We all know how broken the original vop is in 3.5, but it is understandably so considering what you give up. Pathfinders vop on the other hand is only worth 5 points for the Monk...no one else can utilize it because they will not get any benefit, even if they could take it. Would it be wrong to let the players choose which one they wish to use?
3.5 VoP was broken?
EDIT: TOZ's a frickin' ninja now!?
If a DM wants to use options from 3.5, they're certainly free to do so (unless it's a sanctioned PFS game).
I agree the 3.5 VoP is more in line with what the character gives up than the PF VoP (although I disagree on its brokenness; most characters wouldn't take it), but it's by no means perfect.
I personally agree that it is not really 'broken', it is just the normal opinion of most of my gamers (but that doesn't prevent them from using it).
Pathfinder Monk Vows are ridiculous, the Harder they are to maintain, the less they give you...
I would separate Vow of Chastety from Vow of Celibacy, etc...
|
Would it be wrong to let the players choose which one they wish to use?
Absolutely not. In fact, players that want to play ascetic-feeling monks that can keep up with the rest of the party will thank you for keeping the original open as an option.
The BoED VoP may have its problems, but it's a much better thing for making monks feel like monks than the UM VoP.
Pretty much most of the talk about the BoED VoP being overpowered came from druids taking the vow. For monks, it was a nice thing that still had them wind up lagging in a lot of areas, but not as severely as the new one.
Mmmmmmmm, BoED VoP druids. How I loved them but was never allowed to play them.
|
Effectively 3rd edition Vow of Poverty actually was a trap of a feat. It was only good on classes that didn't really need equipment to be amazing. Basically druids, who were going to be amazing unless they were purposefully trying not to be with or without that feat. Everyone else was pretty much just ruining their character.
Vow of Poverty gives you an extra Ki per level at the cost of only being able to own one thing of value... period. To be honest you give up a lot, but depending on the type of game you're playing it might not even be that much.
I also want to do a Sensei Quingong with Vow of Poverty and a few more vows... so many buffs and scorching rays T___T
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
3E vow of poverty is UNDERPOWERED! UNDERPOWERED! UNDERPOWERED!
Has it sunk in yet?
Compare level-by level what the VoP guy can have vs. what you could get with wealth by level. If you try to match what te VoP guy gets exactly, VoP will look good. If you instead buy stuff that isn't total crap and is actually useful, like say... a wand of fly, ring of protect +5 (VoP does not get that high), celestial armor, animated shield, etc... you'll see VoP for the turd that it is. Wealth is customizable to what you want, and can be used to plug an emergency leak like, "oh crap, I can't fly and a lot of enemies can! Perhaps a means of flight would be rather kickass for me to obtain..." Or fill utility roles w/ scrolls and such.
PF vow of poverty...is the most abominable trap option I have ever seen in d20. Like, 3E toughness sucked, you only got 3 hp. But you...actually got 3 hp. It didn't take hp away from you for being dumbass enough to take it. That's basically what PF VoP does. Not content to give you nothing at all for the expense of your class feature, it actually makes you worse in return for that class feature! Much, much, much, much, MUCH worse!
I feel dirty just dignifying PF's vop rules by speaking of them.
3E vow of poverty is UNDERPOWERED! UNDERPOWERED! UNDERPOWERED!
Has it sunk in yet?
Compare level-by level what the VoP guy can have vs. what you could get with wealth by level. If you try to match what te VoP guy gets exactly, VoP will look good. If you instead buy stuff that isn't total crap and is actually useful, like say... a wand of fly, ring of protect +5 (VoP does not get that high), celestial armor, animated shield, etc... you'll see VoP for the turd that it is. Wealth is customizable to what you want, and can be used to plug an emergency leak like, "oh crap, I can't fly and a lot of enemies can! Perhaps a means of flight would be rather kickass for me to obtain..." Or fill utility roles w/ scrolls and such.
PF vow of poverty...is the most abominable trap option I have ever seen in d20. Like, 3E toughness sucked, you only got 3 hp. But you...actually got 3 hp. It didn't take hp away from you for being dumbass enough to take it. That's basically what PF VoP does. Not content to give you nothing at all for the expense of your class feature, it actually makes you worse in return for that class feature! Much, much, much, much, MUCH worse!
I feel dirty just dignifying PF's vop rules by speaking of them.
I hear you on that!
I would like to hear some others opinions on this subject, if people would care to give their 2 coppers worth.
I agree with Stream that in general Vow of Poverty is underpowered compared to what you can pull off with standard wealth by level. However, there are a couple things that could change the equation.
1) Low magic/Low gold campaigns
Obviously, if you don't have access to magic items and/or don't normally get as much cashy-money then you're not giving up as much by taking the Vow.
2) Pick the right class
Out of everything 3.5 had to offer there were a couple of classes that could do better than usual with the Vow of Poverty. For example, the classes out of Magic of Incarnum got soulmelds that blocked their magic item slots, so once again you're reducing the opportunity cost of taking Vow of Poverty
3) The group plays it wrong
Vow of Poverty characters still have to take a full share of the loot and give it to charity. However, I've seen people play it as the VoP character not taking a share at all, which means more for everyone else. That doesn't make the VoP character any better, but the extra loot will boost up the rest of the party.
|
I liked the 3.5 VoP, and while I've only seen it played with a few times, I hadn't ever had a problem with it outide of it being an Exalted Feat. I do not see why only the super Good of the Good could take this option, and could easily see even a villian absolutely foresaking all gear and wealth in order to make themselves a perfect killer/monster.
I think that the two areas it really held a little too much issue where that it needed to be a little more tailered to each class, and that it needed to add a few more option choices, not to mention that the rules for it are lovated in 3 different places in the book, making it a little difficult to remember it all. It should have been toned down slightly for the Monk, but opened up sightly for tanks and divine casters. It tended to cause some really wierd moral issues if your Cleric was forced not to do something Good in order to keep within the letter of the Vow, but obviously not the intent. For warriors, it might have been nice to allow a single weapon and armor beyond the Vow's means, but ONLY that single Weapon or Armor.
Another odd issue that came up, (and we houseruled it as an exception) is when the character either must take an item or is forced to carry it for the greater good, like disarming the evil liches supercoolguy staff, stealing the artifact, or whatever to stop the world from blowing up. I wish that they would have been a little more generous with exceptions in the book, as I hate when too much is left in a DM's hands in cases like this. Especially in cases (Cleric, Paladin, and the like) where rfarining from an action is possible cause for the lose of Class features and the fall, and doing the action will cause you to loose the Feat (which is gone forever, no Atonement). If you fall, you still lose the Feat. . . Arg.
I can't stand the PF Vows at all.
I suggest at a minimum, the 3E VoP should have an option where you don't gain any bonus exalted feats, but it also costs no feats to select (normally requires 2 feats to gain). The loss of item use is worth FAR more than what the vow gives you anyway, so it's still balanced. Removing all the exalted crap and possibly changing "sacred" bonus types and the like to "vile" or "unsacred" or whatever, and you also end up with a decent open to any alignment "trade gear use for inherent boons" type deal.
I used such a set up for an evil NPC, it was fine.
Again, not even going to bother talking about the other vow of poverty....
I think if you want to give up gear in exchange for pre-set bonuses, it has to be campaign specific. There can't be a single formula that will be balanced considering all the different ways that GM's handle treasure, magic item trade, and WBL (which isn't a rule so much as a guideline).
I don't think Pathfinder should even have a RULE for playing characters without wealth, they should provide a GUIDELINE for handling these things in the context of a campaign. They should also provide guidelines for running campaigns at various other wealth levels. These guidelines would also need to work differently for different classes, and could be far less restrictive then an existing VoP.
PFS is probably the only place where you could have a rule for exchanging treasure for bonuses, but it would only work in a very controlled system like PFS.
I don't know, to date, all of Paizo's guieline rules sets have been pretty horribl, I think. Words of Power, "Epic" rules, and the ARG race builder, . . .
I can't really say I know enough about any of those systems to judge one way or another. We are talking about creating something that is directly balanced against WBL, and dramatically affected by a GM's individual campaign. If you are expecting a hard and fast rule such as 3.5 VoP, it is going to be fantastic in some campaigns (low wealth, no magic shops, random treasure) and horrible in others (high wealth, magic marts, generous crafting). In other words, you can't base a rule off of a guideline, and expect it to be anything close to balanced.
You also can't drastically alter equipment/magic items for the different classes and expect good results. A wizard, a barbarian, and a wild shaping druid all have totally different item requirements, and you can't satisfy all three, and expect it to be "balanced."
I came up with a nice solution to make the vow of poverty "inherent in you magic" thing work better, and to be balanced with a game of any wealth level. I'd love it if some people could try it out and let me know how it works for them.
I came up with a nice solution to make the vow of poverty "inherent in you magic" thing work better, and to be balanced with a game of any wealth level...
I find that a little confusing. Could such a character use any expendable items? And when you mention your wealth remaining at a minimum level is that WBL as per the table?
I find that a little confusing. Could such a character use any expendable items? And when you mention your wealth remaining at a minimum level is that WBL as per the table?
Question 1: "You cannot select expendable items such as wands, potions, and so forth."
Pretty clear cut.
I do not consider items with per day uses to be "expendable," nor do I think many do, but in case that isn't clear, something like winged boots that can be used 3/day but never truly "run out" of uses long-term, for example, would be acceptable.
Question 2: Yes.
Upon obtaining 3rd character level, for example, you would have the wealth that the wealth by level table says a 3rd level character should have. You are then stuck at that amount and your selections till level 4, where upon you'd have level 4 wealth. Meanwhile your friends using items are presumably building up to that 4th level wealth throughout the course of being level 3, and thus will have more stuff than you for much of that time at level 3. That is the drawback.
And as I noted in the thread*, the house rules assume a game following wealth by level, but I quite explicitly say that if a DM is deviating heavily from it, to just base the amount a VoP character gets at each level up on an amount roughly equal to the party's actual wealth.
*Text I'm referring to:
|
|
I don't know, to date, all of Paizo's guieline rules sets have been pretty horrible, I think. Words of Power, "Epic" rules, and the ARG race builder, . . .I can't really say I know enough about any of those systems to judge one way or another. We are talking about creating something that is directly balanced against WBL, and dramatically affected by a GM's individual campaign. If you are expecting a hard and fast rule such as 3.5 VoP, it is going to be fantastic in some campaigns (low wealth, no magic shops, random treasure) and horrible in others (high wealth, magic marts, generous crafting). In other words, you can't base a rule off of a guideline, and expect it to be anything close to balanced.
The problem with them is that they are all too much guidelines and are left too vague to really be of use. They all kind ofseem half finished. Obviously the Epic rules are done that way on purpose as Paizo isn't sure what exactly they want to do with them. The other issue is they tend ot be forgotten about after introduced, and newer books do not really add anything to the system as new rules and mechanics come out.
I kinda like Paizo's VoP though only for NPCs, but I am fine with that.
I see no need for the sillyness of 3.x vow of poverty if you want to eliminate magic overload from the game do it for all classes, people looking at the mechanical benefits for the Vow of Poverty somehow strikes me as wrong.
3.5 VoP is underpowered for all except druids.
Pathfinder VoP is "meh" and also underpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3E VoP is horrible for monks.
PF vow of poverty makes 3E VoP look to monks what natural spell looks like to druids. If Natural Spell also came with a +5 effective CL on all spellcasting. And immortality.
We all know how broken the original vop is in 3.5, but it is understandably so considering what you give up.
What led me to say this in the opening statement was that there are not many, if any at all, feats that give so much. Not that it 'is' broken.
It is a lot to give up and really doesn't replace all that you can get with sufficient amounts of treasure.
That being said, the Pathfinder VoP is insubstantial in comparison. Some people still use the original. What reason do we really have ro take the new one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yep. And at the same time it feels like a rip off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But don't you all know, being poor sucks, so why should a mechanical VoP in Pathfinder be an actual good option, instead of just being a trap option for unsavvy players?
And, yes, that was sarcasm. Not directed at SKR ( who by now we know is just the unlucky guy who communicated those decisions by the designers to us ), but at the whole design team which came up with this vow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not directed at SKR ( who by now we know is just the unlucky guy who communicated those decisions by the designers to us )
I'm sure having to defend an awful design decision sucks, and I'm sure he'd have rather like...played Pathfinder than type up a .
But, I don't think anyone at paizo was handing him a script to read, either. Those were his own words and arguments, and they were poor arguments, downright insulting to the player base. Cause how dare you want to play someone who's forsaken material possessions but still want to contribute to the party and not feel worthless. Druids being allergic to metal in exchange for full spellcasting (they literally lose it if they put a chainshirt on!)? Makes sense. Paladin getting a bunch of sweet divine boons by abiding to a code of conduct? Totally to be expected. Forsaking material things and gaining Su abilities that make up for it, like 3E VoP? That's crazy talk!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me lend my 2 cents. I am a huge fan of 3.5/PF rules. BoED's is a great book! The VOP from it is not broken by any measure. If you do some research or read what the authors actual wrote in the BoED book you would have more understanding of why VOP was created.
It was meant to be used by veteran players who have grown tired or bored with the standard classes/system of play. It was to challenge those players by taking the feat and trying something different. It was suppose to be hard to play a VOP Paly or any other classes dependant on gear... The "broken" part came as with any rule system when people pick classes that build upon and work extremely well with the feat instead of how it was intend... to challenge yourself.
The new Vows are horrible... You give up a lot for nothing but that IB itself could be a challenge depends on how you look at it.
|
|
Yeah, if they'd rather not write an option, then I'd just prefer it if they didn't write the option than writing something horrible and poisoning that well.
This was a big part of why I found it so disheartening. It kind of blocks any better form of "vow of poverty/gearless monk" concept support in the future. It took the flavor that a lot of people desired for their monks, strapped them to some mechanics that don't hold up in a standard party playing through an AP, and messed up the flavor itself for good measure(you're a gearless monk, only not).
So monks are still stuck depending on magical bling, and particularly expensive examples at that. It's a serious buzzkill if you want that ascetic monk you can see in your head but absolutely cannot make work at the table.
3.5 VoP had its issues, but it was a lot closer to having the right idea when it came to aesthetics support.
But none of that apparently counts for anything when people just keep parroting that insulting and dismissive "but being poor sucks lol!" quote.
I still think it's fine, we all know it is not an option from the CRB it is in the advanced book, if we are worried for player to not recognize a bad option for their character they will have bigger problems.
As it is the VoP monk can be taken by PCs but will end up being a bit silly since you can pick one item and have it enchanted till infinity at an additional cost.
So monk with VoP will have a +5 amulet of mighty fists, +5 natural armor, +5 deflection, +5 saves, +8 armor, +6 strength, +6 dexterity +6 constitution and +6 wisdom by epic levels... probably wouldn't really need the actual item, but VoP does not play nice with the pillage and loot system otherwise, I mean WBL. It makes other players comparatively stronger by having the monk not take his share.
The 3.5 VoP specifies that they DID take thier share and donated it. Doesnt change WBL at all.
That does make it better I suppose, though I'd have a minimum amount of donation to get the next level's powers.
Still think the game needs a more fundamental change in this area, dont think that will ever happen though.
And, hey, I am not saying that I didn't find SKRs comments disheartening, but at least I don't put all that blame on him anymore.
I'd love to see the developers have an open dialogue with us about the VoP and the Monk, like they did with Stealth ( and I hope something will be done about *that* skill, too, now that their schedule should be a tad lighter ). I will probably never have the chance to speak to them in person, but I'd like to have the actual rules designers have an open dialogue with us about those problem areas. Hell, these are not the only problem areas I can identify, magic item crafting and high level play are others which could benefit from an open dialogue.
At least I finally found an idea by myself to make magic item crafting mostly balanced. ^^
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 VoP had its issues, but it was a lot closer to having the right idea when it came to aesthetics support.
But none of that apparently counts for anything when people just keep parroting that insulting and dismissive "but being poor sucks lol!" quote.
Oh, no, that's not the case at all. 3E's VoP was a brave experiment that sadly feel short. Designers trying to make a legitimately balanced rule to roleplay a character that abstains possessions yet can still be comparable to a normal D&D character.
They tried to make it work, had some good ideas, I don't begrudge the 3E designers at all for failing to make a balanced VoP.
I DO begrudge PF's designers, for their awful, cynical, "screw you" fans, half-assed, poorly rationalized vow. I don't see what justifiably growling about SKR's "sucks to be poor" comments has anything to do with 3E VoP and its merits.
|
|
Just to clear up any confusion, I wasn't calling out hte "poverty sucks" quote as being a knock against 3.5's VoP but rather its continued use as a defense of the UM VoP and the way it's used to dismiss any criticism of it(and anyone that actually wanted to play a good ascetic monk) as if anyone that wanted a balanced VoP option was somehow an ignorant child unaware of the real world.
The source of the quote came from when everyone's tempers were running hot, so that's fair enough. What's past is past. It's when that quote continuously gets used by posters in that condescending way that it really grates.
Being without gear sucks, if your not a spellcaster that is just how it is. do you play a fighter that will only use a club, sling and leather armor and complain that it is not as good as heavier armors, falcata and longbow?
Fixed that for you.