Vow of Poverty


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Ultimate Magic p50
It is legal, I checked.

A monk with this vow may not possess anything more than he/she needs to live. 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? ;-)
Not that I had a problem with that, but the PFS intends a balance between the characters, equipment-wise. How does this work out?

5/5 5/55/55/5

I think it goes to charity.

Keep in mind , in a campaign with wealth by level (and a bit more), and easy access to magical items the vow of poverty may not be the best fit.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Global Organized Play Coordinator

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You donate it to charity.

Scarab Sages

I wish it would be banned from Society play. It doesn't make sense from an RP point for a Vow of Poverty character to be a Pathfinder agent, as they can not make use of Society resources. It's also a trap mechanically, as infinite ki would not be worth what Vow of Poverty Demands.

Scarab Sages 4/5 **

Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Sounds like a great "hard mode" run! I'd likely use the "one other item" clause to be a prestige award wayfinder.

Could a VoP monk donate their share of the treasure to help pay for the cost of a party member's spell casting services(raise dead/restoration), or does donating to the charity take priority?

3/5

Kenneth Fisher wrote:

Sounds like a great "hard mode" run! I'd likely use the "one other item" clause to be a prestige award wayfinder.

Could a VoP monk donate their share of the treasure to help pay for the cost of a party member's spell casting services(raise dead/restoration), or does donating to the charity take priority?

They could not donate all their treasure, no - per the "we're all friends" clause in PFS, they'd be able to donate the same fractional share arising from dividing the costs among the table, and THEN the balance would go to charity.

It's certainly one way to avoid dealing with item purchase sheets! :P

Grand Lodge 4/5

David Haller wrote:
Kenneth Fisher wrote:

Sounds like a great "hard mode" run! I'd likely use the "one other item" clause to be a prestige award wayfinder.

Could a VoP monk donate their share of the treasure to help pay for the cost of a party member's spell casting services(raise dead/restoration), or does donating to the charity take priority?

They could not donate all their treasure, no - per the "we're all friends" clause in PFS, they'd be able to donate the same fractional share arising from dividing the costs among the table, and THEN the balance would go to charity.

It's certainly one way to avoid dealing with item purchase sheets! :P

What rule are you quoting for equal fractional shares?

3/5

kinevon wrote:
David Haller wrote:
Kenneth Fisher wrote:

Sounds like a great "hard mode" run! I'd likely use the "one other item" clause to be a prestige award wayfinder.

Could a VoP monk donate their share of the treasure to help pay for the cost of a party member's spell casting services(raise dead/restoration), or does donating to the charity take priority?

They could not donate all their treasure, no - per the "we're all friends" clause in PFS, they'd be able to donate the same fractional share arising from dividing the costs among the table, and THEN the balance would go to charity.

It's certainly one way to avoid dealing with item purchase sheets! :P

What rule are you quoting for equal fractional shares?

Per "Spellcasting Services" from the Guide (pg. 24): Sometimes awful things happen to adventurers. After an all-night romp through the sewers, your wounds might start to fester with some foul disease—you might even die. You may have spells cast on your character, subtracting the gold piece cost from your total. If your gold is insufficient, the other players around the table may chip in to get you back on your feet, but they cannot be compelled to do so. It is their choice whether or not they aid you.

It seems reasonable the the VoP character could participate in this charitable act (which is really more a "player favor" than a "character favor") before divesting himself of the rest of his funds.

(I just used overinflated diction - "fractional shares" - because I couldn't call to mind "chipped in"!)

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Chip in" doesn't say everyone else has to put in the same amount, or even that everyone else has to donate at all, so the VoP Monk could donate everything past maintenance to a Raise or Restoration, it looks like.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kenneth Fisher wrote:
Sounds like a great "hard mode" run! I'd likely use the "one other item" clause to be a prestige award wayfinder.

Don't tempt me!


As far as Pathfinder Society goes, your guess is as good as mine. I'm sure there are mechanical restrictions as mentioned above to keep players from abusing the system or finding loopholes.

That being said, if you are playing a character who has taken the vow of poverty, it would be wise to travel with companions that will respect you and your ascetic lifestyle. Perhaps they are the ones who donate your share to charity on your behalf, or they chip in when you are gravely injured or in need of magical restoration. After all, they may recall a time when their chips were down, their number almost up, and you helped to save them from certain death.

Likewise, a GM who understands your motivations for playing such a character may award you Influence instead of treasure. Your donations to charity transform into the ability to receive NPC aid at a later time, move leaders to settle disputes peacefully, and otherwise help your character maintain a mechanical edge items and gold usually affords.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

I think you've wondered into the wrong "General Discussion" forum. This is for Pathfinder Society ;-)

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Doesn't this vow impose an unfair burden on the other players?

After all, a monk with this vow is unable to own a wand of CLW, a potion of remove disease and .... well plenty of other things.

Considering Painlords suggestions, you pretty much have nothing in that list.
And this leaves the other players at the table 2 options, use their resources on the monk, or don't do so and risk a character death or worse a TPK.

Can you when this leads to a TPK, and the monk just says "Oh well I have plenty of PP to spare..." while the other characters are just plain dead?

5/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Doesn't this vow impose an unfair burden on the other players?

After all, a monk with this vow is unable to own a wand of CLW, a potion of remove disease and .... well plenty of other things.

Considering Painlords suggestions, you pretty much have nothing in that list.
And this leaves the other players at the table 2 options, use their resources on the monk, or don't do so and risk a character death or worse a TPK.

Wands of Cure light Wounds are no party healers, they're backup items.

If there's a healer in the party, that character has renewable resources with which to heal injured characters. If there isn't, then healing will consume non-renewable resources.
Also, owning a Wand of Cure light Wounds is not mandatory. Everybody who buys such a wand, however, should know that his wand may have to be used as backup healing.
Also, that monk will fulfill a role as well. Many will have a few Qigong Monk abilities to make use of all their Ki points. Also, monks can be good damage dealers and/or good tanks.

If that monk just does nothing productive which might lead to increased cost in resources or even a TPK, then yes, there's an unfair burden. But it's not the vow that causes the unfair burden, it's the way the monk is played.
Such a player should just be talked to. Maybe he/she simply doesn't know they're making bad tactical choices. But always remember to be polite in such a matter, in most cases there's some kind of concept idea behind that character and what appears to be bad tactics to one person in fact fits the character idea perfectly.

In short, I'm tired of the general assumption that everybody has to bring a Wand of CLW to create a "fair" game.

Dark Archive

As long as the healer brings their own tank to stand between the monsters and them, then it's fair to demand players bring their own wand of CLW.

But it's good table ettiquete to have one so the healers doesn't have to spend their money healing you. Though 2 PP is hardly a burdensome cost.

4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andreas Forster wrote:

Wands of Cure light Wounds are no party healers, they're backup items.

If there's a healer in the party, that character has renewable resources with which to heal injured characters. If there isn't, then healing will consume non-renewable resources.

I play a lot of Clerics. Are you saying my mounted Cleric who is charging for 3d8+60 should burn his Divine Power to heal up your character after a fight instead of using your wand of Cure Light Wounds? Or maybe my other Cleric, who spends fights with Shield Other up while taking hits for party members using In Harm's Way is supposed to burn his Blessing of Fervor to heal you up after a fight so you don't have to spend money on a Wand of Cure Light Wounds? Why save that Liberating Command? Much better to top you off after that mook got a lucky hit in, amiright?

Wands of Cure Light Wounds are what my "healers" use to top themselves up between combats. If cure spells were the best use of their slots, they'd memorize cure spells.

Quote:


In short, I'm tired of the general assumption that everybody has to bring a Wand of CLW to create a "fair" game.

Do you play a class that casts cure spells, but don't want to be a healer? Try playing a character who can cast healing spells in a scenario where players actually take damage, with a group who are "tired of the general assumption that everybody has to bring a Wand of CLW to create a "fair" game," and doing anything other than burning out your resources. Wands of Cure Light Wounds are what makes the game fair for anyone who wants to play a Cleric, Oracle, Inquisitor, etc. and do something other than hold the party's hands.

Being able to use your character's resources to do what you built him to do: That's fair.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Healing simply does not keep up with damage taken. You will be using someone's wand.

Grand Lodge 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Healing simply does not keep up with damage taken. You will be using someone's wand.

Eh. It's possible to keep up, but then you're at the point where your entire purpose is built around healing.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Healing simply does not keep up with damage taken. You will be using someone's wand.
Eh. It's possible to keep up, but then you're at the point where your entire purpose is built around healing.

Which is what people expect from every cleric or anyone that can cast healing spells, at all.

Which may be why people seem to avoid those classes...

Hell, people expect my druids to be able to heal them up , and even the less combative one only keeps a CLW and bears endurance on hand for in combat emergencies.

Dark Archive

I loved the guy who got all up in my lawyers face (cleric Asmodeus) because I wouldn't blow my wealth on his character. "Maybe next time I'll just let the monsters come eat you!"

Meridoc responds, "So, let's take that again. My AC is higher, I do more damage than you. I don't panic and run from fights... you're saving me... how? Oh ok yeah just let the monsters come for me, I then won't have to heal your sorry but with my hard earned coin because you're too cheap to buy your own necessities.."

(if I was good, hey no problem I'll be the happy healer. When I'm not, don't come beggin, I paid at the office.)

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

I had a funny experience with this: for some reason nobody seems to be playing clerics of level less than 5 in my area. So I'd gotten pretty used to not having in-combat healing available beyond panicked wanding the frontliner with the only weapon that works against the monster.

And then you suddenly play with someone who plays a competent cleric; he doesn't spend all his time healing because he's also got other neat stuff to do, but when the front line is just about to collapse under the enemy assault he's suddenly there and you're at full health again.

That's when you really start appreciating healing.

5/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg

I never said I expect every cleric to do nothing else than healing. Also, clerics are not the only healers around, they just have a lot options available to be a healer. If your cleric is not built around being a full-time healer, then I don't expect that cleric to heal up everyone and it's more of a no-full-healer-present-situation (meaning the party needs to have wands).

I only say I don't like expecting every character to bring a wand of CLW and calling anyone who doesn't an unfair player.

Victor Zajic wrote:
As long as the healer brings their own tank to stand between the monsters and them, then it's fair to demand players bring their own wand of CLW.

Exactly. Remember, this game isn't designed to be played alone. There's a group of people you will have to trust bring the abilities your character lacks.

In PFS, it's not a bad idea to own a wand of CLW, because in an organized play environment, players will often find themselves in groups without a full healer, but again, it shouldn't be treated as mandatory.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Andreas Forster wrote:
I never said I expect every cleric to do nothing else than healing.

Then you implicitly expect the cleric to blow cash and wand charges on the fighter, because nothing less than doing nothing but heal will cover the entire amount of damage taken.

Quote:
I only say I don't like expecting every character to bring a wand of CLW and calling anyone who doesn't an unfair player.

Whats the other option?

Quote:
As long as the healer brings their own tank to stand between the monsters and them, then it's fair to demand players bring their own wand of CLW.

Most pfs groups i've seen have been pretty melee heavy. Nothing is in between the melee and the monsters, resulting in a lot of damage taken all around.

Quote:
In PFS, it's not a bad idea to own a wand of CLW, because in an organized play environment, players will often find themselves in groups without a full healer, but again, it shouldn't be treated as mandatory.

Well there is infernal healing if you prefer...

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andreas Forster wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Doesn't this vow impose an unfair burden on the other players?

After all, a monk with this vow is unable to own a wand of CLW, a potion of remove disease and .... well plenty of other things.

Considering Painlords suggestions, you pretty much have nothing in that list.
And this leaves the other players at the table 2 options, use their resources on the monk, or don't do so and risk a character death or worse a TPK.

Wands of Cure light Wounds are no party healers, they're backup items.

If there's a healer in the party, that character has renewable resources with which to heal injured characters. If there isn't, then healing will consume non-renewable resources.
Also, owning a Wand of Cure light Wounds is not mandatory. Everybody who buys such a wand, however, should know that his wand may have to be used as backup healing.
Also, that monk will fulfill a role as well. Many will have a few Qigong Monk abilities to make use of all their Ki points. Also, monks can be good damage dealers and/or good tanks.

If that monk just does nothing productive which might lead to increased cost in resources or even a TPK, then yes, there's an unfair burden. But it's not the vow that causes the unfair burden, it's the way the monk is played.
Such a player should just be talked to. Maybe he/she simply doesn't know they're making bad tactical choices. But always remember to be polite in such a matter, in most cases there's some kind of concept idea behind that character and what appears to be bad tactics to one person in fact fits the character idea perfectly.

In short, I'm tired of the general assumption that everybody has to bring a Wand of CLW to create a "fair" game.

A Wand of CLW is only the very first object I decided to mention, that the monk can't have. It only gets worse from there. I won't list everything the monk can't readily provide for himself, and items that would allow him to deal with temporary/permanent conditions, but he also can't invest in some of the staple items (the big 6), so among other things dealing with DR might be a problem.

But ok, if the player has wants his character to shoot himself in the foot, first thing in the morning, so be it.

Your argument about healers doesn't really work IMO, sure if the party has a character with somewhat dedicated healing resources (eg. Channel Energy), great, but I think assuming anything else is might be stretching it.
A Warpriest will quite likely plan to use his fervor to buff/heal himself, the same is true for a paladin capable of converting his lay on hands into smites and of course cleric spells.

Of course we should always cooperate, but when a player decides to play a concept, that is extremely reliant on the cooperation and resources of other party members, things get muddy.

If a play someone capable of healing, and now have to heal the stupid barbarian, that charged enraged (-4 AC) into the ranks of the enemy without wearing armor, cause it didn't fit his concept.

I know that playing stupid, and playing a substandard concept aren't the same thing, but with the above example, the barbarian could have bought a better healing wand for the cleric, or a wand of mage armor to help with his AC.

A monk with vow of poverty, does not have this option. Pretty much all he can do is "beg" his fellow party members for buffs (mage armor) and healing, since he is not capable of providing it.

This concept can work in a home game with a permanent group, but since you PFS often consists of pretty random groups...

It may sound insulting, but if someone drops his sick dog on my doorstep, I will make sure it gets medical attention, but I won't thank him for it.

Obviously once you sit at the table with a new player, things aren't nearly as critical, but I still think that taking the vow is a bad trade, the quigong archetype helps just a bit.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to save everyone time rehashing this topic (bringing your own healing), may I suggest this 591-post thread, "I bought a Gosh Darn cure wand" for your perusal?

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Sammy T wrote:
Just to save everyone time rehashing this topic (bringing your own healing), may I suggest this 591-post thread, "I bought a Gosh Darn cure wand" for your perusal?

Thank you for the link, I will check it out, in this case a character with Vow of Poverty can't own items of this nature.

4/5

The other issue I'm seeing with a Vow of Poverty monk is that he's limited to things he can buy with the gold from one adventure. If he has to donate any excess gold, he will not be able to save up for higher level items.

This is less of an issue in home games where he can pick up magic items used by defeated enemies, but PFS doesn't allow that. So no Amulet of Mighty Fists until he's playing in tier at 8-9, for example.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

I'd suggest grabbing the Heirloom Weapon trait and selecting a non-Exotic Monk weapon. Preferably something you can Flurry with. Just enchant it as funds allow.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Zach Klopfleisch wrote:

The other issue I'm seeing with a Vow of Poverty monk is that he's limited to things he can buy with the gold from one adventure. If he has to donate any excess gold, he will not be able to save up for higher level items.

This is less of an issue in home games where he can pick up magic items used by defeated enemies, but PFS doesn't allow that. So no Amulet of Mighty Fists until he's playing in tier at 8-9, for example.

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 bolded part pretty much ruins using loot from fallen enemies.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Nefreet wrote:
I'd suggest grabbing the Heirloom Weapon trait and selecting a non-Exotic Monk weapon. Preferably something you can Flurry with. Just enchant it as funds allow.

See my last post, even your heirloom weapon can't be worth more than 50 GP.

3/5

I diagree with your ruling. I See you can nto carry wealth of others over 50 gp.

Thats what the "that belongs to others." infers to all the points before that.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Finlanderboy wrote:

I diagree with your ruling. I See you can nto carry wealth of others over 50 gp.

Thats what the "that belongs to others." infers to all the points before that.

Debatable, I would argue that a monk with vow of poverty should not be able too just give all his loot to his companions, until they can pay to upgrade his +10 intelligent weapon.

But yeah, the vow is already supposed to be bad (as opposed to the 3.5 incarnation which was ...insane), and I suspect that the level of linguistic scrutiny wasn't quite as bad as some contracts.

And you could always argue, that the sword you just took from the assassin trying to kill you, is not your legal property.

5/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg

True, that old version of Vow of Poverty was just insane.
Although Pathfinder's Vow of Poverty gives the character lots of Ki, I don't know if it's worth it (I wouldn't take it for my characters. I just like saving for awesome items too much).

The monk would definitely have no problems with DR, that's what his monk abilities are for. But at some point you might want to gain access to some special abilities that only some magic items can grant.
Improvised spellcasting from wands is indeed one such thing (and even if there's no character that has your wand's spell on their spell list, 1 rank in UMD lets you activate the wand as long as you have enough time to roll the check a few times).
There is other stuff that is really great, especially those items that only appear on chronicles. Many of those are really awesome.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


Nightwind wrote:

Ultimate Magic p50

It is legal, I checked.

A monk with this vow may not possess anything more than he/she needs to live. 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? ;-)

Pathfinder's Vow of Poverty allows you to have just one item that is not affected by the vow. I believe you would be able to pour all your wealth into that one item.

Otherwise, yes, you have to get rid of all your money. Can't spend it.

Quote:
Not that I had a problem with that, but the PFS intends a balance between the characters, equipment-wise. How does this work out?

It doesn't. Pathfinder's Vow of Poverty Monks are infamous for being the single most unplayable character in the game, to the point that playing a Commoner class character would be better.

I believe the Pathfinder Vow of Poverty was created as a backlash to express the intense dislike the designers held for the 3.5 Vow of Poverty (feat which all things told was quite underwhelming compared to what you could obtain through items, but was nonetheless severely disliked by a number of 3.5 players as being "too strong for 1 feat" despite the fact that you more than pay for it by losing items).

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.

This is no joke. Flight? Underwater breathing? You don't get these things with Vow of Poverty. Even things like weapon enhancement bonuses and saving throw bonuses come much slower than if you were paying for them.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Andreas Forster wrote:

True, that old version of Vow of Poverty was just insane.

Although Pathfinder's Vow of Poverty gives the character lots of Ki, I don't know if it's worth it (I wouldn't take it for my characters. I just like saving for awesome items too much).

The monk would definitely have no problems with DR, that's what his monk abilities are for. But at some point you might want to gain access to some special abilities that only some magic items can grant.
Improvised spellcasting from wands is indeed one such thing (and even if there's no character that has your wand's spell on their spell list, 1 rank in UMD lets you activate the wand as long as you have enough time to roll the check a few times).
There is other stuff that is really great, especially those items that only appear on chronicles. Many of those are really awesome.

Well, such a monk would not be able to deal with DR/adamantine until level 16, and if I learned one thing from recent adventures ... hardness is a dog of the female persuasion. ^^

Vow of poverty is a bad deal, and frankly I think it is unreasonable to let players die for bad choices like this... I would never advocate for not healing a dying player, no matter the circumstances. And I realize this sounds terrible, but I would like to voice my problems with this kind of choice in a respectful manner (ie throw a fit ^^ ).

I feel that players deserve a warning when it comes to this option.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

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.

Grand Lodge 4/5

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.

If the GM was doing that, then they weren't following the WBL guidelines OR the VoP feat itself. And the bit of extra money on the other players generally doesn't make up for having to spend a bunch of extra actions supporting someone who's essentially dead weight at mid to higher levels.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Jeff Merola 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.

If the GM was doing that, then they weren't following the WBL guidelines OR the VoP feat itself. And the bit of extra money on the other players generally doesn't make up for having to spend a bunch of extra actions supporting someone who's essentially dead weight at mid to higher levels.

Frankly I have never played in a group with that particular abomination, and since it is 3.5 it will not happen. I am frankly willing to forget its existance.

The new one is far less offensive, it is so very bad, that it should motivate fewer people to bother ^^

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
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.

:(

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

It's this point I disagree with.

In mythology, a VoP is not unheard of, and often the source of a great hero's powers. Or a saint's. I think it's a little sad if the game can't simulate that.

I'm fine with there being downsides; you'll certainly lose some flexibility because you can't have a consumable for every situation. But I would like it to be basically playable, especially in a party.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
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.
:(

Don't be sad, there because it isn't strictly a good option, doesn't mean that it has no place, Pathfinder has plenty of bad options.

Ascalaphus wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

It's this point I disagree with.

In mythology, a VoP is not unheard of, and often the source of a great hero's powers. Or a saint's. I think it's a little sad if the game can't simulate that.

I'm fine with there being downsides; you'll certainly lose some flexibility because you can't have a consumable for every situation. But I would like it to be basically playable, especially in a party.

Why, a vow of poverty is traditionally a personal choice, to not let material things, distract you from your spiritual path.

However, this is a game, build on getting and using loot, you can make more out of it, but this is pretty basic to the whole concept.

If your character can be successful while giving a lot of his/her wealth to charity, well done you have just unlocked hard mode well done.

Let's face it most of the characters with a real life vow of poverty didn't have to face an demons or since we have stats for it chutulu.

And I suspect, that none of those characters were fighting in 4-7 person groups of adventurers equipped according to the wealth per level table.

I don't have the time right now, but IIRC the designers mentioned this in response to a complain about the vow, it is not supposed to be an equal replacement to all the things you would normally get.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I played a VoP monk from 15th to 26th.

1/5

Alright for theory-crafting's sake: is it possible to build a competent PFS-legal VoP monk?

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Ascalaphus wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

It's this point I disagree with.

In mythology, a VoP is not unheard of, and often the source of a great hero's powers. Or a saint's. I think it's a little sad if the game can't simulate that.

I'm fine with there being downsides; you'll certainly lose some flexibility because you can't have a consumable for every situation. But I would like it to be basically playable, especially in a party.

Why, a vow of poverty is traditionally a personal choice, to not let material things, distract you from your spiritual path.

However, this is a game, build on getting and using loot, you can make more out of it, but this is pretty basic to the whole concept.

And why shouldn't that have its own significant mechanical benefits? If you're so spiritually advanced, that should make you better at defeating spiritual enemies, like most evil outsiders, ghosts and other monsters that attack you spiritually, and so forth.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


If your character can be successful while giving a lot of his/her wealth to charity, well done you have just unlocked hard mode well done.

Let's face it most of the characters with a real life vow of poverty didn't have to face an demons or since we have stats for it chutulu.

Most stories about saints who vanquish demons don't tell us about their piles of magic items that helped them do the job. They talk about how the saint was so virtuous that the demon didn't stand a chance against it. That the demon was effective against common, sinful, greedy folks, but that it couldn't touch the saint because he wasn't a sinner.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


And I suspect, that none of those characters were fighting in 4-7 person groups of adventurers equipped according to the wealth per level table.

I don't have the time right now, but IIRC the designers mentioned this in response to a complain about the vow, it is not supposed to be an equal replacement to all the things you would normally get.

I'm not saying it needs to be exactly the same, or even very nearly equal. But I think PF should be able to do these kinds of fantasy I'm talking about, rather than only having the choice of worshipping at the altar of WBL.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Mwangi Inquisitor wrote:
Alright for theory-crafting's sake: is it possible to build a competent PFS-legal VoP monk?

Level might be an issue here, as far as I am concerned it goes bad rather quickly.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Ascalaphus wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Ascalaphus wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

It's this point I disagree with.

In mythology, a VoP is not unheard of, and often the source of a great hero's powers. Or a saint's. I think it's a little sad if the game can't simulate that.

I'm fine with there being downsides; you'll certainly lose some flexibility because you can't have a consumable for every situation. But I would like it to be basically playable, especially in a party.

Why, a vow of poverty is traditionally a personal choice, to not let material things, distract you from your spiritual path.

However, this is a game, build on getting and using loot, you can make more out of it, but this is pretty basic to the whole concept.

And why shouldn't that have its own significant mechanical benefits? If you're so spiritually advanced, that should make you better at defeating spiritual enemies, like most evil outsiders, ghosts and other monsters that attack you spiritually, and so forth.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


If your character can be successful while giving a lot of his/her wealth to charity, well done you have just unlocked hard mode well done.

Let's face it most of the characters with a real life vow of poverty didn't have to face an demons or since we have stats for it chutulu.

Most stories about saints who vanquish demons don't tell us about their piles of magic items that helped them do the job. They talk about how the saint was so virtuous that the demon didn't stand a chance against it. That the demon was effective against common, sinful, greedy folks, but that it couldn't touch the saint because he wasn't a sinner.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


And I suspect, that none of those characters were fighting in 4-7 person groups of adventurers equipped according to the wealth per level table.

I don't have the time right now, but IIRC the designers

...

This borders on a discussion on the topic of vices and the concept of improving yourself by living lives devoid of wealth and responsibility (it borders to much on some nasty topics).

And I think mechanical implementation is really important, and the path via a monk vow seems bad to me. If you want your character to exist outside the magic item framework, just offer it as a option at character creation:

Unmagical:
Permanent magic items simply do not work for you, the reason is unclear, but even if his magic sword would transform a peasant into a mighty warrior... all it does for is to keep it almost sharp enough to shave.

You can the following automatically as you advance in levels:
+1 to something
+2 to something else at level x
either A, B, or C

------------------------------------
The writing could be a good deal more concise, but this is how I would deal with the problem.

I know the poor " old man nothing but a soup bowl, chopsticks and sake" but while I like the various movies on the subject, those guys never had to fight demons.
But to be fair a sensible implementation would be nice, but the approach of owning nothing seems to much. A sensible limit (25 % wealth per level) and a stricter limit on living expenses could follow the spirit of the idea, rather than the wording.


Vow of Poverty in 3.5 was semi-playable (for monks, a +4 armor bonus at level one, not bad) but got cruddy pretty fast...

In Pathfinder, it is absolute suicide.

Arguing that it is good is like saying a well sharpened knife is better than a crappy submachine gun in a streetfight.

You could do some neat stuff with VoP in 3.5, I will be playing a Pathfinder monk with the 3.5 VoP in an upcoming campaign, looking forward to it... tweaked the CRAP out of it to make it survivable, and it is still built around flanking/aid another/Sensei archetype tomfoolery... Combining it with vow of peace/vow of nonviolence gives some CRAZY AC and defensive abilities, but you basically aren't allowed to attack things.

3/5

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.


Mwangi Inquisitor wrote:
Alright for theory-crafting's sake: is it possible to build a competent PFS-legal VoP monk?

It is not. This game assumes that you will have a certain amount of wealth by a certain level, and monsters will require that you be able to hit a certain bonus to attack rolls to be able to hit them. Since the Monk is a 3/4 BAB class, even at level 20 your to hit will be +22, +25 for your first two flurries.

A CR 20 Ancient Red Dragon has an AC of 39. If you run towards it, you have to be able to hit it on a 17. Your next full round you can attempt to flurry twice and roll a 14, the rest of your attacks will require a nat 20 to hit.

It's a bad feat, poorly designed and frankly terrible. Why a game would allow something so broken (no broken good, broken as in unplayable) is beyond me.

You will be a detriment to the group, who will have to relegate increased resources to keep you going.

Now, if the feat granted you something similar to the VOP from 3.5, that might be different. Yes, what it gave you was good, but a character with half the wealth could do as well. It had a bunch of really cool abilities, and was really fun.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Vow of Poverty All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.