gives a significant portion of his take to rebuild the orphanage. The evil adventurer spends the full amount on phat lewtz. Which adventurer has gained more power?

Less unnecessarily didactically, so long as there is both:
A) a fluff element which includes a willingness to give up material goods without personal gain
-and-
B) a crunch system in which uses material goods to increase power

it will not always be possible to divorce those fluff and crunch elements. They are, after all, both based on the same thing-- the material good.

The point of VoP was to partially offset the sacrifice that the fluff dictates.

However, if the sacrifice is fully offset, it ceases to be sacrifice and becomes trade. While the character is probably not fully aware of the details of feats and WBL, they likely have some concept of their power. If VoP were a trade that a character concerned only with power would make, then it will likely break the verisimilitude of taking it to represent self-sacrifice.

This makes no sense at all. I honestly cannot comprehend the view that the only way you aren't metagaming when playing a VoP character is to have been willing to play somebody who was utterly incapable of doing anything against level appropriate foes due to having no equipment.

From my perspective, the purpose of VoP is to allow you to play a character that you feel should have been willing to do so, but did not because of the basic level of meta-gaming necessary to make the game fun. It's a compromise between breaking verisimilitude because your character can't actually be as self-sacrificing as such a character should be and being useless forever.

The point is basically this: In the campaign world, the characters don't know about feats anyway. If a guy has the vow of poverty feat, he doesn't know "I took the vow of poverty so I don't have to use items," he just knows "Insert explanation (absorbing magic, cusstom and preset items, being devout towards a cause) gives him strength." Likewise, nobody in the campaign knows that he has the feat; he just does those things. The player making decisions to make the character more effective does not, in any way, make the character greedy for being more effective.

The thing is that he does know that it gives him strength. And if it gives him strength in a truly equitable trade, it ceases to be self-sacrificing. It becomes, well, a trade.
For this not to be an issue, the character would have to be unaware of the fact that those strengths come from his self-sacrifice.

He's not a simple aesthetic monk, he's a hero, one in a thousand, if not more, so yeah, I think that the feat should be balanced with a character who doesn't have it.

If you're looking at the feat as representing mystic aestheticism, then I would agree with you. If you are looking at the feat as representing active monetary self-sacrifice, it becomes more questionable.

What it really seems to come down to to me is where verisimilitude breaks for you and your table.

[JaronK]

Does your DM run normal WBL? Many don't, and if he's not giving full wealth VoP actually comes out amazing. I've had that happen a bunch.

JaronK

[Vangor]

Yes, you are saying good characters should be weak. I don't understand how I could be any more clear with this: Saying good characters should be incapable of being as effective in combat due to being good is saying they should be weak, regardless of if the justification is that doing so would break the flavor or if you just give them mechanical penalties.

Being selfish, thieving, intimidating, etc., gets you more things and lets you keep more things than being giving, honorable, diplomatic, and so forth. If you so happen to use a Remove Disease on an ill peasant, you may be less capable when needing to actually cure Mummy Rot later. They are not "incompetent", but individually they are without compared to a less good counterpart. "Individually" does not tend to matter where you have chances to be good, though, hence why I say this.

This makes no sense at all. I honestly cannot comprehend the view that the only way you aren't metagaming when playing a VoP character is to have been willing to play somebody who was utterly incapable of doing anything against level appropriate foes due to having no equipment.

I do not recall saying metagaming was bad. You tried to resolve the idea of this not being metagaming, but this is.

I believe the difficulty of this whole conversation can be boiled down to I am arguing from the notion a person wanting to alter VoP may want to actually play an immensely charitable character worthy of being considered exalted. You are arguing from the idea of a mechanically functioning ascetic lifestyle. From most discussions on VoP, my notion tends to be wrong with the idea of badass with a walking stick being on the forefront. For wanting to wield a walking stick, though, VoP is not a very good foundation, which is why I assume someone wants the fluff side.

[kestrel404]

I think the only fix VoP needs is to allow Incarnum feats in addition to sacred feats. Done.

Anything you want to complain about not getting from magic items, you can get from the Shape Soulmeld, Open X Chakra, and Bonus Essentia feats, as well as the various 'gain ability X by spending essentia for the day' feats.

[JaronK]

Being selfish, thieving, intimidating, etc., gets you more things and lets you keep more things than being giving, honorable, diplomatic, and so forth. If you so happen to use a Remove Disease on an ill peasant, you may be less capable when needing to actually cure Mummy Rot later. They are not "incompetent", but individually they are without compared to a less good counterpart. "Individually" does not tend to matter where you have chances to be good, though, hence why I say this.

This sounds like the "good people are dumb" argument. If the good character keeps his money and uses it go become a greater warrior because he knows the world depends on him, but the evil character uses his money to build a nifty tower full of luxury because he feels he deserves that (being better than everyone else), the good character will be more powerful, will he not?

Knowing you need effective combat power != evil.

JaronK