|
Option 3 : Your example is ridiculous.
You get an extra ki point every other level, which does actually matter.
You can have one super uber item.
You can take potions or have spells cast on you that will actually work to full effect since you aren't already wearing bonus item.
You can use permanent items such as tombs, or presumably wear magic tattoos, etc...
Mountain created out of a molehill, as will be shown when people start playing the class.
VOP: Five of these items must be of plain and simple make, though one can be of some value (often an heirloom of great personal significance to the monk).
Note the emphasis, what your saying is, you would take this feat for the flavor and then break all intended flavor? Or have the DM cater to creating powerful family heirlooms that are still only kinda valuable but show up right as appropriate level dictates. Yeah that's believable.
Magic tattoos are house rules and can't be counted, I could house rules the monk keeps his items with this vow, doesn't mean it fixes it.
tombs are expensive later game items, even if you grab the cheaper ones the don't stack with the more expensive ones.
Potions and spells? Yes lets waste other players actions in combat to make you suck less. /sarcasm
Yes, some value. As in a significant or exceptional value.
"That's some pig" means "That is an exceptional pig", am I right?
If one were to find an exceptional item during the course of adventuring, I would think that item would be able to qualify. And if you are following anywhere close to WBL, it won't really have any significant effect until 4th or 5th level in any game.
The Shoanti would like to have a word with you about the tattoos.
Also, since I don't keep the money, I could be giving my gold to other party members in exchange for low level buffs of one kind or another. What else are you using those 1st level spots for later in the game?
It's an option. Options are good.
I continue to be amused that the reasoning behind VoP not being so bad is because you can blatently go against the entire purpose of the vow and make one super mega item that costs a bajillion gold.
"See the Vow works if you go out of your way to undermine it!"
|
|
I continue to be amused that the reasoning behind VoP not being so bad is because you can blatently go against the entire purpose of the vow and make one super mega item that costs a bajillion gold.
"See the Vow works if you go out of your way to undermine it!"
Where did the goalposts go?
The concept is you eschew material things, having only one item of value.
That item having value...not outside of the purpose of the vow.
Where did the goalposts go?
The concept is you eschew material things, having only one item of value.
That item having value...not outside of the purpose of the vow.
Some value means it isn't dirt cheap, it happens to have a little value. We aren't hicks and pazio doesn't write rules using slang terms from the south, so your pig example isn't even a proper use of the word.
Not to mention you must start with the item, it is supposed to have some sentimental value to the monk (heirloom), and you can't make it better then your original version because you can't accumulate wealth. Using your friends wealth doesn't count because that is a loophole and not in the flavor of the vow, not to mention if their offering to get it enchanted your response has to be to give that gold to charity instead.
Some value means it isn't dirt cheap, it happens to have a little value. We aren't hicks and pazio doesn't write rules using slang terms from the south, so your pig example isn't even a proper use of the word.
Not to mention you must start with the item, it is supposed to have some sentimental value to the monk (heirloom), and you can't make it better then your original version because you can't accumulate wealth. Using your friends wealth doesn't count because that is a loophole and not in the flavor of the vow, not to mention if their offering to get it enchanted your response has to be to give that gold to charity instead.
The bolded part is incorrect.
The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions—a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item. Five of these items must be of plain and simple make, though one can be of some value (often an heirloom of great personal significance to the monk).
I emphasized the relevant bits of text. You don't have to start with the item, and it doesn't have to be an heirloom or item of personal significance.
I am corrected on starting with it, thank you
I did put "supposed" to be an heirloom, I am aware it doesn't have to be. but the focus is that people argue this works as a flavor option, using whatever is the most powerful thing you can find doesn't go well with the monk having one item of some value, especially when they mention it should be something important to the monk so that he is willing to break his vow in order to carry it.
Using the reading as "I carry a 200,000 gold temple sword, see it is survivable!" kinda goes against "you take this vow for flavor"
plus what happens when you give that super buffed weapon/item your DM gave you (regardless that it would never happen without VOP because most DM's are smart enough to give PC's a spread of treasure and not just super items) to the fighter? Now he can get another super item and the fighter is far above his WBL because he already had items before getting this super (DM fiated) one.
This is either severely cripplingly underpowered or DM's have to accommodate for it and it becomes broken.
|
edit-Not going to take the bait.
I hope I am wrong and that there's still room for something that enables a magic-gearless and functional monk. Nothing overpowered, just workable on something approaching equal ground with standard characters.
I'd rather see character concepts opened up than shut out.
And again, Shadow_of_death has it: This Vow wrecks its own flavor. If you have to cheat the spirit of the vow to make it work, something is wrong.
edit-Not going to take the bait.
I hope I am wrong and that there's still room for something that enables a magic-gearless and functional monk. Nothing overpowered, just workable on something approaching equal ground with standard characters.
I'd rather see character concepts opened up than shut out.
And again, Shadow_of_death has it: This Vow wrecks its own flavor. If you have to cheat the spirit of the vow to make it work, something is wrong.
You'd have to change some of the fundamental assumptions about things like loot division and average treasure in a game in order for this to be feasible.
Otherwise you end up with one guy whose equal to a standard guy and four guys who are better equipped than standard.
"Well LingDingDongolingus is doing his hobo thing again. By the way have you see my newest holy avenger? It has Good Motherlover written on it in dwarven runes."
|
|
I would not let 'some value' mean anything more than a handful of gold pieces. So no uber magic items with your vow of poverty.
Per the developers
"I like the concept of the vow of poverty. It's a noble thing. And I understand that it sucks to be the impoverished character in a game where you're supposed to have 20,000 gp worth of goodies. So the VOP in UM gives you a bone in the form of extra ki. And another bone in the form of "you can have one item of value," which lets you put all your gp cheese in one item instead of ten. But I'm not going to let the rules make your impoverished monk as good as a regular monk. If you want to play a character that's making a sacrifice, make a sacrifice--don't pretend it's a sacrifice and expect a handout for pretending."
Per Sean, here is the link.
|
|
And another bone in the form of "you can have one item of value," which lets you put all your gp cheese in one item instead of ten.
gp cheese
Which shatters the theme of an impoverished monk. It destroys its supposed flavor.
if i were designing this a monk with a vow of poverty would be rewarded for maintaining his vow at certain level milestones. for example a monk who maintained his vow until the 5th,10th, 15th, and 20th level would be granted some sort of supernatural bonus roughly equal to gold equivalent a character of his level would have in magic items. the monk would be required to donate all the wealth and magic items he does accumulate to his order, church, charity in order to receive the bonus and if he fails to do so within reasonable amount of game time could be considered in violation of his vow - dm discretion - and these milestone abilities would be lost until he could atone.
this way the monk would not be too far behind his friends in power level and his donations would be a gold and item drain for the DM. as its written now the items that would go to the monk would just be sold and redistributed among the other party members so all the vow really does is make the rest of the party strong at the expense of the monk. as an added bonus there are all sorts of opportunities for RP as the monk tries to convince the party that extra magic longsword should be sold and the money given to the poor.
THIS on the other hand works with the theme! THIS is the kind of flavor I was looking for.
And another bone in the form of "you can have one item of value," which lets you put all your gp cheese in one item instead of ten.
gp cheese
Which shatters the theme of an impoverished monk. It destroys its supposed flavor.
Not really. Seeing as monks are meant to at least to some extent emulate Chinese kung fu monks, the notion of a wandering kungfu master with only his prized sword as his valuable possession is not uncommon in Chinese literature. In at least 1 instance, it was because the dude was so fixated on swordplay that he eschewed all other luxuries to focus on perfecting his swordplay. Seems to fit somewhat, except maybe in this case, the monk has his treasured...erm...staff?
I would prefer it as an archetype honestly, a lot like the qigong monk you give up abilities to absorb the magic of any item (Or two) worth X amount (this amount changes as you exchange higher level powers), you still need loot you just make it worthless and therefore carry able (not that it is worth anything). Still can't carry gold or own land or anything, you just absorb what you can find. If you want to exchange abilities I suppose you could as long as you first donated the previous item to your church/monastary.
Not really. Seeing as monks are meant to at least to some extent emulate Chinese kung fu monks, the notion of a wandering kungfu master with only his prized sword as his valuable possession is not uncommon in Chinese literature. In at least 1 instance, it was because the dude was so fixated on swordplay that he eschewed all other luxuries to focus on perfecting his swordplay. Seems to fit somewhat, except maybe in this case, the monk has his treasured...erm...staff?
You mean that normal sword they happen to favor? and not "the blade of the gods +5" that we are talking about for our impoverished monk? I am not seeing the connection.
|
|
+1 to Mikaze.
"I have taken a vow against all worldly possessions to increase my discipline."
"What about that magic gold chain around your neck, Mr. T?"
"It only has some value."
"You spent enough gold enchanting it to buy the entire continent!"
Your reading of the word "some" isn't the intended meaning.
Some also mean, substantial. As in that item as some value.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/some
3: remarkable, striking <that was some party
As was said above, often the classic kung fu character has one item of value.
You mean that normal sword they happen to favor? and not "the blade of the gods +5" that we are talking about for our impoverished monk? I am not seeing the connection.
Not really. Seeing as monks are meant to at least to some extent emulate Chinese kung fu monks, the notion of a wandering kungfu master with only his prized sword as his valuable possession is not uncommon in Chinese literature. In at least 1 instance, it was because the dude was so fixated on swordplay that he eschewed all other luxuries to focus on perfecting his swordplay. Seems to fit somewhat, except maybe in this case, the monk has his treasured...erm...staff?
Isn't always a normal sword. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon dude had his Green Destiny. Nip Fung has his snow-drinking sabre. Bo Kim Wan has his ultimate sword. Duan Lang has his Fire Kirin Sword. Jin Mao Shi Wang had his Dragon Slaying Sabre. To name a few.
|
|
What about "guy that uses his fists and feet"? What if we don't want Green Destiny Blade or a Fatal Flying Guillotine and we just want to punch and kick with enlightenment and justice driving the blows home?
And I can't recall any of those heroes pouring boatloads of money into their item of great significance.
A monk doing that is still holding onto loadsamoney(which is not going to the needy) for the purpose of pouring it into his item. Or he's letting a friend hold onto it for him until he's ready to use it.
Which, again, breaks the spirit of the vow.
|
|
What about "guy that uses his fists and feet"? What if we don't want Green Destiny Blade or a Fatal Flying Guillotine and we just want to punch and kick with enlightenment and justice driving the blows home?
And I can't recall any of those heroes pouring boatloads of money into their item of great significance.
Who says they buy it?
Strangely bad guys drop things periodically. It is odd how that works.
And when did the goalposts move again?
Isn't always a normal sword. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon dude had his Green Destiny. Nip Fung has his snow-drinking sabre. Bo Kim Wan has his ultimate sword. Duan Lang has his Fire Kirin Sword. Jin Mao Shi Wang had his Dragon Slaying Sabre. To name a few.
All just plot weapons as far as I can tell, something handed down or needed to be returned. You can't have 5-6 of those in a game of pathfinder just to get the monk through his career.
|
|
What about "guy that uses his fists and feet"? What if we don't want Green Destiny Blade or a Fatal Flying Guillotine and we just want to punch and kick with enlightenment and justice driving the blows home?
And I can't recall any of those heroes pouring boatloads of money into their item of great significance.
Who says they buy it?
Strangely bad guys drop things periodically. It is odd how that works.
And when did the goalposts move again?
What goalpost moving.
A bare-handed gearless monk has been the concept I've been trying to make work from the very beginning. Read back in this thread, as well as the thread that spawned this one.
And are you suggesting that the monk in question gets their item of significance from fallen foes, which ain't exactly significant, or are you saying because it's loot from fallen foes it doesn't count as held wealth, in which case what.
Your reading of the word "some" isn't the intended meaning.
Some also mean, substantial. As in that item as some value.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/some
3: remarkable, striking <that was some party
As was said above, often the classic kung fu character has one item of value.
For one, you shouldn't tell people their reading is wrong if you aren't the writer, for two that would require the item to be of remarkably awe-inspiring value. Which is undo-able until later levels and hardly seems to be the intent.
|
|
All just plot weapons as far as I can tell, something handed down or needed to be returned. You can't have 5-6 of those in a game of pathfinder just to get the monk through his career.
Isn't always a normal sword. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon dude had his Green Destiny. Nip Fung has his snow-drinking sabre. Bo Kim Wan has his ultimate sword. Duan Lang has his Fire Kirin Sword. Jin Mao Shi Wang had his Dragon Slaying Sabre. To name a few.
Don't need to. Each item will have a value to the monk as he receives it through battle and victory, giving away his old item along the way.
Conceptually if I were to play one, I would probably take master craftsman and keep upgrading.
|
|
For one, you shouldn't tell people their reading is wrong if you aren't the writer, for two that would require the item to be of remarkably awe-inspiring value. Which is undo-able until later levels and hardly seems to be the intent.
Your reading of the word "some" isn't the intended meaning.
Some also mean, substantial. As in that item as some value.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/some
3: remarkable, striking <that was some party
As was said above, often the classic kung fu character has one item of value.
I quoted the writer above, actually.
And based on what the writer said, it was the intent.
|
|
What about "guy that uses his fists and feet"? What if we don't want Green Destiny Blade or a Fatal Flying Guillotine and we just want to punch and kick with enlightenment and justice driving the blows home?
And I can't recall any of those heroes pouring boatloads of money into their item of great significance.
Who says they buy it?
Strangely bad guys drop things periodically. It is odd how that works.
And when did the goalposts move again?
What goalpost moving.
A bare-handed gearless monk has been the concept I've been trying to make work from the very beginning. Read back in this thread, as well as the thread that spawned this one.
And are you suggesting that the monk in question gets their item of significance from fallen foes, which ain't exactly significant, or are you saying because it's loot from fallen foes it doesn't count as held wealth, in which case what.
Item, not weapon.
I quoted the writer above, actually.
And based on what the writer said, it was the intent.
I remember the writer saying something about cheese and then I got hungry and stopped reading.
Edit: he essentially said yeah it sucks, but we also wrote it badly so you can use a loophole we left to your advantage.
Don't need to. Each item will have a value to the monk as he receives it through battle and victory, giving away his old item along the way.
Conceptually if I were to play one, I would probably take master craftsman and keep upgrading.
Ditch the old treasured item for the shiny new one. Yes I can see you have no regrets about giving up luxuries of the material world. These items seem more like smoking patches to keep him from breaking his vow then treasured items he doesn't mind carrying despite their worth.
|
|
Conceptually if I were to play one, I would probably take master craftsman and keep upgrading.With what?
Fair point, that would require some hand waving.
Still, the monk is allowed to have one item of significant value, and there are a number of ways this can be accomplished, the easiest of which being to take it from whatever he kills.
This, combined with the ki bonuses every other level and the ability to accept potions and spells (remember not having anything means those things actually give full benefit) means they have options.
At lower levels they may even be better.
|
|
Item, not weapon.He was listing examples of pop culture monks with important swords.
Most barehanded martial artists fromt he same aren't dependant upon some important item.
Most isn't all. Magic Amulets are a common trope.
Again, this all comes down to this being an option. It is perfectly fine at low to mid levels, and while it will lag at higher levels it is a great option in some settings and concepts.
Particularly low magic, which many people play.
I don't get the outrage.
...didn't Trailblazer already demonstrate that magic item pluses aren't needed for equal CR encounters? All the presence of +X magic items does is necessitate CR encounters greater than average character level as levels increase.
Huh? Impossible! Without +++s an on par CR encounter is no longer on par! The game is designed with them in mind for God's sake!
Link please.
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
|
|
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
Except...
"The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions—a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item."
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
Except...
"The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions—a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item."
And they are very simple. Rags, tin, a toy.
These are all very plain things of simple make.
I can't help that my wizard friend enchanted all of them for me.
The only item that is limited by value, according to the rules, is the sixth item. The rest just have to be plain.
|
|
Item, not weapon.He was listing examples of pop culture monks with important swords.
Most barehanded martial artists fromt he same aren't dependant upon some important item.
Most isn't all. Magic Amulets are a common trope.
A rather rare one where martial arts heroes are concerned as far as I've seen.
Again, this all comes down to this being an option. It is perfectly fine at low to mid levels, and while it will lag at higher levels it is a great option in some settings and concepts.
Particularly low magic, which many people play.
I don't get the outrage.
Well...
1. It took the name of and possibly locked out an option that enabled gearless monks. It was a flawed option, but at least it made functional monks of that theme possible in standard campaigns.
2. Having one's disappointment dismissed as nerdrage or being solely because one wants to optimize and doesn't care about roleplay tends to irritate. This thread has been chock full of people taking cheapshots and making assumptions about the people that dislike the current VoP and actually liked the idea of what the original VoP was meant to be before it got abused.
I mean hell, one of the developers got in on it.
3. The current VoP doesn't even keep to its theme.
4. The monk has been crapped on over and over again. It would be nice to be able to make a capable monk without having the min/max the hell out of it because of the damn MAD. It would be nice to go into the class with a solid theme and character concept and not have to constantly compromise it just to keep up with everyone else. It would be nice to have the monk not be relegated to fifth wheel status. It needs help.
Which makes things like Cockatrice Strike(has anyone ever gotten it to work in a standard game?), True Sacrifice(the worst "Screw You Player" I have ever seen), and now the VoP sting. And now there are arbitarily evil-only ki powers for the Qinggong monks and no good ones. Great!
But hey, I guess none of those complaints matter because I want to have badwrongfun anyway by wanting to be able to roleplay a themed monk without having to optimize the hell out of the class in order to stay alive and/or not get the party killed. Without having to feel like I was just along for the ride and not an equal member of the group.
Hell, I wasn't even going to post in this thread until the constant cheapshots at those that didn't like the UM VoP kept coming up. And they're still going.
Except...
"The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions—a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item."
And they are very simple. Rags, tin, a toy.
These are all very plain things of simple make.
I can't help that my wizard friend enchanted all of them for me.
The only item that is limited by value, according to the rules, is the sixth item. The rest just have to be plain.
Behind your back right? cause that wouldn't even be breaking the fluff. He is right though, it just says the monk can't have gold and the items he has have to be of simple make, not cheap items, just stuff made of simple materials. Wow we can cheese our way into ignoring the whole vow, okay it works whatever then, I'll take the free ki
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
Except...
"The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions—a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item."
Simple set of clothing: Monk's robes, with a rope for a belt (but said rope also gives +6 to str, dex and con)
Pair of sandals: enchanted to give all my kicks +5 enhancement and deal 1d6 cold, fire, lightning and acid damage
a bowl: that I wear on my head, enchanted to project a force effect around me equivalent to a bracers of armour +8
a sack: mine has 2 eye holes, and i wear it over my head (and the bowl) to grant me +6 int, wis and cha
a blanket: that i wear over my shoulders-it gives me +5 resistance bonus to all saves
one more item: the plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box
ROFL
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Just living up to the spirit of the thread. It is called "Getting Use Out of Ultimate Magic" you know.
In any case, I'm surprised that no one has even considered that maybe it wasn't ever meant to limit your wealth of items, but rather the number of items you carry. Only being able to carry six items, rather than the 14 that magic item slots normally allow IS a fairly big limiting factor and would be about on par with what you get in return.
You get to keep the BIG SIX while giving up everything else.
You get six items. You need the BIG SIX to stay afloat in the game. Nobody noticed this? Really?
If all your items are of cheap make (wood, bone, tin, whatever), then you have indeed followed the rules of the Vow. You still can't carry anything not your own worth more than 50gp and you still can't carry more than enough money needed to support yourself (modestly).
Considering all this, it's about in line with all the other vows.
FAQ this post if you agree, or even if you simply "want" to believe it's true.
Just living up to the spirit of the thread. It is called "Getting Use Out of Ultimate Magic" you know.
In any case, I'm surprised that no one has even considered that maybe it wasn't ever meant to limit your wealth of items, but rather the number of items you carry. Only being able to carry six items, rather than the 14 that magic item slots normally allow IS a fairly big limiting factor and would be about on par with what you get in return.
You get to keep the BIG SIX while giving up everything else.
You get six items. You need the BIG SIX to stay afloat in the game. Nobody noticed this? Really?
If all your items are of cheap make (wood, bone, tin, whatever), then you have indeed followed the rules of the Vow. You still can't carry anything not your own worth more than 50gp and you still can't carry more than enough money needed to support yourself (modestly).
Considering all this, it's about in line with all the other vows.
FAQ this post if you agree, or even if you simply "want" it to be true.
Precisely! The list of items I gave in the prior post is totally legit! XD
Precisely! The list of items I gave in the prior post is totally legit! XD
I honestly don't see why not. Everyone agrees: the current common interpretation not only sucks, it doesn't make much sense as written.
Mine, however, neither sucks or is senseless. For all we know, it was the developer's intent all along.
FAQ the above post enough and maybe they will agree.
EDIT: Forget about FAQing the above. I started it in its own thread. FAQ it over here.
Vow of Poverty
The monk has sworn a vow of extreme poverty and can never own more then simple non magical garments appropriate for the climate in which he dwells, a bed roll, a begging bowl and prayer beads or holy symbol made of wood. All food, water and lodging must be begged, foraged or gifted as long as the total value of the gift does not exceed 1 gold piece per/day. All monetary and magical wealth the monk would accumulate as a member of an adventuring party must be donated to his order or church to be redistributed to the poor in a timely fashion.
At 4th level a monk who has taken a vow of poverty gains a +1 circumstance bonus to armor class, to hit and damage. This bonus increases by one every 4 levels to maximum of +5 at level 20. If the monk breaks his vow of his own accord or is forced to break it under the effect of charm or compulsion all bonuses granted by the vow are lost and cannot be regained in any way.
thoughts ? im not super familiar with what bonuses stack with what in pathfinder by my intent would be to have the bonuses granted by vow stack with all other monk abilities.
Ehh bonuses are decent but it's kinda a random effect for giving up possessions, I like raving dorks better, it works and is fun
Flaring Spell (Metamagic)
Benefit: Fire & Electricity spells make creatures -1 attack for rounds equal to spell level (basically) for +1 spell level slot.That is what I think is a typical example of the balance in the book. I'd argue that it wouldn't see too much use at +0 spell level
Since this isn't just a VoP thread, anyone want to give theirnopinion on this?
Flaring Spell (Metamagic)
Benefit: Fire & Electricity spells make creatures -1 attack for rounds equal to spell level (basically) for +1 spell level slot.That is what I think is a typical example of the balance in the book. I'd argue that it wouldn't see too much use at +0 spell level
Since this isn't just a VoP thread, anyone want to give theirnopinion on this?
Take the dodge feat. More useful.
Dazing spell from the APG is far better.
The storm druid seems pretty useful, if only because the spell alter winds may actually come in handy for once. "Silly other casters, can't you make your spells work in severe wind? weaklings..." only got to be level 4 to make it severe (may require multiple castings). Not so good in a fight but your camp for the night will be safe from ambush, add in a campfire wall for extra fun. (and buy strong tents)
Just living up to the spirit of the thread. It is called "Getting Use Out of Ultimate Magic" you know.
In any case, I'm surprised that no one has even considered that maybe it wasn't ever meant to limit your wealth of items, but rather the number of items you carry. Only being able to carry six items, rather than the 14 that magic item slots normally allow IS a fairly big limiting factor and would be about on par with what you get in return.
You get to keep the BIG SIX while giving up everything else.
You get six items. You need the BIG SIX to stay afloat in the game. Nobody noticed this? Really?
If all your items are of cheap make (wood, bone, tin, whatever), then you have indeed followed the rules of the Vow. You still can't carry anything not your own worth more than 50gp and you still can't carry more than enough money needed to support yourself (modestly).
Considering all this, it's about in line with all the other vows.
FAQ this post if you agree, or even if you simply "want" to believe it's true.
As Shar Tahl pointed out in the other thread: magical items are masterwork by definition - even if they are mere rags they are special masterwork rags :P