VoP doesn't suck

[Psyren]

VoNV is fine. VoPe is terrible because it turns you into party nanny and invites all manner of DM-screw. "Did you remember to drink your waterskin through a strainer?"

[ryu]

VoNV is fine. VoPe is terrible because it turns you into party nanny and invites all manner of DM-screw. "Did you remember to drink your waterskin through a strainer?"

Wasn't it stipulated that you had to intentionally touch the dead skin instead of doing so due to absentmindedness or trickery?

[Karnith]

Wasn't it stipulated that you had to intentionally touch the dead skin instead of doing so due to absentmindedness or trickery?

That's Vow of Purity, while Psyren is talking about Vow of Peace, which has this totally cool passage which is in no way ripe for DM abuse:

If you break your vow as a result of magical compulsion or otherwise unwittingly, you lose the benefit of this feat until you perform a suitable penance and receive an atonement spell. (Characters who have taken a Vow of Peace are known to drink water through a strainer in order to avoid accidentally swallowing, and thereby causing harm to, a small insect.)

That's right, whenever you harm any creature, even down to the smallest insect, you have to do penance and get an atonement spell. Better watch where you step!

[nedz]

That's Vow of Purity, while Psyren is talking about Vow of Peace, which has this totally cool passage which [Redacted]

IRL there are religions which practice that.

[ryu]

That's Vow of Purity, while Psyren is talking about Vow of Peace, which has this totally cool passage which is in no way insane and obnoxious:

Okay now that is just silly. Although if I were the player I would demand percentile roll to see if I swallowed an insect rather than just assuming it happened and odds are probably deeply in my favor.

[Boci]

There's also the copy paste of "if you break the vow unintentionally" being very inappropriate for vow of chastity.

Okay now that is just silly. Although if I were the player I would demand percentile roll to see if I swallowed an insect rather than just assuming it happened and odds are probably deeply in my favor.

I'd would even allow that. Its not covered by RAW, and a DM can hardly fall back on "I'm just fleshing out my world properly" when the trivial detail will negatively impact only your character.

[Kevka Palazzo]

There's also the copy paste of "if you break the vow unintentionally" being very inappropriate for vow of chastity.

In like a "blaming the victim" kind of inappropriate? Because yeesh.

[Theoboldi]

There's also the copy paste of "if you break the vow unintentionally" being very inappropriate for vow of chastity.

I really shouldn't have laughed at that. But there is something darkly funny about it.

[molten_dragon]

So you're telling me, with a straight face, that in the EXACT SAME BOOK... AND IN THE VERY NEXT CHAPTER... they "accidentally" provided rules that allow the DM to provide player characters with non-magic, non-priced items?

I don't see why that's so hard to believe. It's not like there aren't tons of examples of things that WotC didn't think through well. Are you suggesting that things like the tainted sorcerer's ever-increasing taint score (and spellcasting ability modifier), candles of invocation and infinite wish loops, and the horror that is the planar shepherd prestige class were all intentional?

They just tossed that in there "because" and I'm using that as a means to "weasel my way out of" Vow of Poverty" restrictions?

That's your argument?

Yep. It violates RAI for vow of poverty pretty badly.

Hell, by your RAW-only definition, someone with VoP could freely use any psionic items they want, since those aren't magic items.

I stand by my initial argument. People are just stupid.

Having to resort to personal attacks and insults is a good sign of someone that's losing an argument.

[RFLS]

I really shouldn't have laughed at that. But there is something darkly funny about it.

Unless you have an insane, contrived circumstance, it's rape. It's not funny.

[Karnith]

IRL there are religions which practice that.

Sorry, I've edited my post to (hopefully) better reflect what I wanted to say. I didn't mean that putting a strainer on a waterskin is insane or obnoxious, but that requiring that level of detail as a mechanical part of the game ("So Mr. DM, did I step on a bug during this move action?"), and having it with basically no point but to screw the player, is.

[Boci]

In like a "blaming the victim" kind of inappropriate? Because yeesh.

Yes. It adds weight to the vows requiring careful behavior to avoid accidentally touching dead flesh or ingesting drugs, so whilst I'm not 100% in favour of that clause I can see why its there, but they needed a different wording for vow of chastity (or to remove it entirely), no questions about that.

[Theoboldi]

Unless you have an insane, contrived circumstance, it's rape. It's not funny.

I am not laughing about how being raped is a violation of the oath, I am laughing about how this very dark idea came about by terrible wording.

[Ignominia]

I don't see why that's so hard to believe. It's not like there aren't tons of examples of things that WotC didn't think through well. Are you suggesting that things like the tainted sorcerer's ever-increasing taint score (and spellcasting ability modifier), candles of invocation and infinite wish loops, and the horror that is the planar shepherd prestige class were all intentional?



Yep. It violates RAI for vow of poverty pretty badly.

Hell, by your RAW-only definition, someone with VoP could freely use any psionic items they want, since those aren't magic items.



Having to resort to personal attacks and insults is a good sign of someone that's losing an argument.

Ok, Ive been trying to make this point, but have so far failed. But Molten_dragon just knocked it out of the park...

VoP using psionics items because the "aren't magic". We can ALL agree that this is ridiculous right? Visigani? You can see that as well? Would it be safe to say that psionics items aren't magic items "in the traditional sense?"

How are Relics any different?

[RFLS]

EDIT: Ninja-edited.

[123456789blaaa]

Unless you have an insane, contrived circumstance, it's rape. It's not funny.

The humor comes from how the designers blundered. It's the same reason typos can be so funny.

EDIT: Darn pony ninja's

[Theoboldi]

Edit: Ninja-edited-edited.

[lsfreak]

I'm surprised no one brought up earlier that the DM IS obligated to provide loot. This is what the rules about WBL, selling items, and community wealth are about. This is made explicit in MIC, where it is stated on page 231 "you should allow characters with sufficient funds to equip themselves as they desire" within WBL.

Not providing this is houseruling.

[3WhiteFox3]

I'm surprised no one brought up earlier that the DM IS obligated to provide loot. This is what the rules about WBL, selling items, and community wealth are about. This is made explicit in MIC, where it is stated on page 231 "you should allow characters with sufficient funds to equip themselves as they desire" within WBL.

Not providing this is houseruling.

VoP is a specific exception to the general rule of WBL.

[Ravenica]

Yup he's obligated to provide loot, he's not obligated to create custom Non-traditional magic items though.

[molten_dragon]

Unless you have an insane, contrived circumstance, it's rape. It's not funny.

Let's not start that argument please.

[Psyren]

IRL there are religions which practice that.

And that is what it came from. But what they failed to keep in mind is that people that impose restrictions like that are typically secluded hermits, not adventurers.

There's also the copy paste of "if you break the vow unintentionally" being very inappropriate for vow of chastity.

Well, it's not like Incubi ask nicely or anything

[Big Fau]

Yup he's obligated to provide loot, he's not obligated to create custom Non-traditional magic items though.

Especially when there are no guidelines for doing so.

[molten_dragon]

I'm surprised no one brought up earlier that the DM IS obligated to provide loot. This is what the rules about WBL, selling items, and community wealth are about. This is made explicit in MIC, where it is stated on page 231 "you should allow characters with sufficient funds to equip themselves as they desire" within WBL.

Not providing this is houseruling.

Yes, but he's not obligated to provide a specific type of loot. Nor can relics be bought and sold, negating the clause about allowing characters with sufficient funds to equip themselves as they desire.

Plus VoP characters are required to donate their loot to starving orphans and junk.

[nedz]

Yup he's obligated to provide loot, he's not obligated to create custom Non-traditional magic items though.

Well he could run you through lots of Treasure: No encounters or give you some loot and then have an NPC rogue relieve you of it but that tends to become old.

[lsfreak]

Sorry, I agree that the DM is under no obligation to provide weird loot to circumvent VoP's weaknesses. Visigani said earlier in the thread that the DM is not obligated to provide loot to anyone, so providing weird build-specific RAI- and RAW-violating loot to the VoP character is no different than providing loot for anyone else. Which is simply not true.

[ArcturusV]

Actually the Vow of Poverty mentions (in sort of a roundabout way) that the DM is still obligated to provide loot for the character. Just the character isn't allowed to just give what would be his share to his allies. Instead he's supposed to give it all to charity, etc.

"Here you go Mr. Hobo, I know you're starving, have a +2 Longsword!"

But yeah. His argument seems to hinge on not only providing Relics (Which may or may not be reasonable), but also creating Custom Relics when there are no rules for Custom Relics (As opposed to rules for Custom Magic Items, etc). And even then you're limited to the Vow's possessions limiter. Which at best means the only "relic" you could really have is a simple weapon. So you might get away with that. You might also be able to skate with food as a magic item, if there was some holy food relic. But there isn't. And even the mace is kind of a corner case where I could see a DM ruling either way. As the thighbone is not going to be "masterwork", and a judgment call on RAI for "Magic".

[The Insanity]

In my games VoP works like this:
The character gives all his possessions and gold to charities. Anything that he earns through adventuring (or otherwise) must be given up to a worthy cause, like feeding the hungry or sheltering the homeless. None of his earnings can go to his benefit.
As a reward the character gains effects of magic items. The effect's price is the same as the price of an item that gives that effect, but the money actually goes to charity.
So basically he gains magical equipment, but it can't be stolen or sundered and if dispelled it can be reactivated with a free action.
By being super Good and paying a feat the character effectively can have any magic item without having the risk of losing it.

[molten_dragon]

Actually the Vow of Poverty mentions (in sort of a roundabout way) that the DM is still obligated to provide loot for the character. Just the character isn't allowed to just give what would be his share to his allies. Instead he's supposed to give it all to charity, etc.

"Here you go Mr. Hobo, I know you're starving, have a +2 Longsword!"

Note to self, hobos and starving orphans aren't easily able to defend themselves. Follow VoP character around and steal his charitable donations from the people he donates them to after he leaves.

[visigani]

Relics are built by the DM like any other magic item. This argument has turned hilarious because of the lengths...

"Oh... oh muh gawd... oh muh GAWD... HE EXPECTS THE DM TO PROVIDE TREASURE THE PLAYER CAN USE?!?!?!?! How DARE he! And... *gasp* it's "strange custom content from beyond the realms of madness!"..."

this group has gone to to maintain their belief that VoP must suck... because if it doesn't... can we trust anything to be real?

Meanwhile everyone is telling themselves Dragonwrought Kobolds begin play as epic dragons or somesuch nonsense... because like, they're "True Dragons".