could vow of poverty actually fit druid?

[Thunder999]

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

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

[Kelb_Panthera]

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

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

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

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

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

[Unavenger]

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

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

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

[MaxiDuRaritry]

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

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

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

[Unavenger]

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

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

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

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

[MaxiDuRaritry]

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

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

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

It's not a common use of the word "use," no.

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

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

[Unavenger]

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

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

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

[MaxiDuRaritry]

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

Your definition of the word "use" is extremely narrow.

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

be or become familiar with someone or something through experience.

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

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

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

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

[Unavenger]

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

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

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

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

[MaxiDuRaritry]

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

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

Yeah. As I said. Houserules.

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

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

[Unavenger]

Yeah. As I said. Houserules.

Because that's not what the rules actually say.

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

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

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

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

[Tallyn]

Yeah. As I said. Houserules.

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

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

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

A much more commonly accepted definition of use is:

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

[Silfir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Akal Saris]

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

Maybe a totemist would be another good VoP candidate?

[Leon]

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

[Gruftzwerg]

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

lol^^

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

[Leon]

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

[YellowJohn]

lol^^

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

Fixed that for you 😉

[NigelWalmsley]

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

[MaxiDuRaritry]

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

Meh. The rest of the group is fully justified in saying, "Well, if you don't want it, we're literally risking our lives for it, so we're taking it." Which is actually fine, if you consider your group to be a charity. I mean, if your group is literally going around saving people without being paid by the people you're saving (only expecting spoils of conquest for the monsters being slain), then your group actually is a charity, by definition: "Help or money given voluntarily to those in need." So long as the help is there, the money is optional. Do you know what you're explicitly allowed to donate money to? Now this both makes logical sense and is actually an exploit allowed by the rules, unlike that other stuff we were talking about upthread.

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

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

[ciopo]

Yeah. As I said. Houserules.

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

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

Can I have in on some of this fun?

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

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

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

[MaxiDuRaritry]

it is also clear that isn't RAI. imho

Agreed. I doubt they meant the horrible dysfunctionality of VoP to be the way it is, but unfortunately...

[NigelWalmsley]

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

[MaxiDuRaritry]

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

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

[Gusmo]

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

[MaxiDuRaritry]

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

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

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

[Unavenger]

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

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

[AvatarVecna]

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

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

[King of Nowhere]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MaxiDuRaritry]

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

That's both ridiculous and hilarious.