Vow of Poverty

[baradakas]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

A Vow of Poverty says:

"The monk can never keep more money or wealth on his person than..."

What should we make of "on his person"? Can he have more wealth so long as he doesn't carry it with him on adventures?

"The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions"

Strictly speaking a legal right isn't a possession. Suppose Mr. Monk goes on an adventure, is paid 1,000gp for it, and deposits that money with the Church of Abadar. In exchange for that deposit he receives the legal right to withdraw 1,000gp from the church at his leisure.

He does this for two or three adventures in a row, until he has enough on deposit to turn his one allowed item of value (a masterwork monk weapon of his favorite DR penetrating material) in a +1 weapon.

He's never kept wealth "on his person", he's never owned more than six possessions, and he's never owned more than one possession of substantial value.

Too cheeky? I had always read the ability to work that way, "on his person" being a deliberate choice of words that wouldn't be necessary otherwise. He still gets standard wealth by level, he is just dramatically limited in what he can spend it on.

First, this has already been addressed. I won't link to Mike Brock's post, since it's the THIRD POST IN THIS THREAD. When the monk receives his reward, he donates it to charity.

Second, you are making a preposterous suggestion that this monk who has taken a vow of poverty is really just doing so in order to get some benefits while still keeping a stash of gold hidden away under his mattress. This is a role-playing game. If you are playing a monk who has taken a vow of poverty, that character is so devout and dedicated to his vows that such a concept would be completely foreign to him and would never enter his conscious thoughts. This isn't a question of law for him, this is a question of his world view, his self image, and his preternatural dedication which is so exquisite that in manifests itself in the physical world by giving him mechanical benefits in the game.

If you're trying to find technical ways around the costs of these benefits, you're not really role-playing.

[Tac-One]

Ron Feldman wrote:

First, this has already been addressed. I won't link to Mike Brock's post, since it's the THIRD POST IN THIS THREAD. When the monk receives his reward, he donates it to charity.

Second, you are making a preposterous suggestion that this monk who has taken a vow of poverty is really just doing so in order to get some benefits while still keeping a stash of gold hidden away under his mattress. This is a role-playing game. If you are playing a monk who has taken a vow of poverty, that character is so devout and dedicated to his vows that such a concept would be completely foreign to him and would never enter his conscious thoughts. This isn't a question of law for him, this is a question of his world view, his self image, and his preternatural dedication which is so exquisite that in...

Mr. Brock's post does not address who the charity is, that there can be no benefit to making the donation, or how the monk is to have an item of value since he cannot loot or purchase it.

Are you suggesting that the inability to use most consumables, to have more than one magic item, to purchase spell services, to bribe people, or any of the other myriad restrictions placed on the player by this vow are insufficient and that suggesting a workable, by RAW, mechanic to have one decent item is somehow power-gaming!?!

I feel that it is completely reasonable to state that I donate all my treasure to my monastery at the end of each session. That money is not carried on my person and is therefore completely unavailable to me in session. However, at some point between sessions, I could call upon my monastery to gift to me a single item worth no more than the wealth I have donated in the past.

In the future, I could call upon them for a differnt item worth no more than the difference between the cost of the first item and all the wealth I have ever donated. Of course, to do so I would have to get rid of the first item.

This is still a massive penalty to pay for a mediocre benefit. It also breaks no explicit RAW restrictions. It also makes complete sense from a roleplay standpoint. It also explains why the term "on your person" was specifically included in the text (something your post fails to address).

[Tac-One]

Vow of Poverty wrote:

Restriction: 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). The monk can never keep more money or wealth on his person than he needs to feed, bathe, and shelter himself for 1 week in modest accommodations. He cannot borrow or carry wealth or items worth more than 50 gp that belong to others. He is allowed to accept and use curative potions (or similar magical items where the item is consumed and is valueless thereafter) from other creatures.

The vow as written, puts the following restrictions upon the character:

- no more than 6 items
- 5 of those items are set
- one of the 5 set items can have "some value"
- cannot keep on his person more than a small sum
- cannot borrow or carry items worth more than 50 gp
- can use curative consumables given by others

That is it.
Nothing saying he cannot accumulate wealth not on your person.
Nothing saying that the sixth item is restricted in any way.

In fact, if we want to play Devil's Advocate, we could make some more RAW assumptions.
Since one of the 5 set items can have value, you could have a magical set of clothing, shoes, or sack in addition to your unrestricted 6th item.
Aside from the on your person restriction, there is nothing that expressly forbids me from having completely accessible bank accounts that allow me to withdraw funds and use them to purchase goods and services (keeping in mind the item restrictions) in game.
If I kill a creature and loot an item from it, I could use it to the end of the session (since it does not belong to others and I do not own it).

If you feel any of these are against RAI, that's all fine and good and I respect that. However, since PFS is RAW, I see no reason to make this vow more punitive than it already is by placing additional restrictions upon it

[Sniggevert]

OK, how's this...PFS is RAW, except for its house rules laid down by its GM(Campaign staff).

Question asked previously: (1st post in thread)
"So... what to do with the money we make in the sessions? Can I make any use of it or do I simply donate it to the temple/orphanage of my choice and forget about it?"

Answer by Campaign Staff: (3rd post in thread)
"You donate it to charity."

There is your specific "house" rule that says you can not keep money earned on a chronicle.

So dream up your ways to be a millionaire Vow of "poverty" monk, it's not legal at a PFS table.

[Hima Flametinker III]

I would cry every time I was given a bag of coins only to hand it away.

[Tac-One]

Kevin Ingle wrote:

OK, how's this...PFS is RAW, except for its house rules laid down by its GM(Campaign staff).

Question asked previously: (1st post in thread)
"So... what to do with the money we make in the sessions? Can I make any use of it or do I simply donate it to the temple/orphanage of my choice and forget about it?"

Answer by Campaign Staff: (3rd post in thread)
"You donate it to charity."

There is your specific "house" rule that says you can not keep money earned on a chronicle.

So dream up your ways to be a millionaire Vow of "poverty" monk, it's not legal at a PFS table.

So, given that you are assuming that Mike Brock's answer (which in and of itself does not address the "on your person" issue) means that this donation to charity cannot result in any benefit whatsoever, how does one acquire their heirloom item or 6th item? Hell, how did you purchase your blanket, if, according to your interpretation all money must simply vaporize if it would belong to you?

Why specifically include the "on your person" phrase when simply leaving it out would clearly demonstrate that the RAI interpretation is the same as the one you are providing?

Do you honestly believe that one ki point per level is worth never being able to use magic items?

[Zauron13]

To me, based on the flavor of the vow, having money in an account would not be allowed. Mechanically, it might make sense to allow it, but the whole idea and concept seems to be the poor, wandering kung fu master, or the Friar Tuck type. If you have investments or legal rights in the 1000s, are you really poor?

Think of it this way: millionaires don't have all of their money on their person. Heck, they might even only carry $100. But all their "legal rights " add up to millions, making them millionaires, and not poor. It would seem against the flavor, the role - play intent to have a rich monk carry nothing, but be able to call up his buddy and get the caviar, resurrections, and such.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Tac-One wrote:

Kevin Ingle wrote:

OK, how's this...PFS is RAW, except for its house rules laid down by its GM(Campaign staff).

Question asked previously: (1st post in thread)
"So... what to do with the money we make in the sessions? Can I make any use of it or do I simply donate it to the temple/orphanage of my choice and forget about it?"

Answer by Campaign Staff: (3rd post in thread)
"You donate it to charity."

There is your specific "house" rule that says you can not keep money earned on a chronicle.

So dream up your ways to be a millionaire Vow of "poverty" monk, it's not legal at a PFS table.

So, given that you are assuming that Mike Brock's answer (which in and of itself does not address the "on your person" issue) means that this donation to charity cannot result in any benefit whatsoever, how does one acquire their heirloom item or 6th item? Hell, how did you purchase your blanket, if, according to your interpretation all money must simply vaporize if it would belong to you?

Why specifically include the "on your person" phrase when simply leaving it out would clearly demonstrate that the RAI interpretation is the same as the one you are providing?

Do you honestly believe that one ki point per level is worth never being able to use magic items?

Let me just ask: What is your reason for making this kind of argument? Do you have a horse in this race?

As written it is a pretty terrible option, but in PFS we really do not take the time to remake a terrible option to make it playable.
The feat is not supposed to give a fair and balanced benefit, you are very much shooting yourself in the foot by making this choice.

Can your proposed solution work in a home game, absolutely, but I the same can be said for evil characters, plenty of other alternative rules.

In PFS you would have to choose a specific charity (and frankly this is really not a term I would be comfortable to call definite in PFS) only to use them as your personal banking service. Giving someone money with the intention to get something for that money at a later date is called an investment, not a donation.

I don't think anyone will actually call the ki point per level balanced, but we really can't use play devils advocate only for this select option. Once your require that level of clear language, white a number of options from the CRB are really no longer an option.

[Brigg]

The 6th item being of "Some Value" is pretty vague.

Does this mean an Heirloom +1 Adamantine Gauntlet is acceptable?

What kind of limit to this "some value" is there before you're breaking the vow?

[Vhalen Warren]

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

The 3.5 VoP was insane in that it looked good, but was actually a trap because it leaves your character lacking some very important end game abilities.

The dirty little secret is, that the party doesn't usually get less loot, it just ends up with the other players. They in turn use their wealth to support the VOP character when necessary.

It was bad design, and the designers of the current feat understood that. A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

Wrong. Dwarf monk with favored class monk gets -1 hardness to clay ,stone, and metals

[DesolateHarmony]

Vhalen Warren wrote:

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

The 3.5 VoP was insane in that it looked good, but was actually a trap because it leaves your character lacking some very important end game abilities.

The dirty little secret is, that the party doesn't usually get less loot, it just ends up with the other players. They in turn use their wealth to support the VOP character when necessary.

It was bad design, and the designers of the current feat understood that. A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

Wrong. Dwarf monk with favored class monk gets -1 hardness to clay ,stone, and metals

Huh? This seems like a complete non-sequitur.

[Vhalen Warren]

DesolateHarmony wrote:

Vhalen Warren wrote:

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

The 3.5 VoP was insane in that it looked good, but was actually a trap because it leaves your character lacking some very important end game abilities.

The dirty little secret is, that the party doesn't usually get less loot, it just ends up with the other players. They in turn use their wealth to support the VOP character when necessary.

It was bad design, and the designers of the current feat understood that. A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

Wrong. Dwarf monk with favored class monk gets -1 hardness to clay ,stone, and metals

Huh? This seems like a complete non-sequitur.

Meant to be an earlier reply but clicked the wrong one. Was referring to the person argueing about adamantine being needed.

[DesolateHarmony]

Oh, ok. Thanks for clearing that up.