|
Just noticed a little discussion in the AoW-Overload thread about the VoP from the BoED.
I presently DM a 2-player campaign, and one of them has the VoP. So far, my only problem had been making the group of two strong enough (without using NPCs) so that they stand a chance when the campaign gets tougher.
If you have 4 players a VoP-player might be not that big a problem, but with only two...
I told him, about my problem and fears for the campaign and also told him he will be too weak later in the campaign. He realized the problem and we came up with the idea, that he will get the Saint template a bit further down the road. This is ok with me, because it pumps up his PC and I hope this will do it (he's a mage/cleric).
I like the VoP but realized it can spell trouble! What are your experiences with it???
I am taking VoP in a campaign we occasionally play. I get tired of "kill, loot" gaming and wanted to try something different. The only bad thing so far is that I decided to take it after first level and now won't have the proper prereqs until about 5th level.
It is fun to play so far.
|
Wow! This turned out a lot longer and ramblier than I was expecting, and as I've no been up for about 27 hours it may be a little less cogent than I'd hope! :)
To save you reading the next 1500 words of waffle I basically say that I think the "official" wording of the VoP is very strict & limiting, that I think ascetics are too weak at low levels, and too strong at high levels, and that some very strong munchkin builds are doable.
First things first, I'm going to be a bit anal in parts of this post, but that's because in interpreting whatever the "official" position on VoP is you need to be like that to some extent.
Then take a look at the FAQ position on VoP:
How do the equipment restrictions put on a character by the Vow of Poverty feat affect class-defining items? (Examples include a cleric's holy symbol, a wizard's familiar, a samurai's daisho, and a paladin's mount.)
The Vow of Poverty feat is very specific about the items that a character can own while gaining the benefits of the feat (see page 48 in Book of Exalted Deeds for details). It specifically disallows ownership of masterwork or magic weapons, and thus a samurai who chooses this feat must give up the possession of his daisho (his pair of masterwork weapons). A holy symbol does not appear on the list of eligible items, and thus a strict reading of the feat would disallow the item.
A familiar, special mount, or animal companion isn’t a material possession, and thus a character with Vow of Poverty isn’t restricted from gaining the benefits of such creatures. Remember that the Vow of Poverty feat, like most of the material found in Book of Exalted Deeds, is intended for mature campaigns that are capable of handling difficult role-playing issues—it’s not intended for most hack-and-slash games. A cleric who must give up his holy symbol (effectively preventing him from turning undead or casting any spell that requires a divine focus) could be a very interesting challenge for a player who’s “done it all” and wants to try something
unusual.
For home play you'll probably want to relax a bit -- especially as you've got a cleric/wizard. At it's heart the problem comes down to the blanket prohibition against owning anything except for a few permitted items, so by a strict reading anything that isn't explicitly permitted is prohibited, which has major problems.
I would say in reading and interpreting VoP focus less on the letter of feat and more on it's spirit.
First up make sure the player has read & reread the description of the feat on p48. And note that it's very specific about what the ascetic character can own & use:
"you must not own or use any material possessions", except
-- ordinary, simple weapons -- typically a staff
-- simple clothes -- e.g. robe, boots, hat
-- enough food for 1 day in a simple sack
-- spell component pouch
Regarding weapons, a literal reading of the feat would allow crossbows (as a simple weapon), although the spirit of the feat leans towards the simplest of simple weapons such as a staff or knife.
A spell component pouch only provides negligible cost components, so any spell with a costed material component can't be cast. Similarly for focuses. This seems fair, and isn't too big a burden on most (low level) casters.
Divine focus – as the FAQ says, if you go by the letter of the rules you cannot cast any spells with a DF component and cannot turn undead. I would *strongly* advise house ruling to allow a simple (possibly hand-made) holy symbol, equivalent to a wooden holy symbol. It's doable without but it's quite a significant hit on a cleric.
The hit on the wizard is tougher though -- notice the absence of "spell book" from the list? Trickier than holy symbol to justify, and it's exclusion is reasonable by the spirit of the feat too. Suggest switching from wizard to sorceror unless there's a significant issue with that.
Next problem is sustenance, until he reaches 5th level he needs food & water. I'm going to ignore my previous comment about WoTC thinking the wording is fine and assume they simply don't want to issue an errata for the sake of two words -- "and water". Even though throughout the PHB & DMG food & water are referenced distinctly I'm going to assume that here when they same "food" they mean "food and water". Distinct from this is the problem of *getting* each days food & water; and related to sustenance is shelter -- more obvious problems there.
If the ascetic has a home town then a lot of this can be mitigated -- he lives/works at a temple/monastery, and they provide on a day-to-day basis (essentially in exchange for the "work" (of whatever description) he does there for them). Travelling away from there becomes an issue, particularly before 3rd level (endure elements) and 5th level (sustenance), but even afterwards depending on how overland movement is handled.
As for money, I think it's perfectly within the spirit of the feat that an ascetic character possesses no money at all -- a single copper piece could provide a pound of wheat, a days firewood, a torch, or half a loaf of bread to someone who needs it more than him.
Regarding charity, many of these problems can be overcome through the kindness of strangers (or other party members), however I would regard repeated reliance on charity as contrary to the spirit of the vow, as the non-self sufficient ascetic essentially requires others to provide for him, and is in many regards in receipt of gifts from them. In order to stay closer to the spirit of the vow I would advocate than anything the ascetic receives from another, or anything done for him, should be repaid as best and as soon as possible. The ascetic has renounced worldly goods and though he recognises that others ascribe material value to things he does not -- any repayment should reflect both the material and perceived value of the good or service received. Obviously "repayment" is unlikely to take the form of cash, although an appropriate quantity may be diverted from his share of treasure en route to the good & the needy.
So to summarise my preliminary thoughts I'd advocate
-- only "simple" simple weapons, eg staff, knife, sling
-- a simple wooden holy symbol
-- no spell books for wizards
-- one days food & water is permitted
-- anything "received" should be earned, most likely through service of some form
Okay, with the anal stuff out of the way let's assume that he makes it to 5th level and so is no longer in day-to-day subsistence mode, let's try to put some finger in the air values to the benefits -- at 5th level he has the following:
-- +5 exalted AC bonus (value at 5 x 5 x 2500 = 62,500!) or ( 5 x 5 x 1000 = 25,000)
-- endure elements (value at 1 x 1 x 2000 x 0.5 = 1000)
-- +1 exalted strike (value at 1 x 1 x 2000 = 2000)
-- sustenance (arbitrary value of 1000GP, ring is 2500 and includes less sleep)
and 3 bonus feats (1,2,4 – no value ascribed )
so equivalent magic items would cost about 66,000 GP, according to DMG p135 about the same amount as an 11th level character. Even valuing the exalted bonus the same as an armour bonus (despite the fact that it will stack nicely with real armour bonuses (eg mage armour or magic vestments) puts it at 25,000GP for a total of around 30,000 (8th/9th level).
At 10th level we have:
-- +7 exalted AC bonus (7 x 7 x 2500 = 122500 or 7 x 7 x 1000 = 49000)
-- +2 exalted strike (2 x 2 x 2000 = 8000)
-- +1 natural armour (1 x 1 x 2000 = 2000)
-- +1 deflection (1 x 1 x 2000 = 2000)
-- +1 resistance (1 x 1 x 1000 = 1000)
-- +2 ability enhancement (2 x 2 x 1000 = 4000)
-- endure elements ( 1000 )
-- sustenance ( 1000 )
-- mind shielding ( as ring = 8000 )
-- DR 5/magic ( 15,000 )
and 6 bonus feats ( 1,2,4,6,8,10 – no value ascribed )
The DR 5/magic is tricky to value, but I've accounted for it as the difference in price between +1 armour and +1 armour of invulnerability.
Equivalent items, as before, would cost about 164,500GP or 91,000GP – slightly above 14th and 12th level wealth equivalently.
Let's assume you go all the way and make it to the dizzy heights of 20th level.
-- +10 exalted AC bonus 250,000 or 100,000
-- +5 exalted strike 50,000
-- +2 natural armour 8000
-- +3 deflection 18,000
-- +3 resistance 9000
-- +8/6/4/2 ability enh. 64,000 + 36,000 + 16,000 + 4000 = 120,000
-- sustenance, mind shielding 9,000
-- DR 10/evil (difficult to value, so double DR5/magic = 30,000 )
-- energy resistance 15 (as ring of minor universal (energy) res. = 144,000)
-- true seeing ( (5 x 9 x 2000 x 2) + 25,000 = 205,000)
-- regeneration (as ring 90,000)
-- freedom of movement (as ring 40,000)
-- greater sustenance (say another 1000 on top of the cost of sustenance)
and 11 bonus feats
So probably between about 800,000 and a million GP depending on how a few things are valued.
Overall although the benefits lack variety they are *very* cost effective ways of gaining some bonuses for some characters (notably monks or druids, possibly with a dash of cleric or sorceror dropped in).
Obviously these are only approximations, and we lose flexibility with the VoP, but we're not accounting for the values associated with, for example, space limitations or not being able to have the effects taken away (easily).
VoP may suck a bit for some classes/concepts (and is impossible for many!), but some very strong munchkinny builds can be made using it.
So lastly there's the “Saint” template, it certainly fixes a bunch of weaknesses but he'll likely be achieving sainthood at about the time that VoP fixes those problems itself, then you just have many of the saint's most useful powers padding out some gaps in the already strong ascetic.
However, as your player has a cleric/wizard I wouldn't be too worried about the power level later on.
As for balancing your 2 character party, why not just have each player play 2 characters?
Okay, thats it, I'm probably gonna stop typing now. I'll re-read this when I'm awake :)
I like the VoP but realized it can spell trouble! What are your experiences with it???
I have a few min/max-ers in my gaming group that love the VoP, but they have both played monks with it. In my opinion, playing an impoverished character *should* have ramifications. In my experience, playing an impoverished monk, and to a lesser extent, a druid, just doesn't have the impact that it should in role playing terms. Clearly, both those classes are probably more likely to be impoverished than other classes - a monk needs nothing to fight with except his hands and feet and his abilities become magical at high levels, while the druid needs nothing he can't find in the wild or make himself and probably doesn't even have to beg at all.
Playing a VoP wizard is obviously trickier, especially at higher levels when the spell componants are so much costlier. Also, keep in mind that the character in your game will still get half the total treasure and donate it to a worthy cause - leaving only half the treasure for the other player for their equipment/supplies AND then begging for money for spell componants. I always found this particularly hard to swallow.
Celric
|
|
Ok, I just read through it all!
Callum F., you are right in some ways. I allowed a normal Holy Symbol and the Spellbook as well.
As the player is not a min/maxer I see no problem him coming up with strange things.
He looks at the whole VoP as DMGBman sees it - he was tired of "killing, looting, watching out for the next kill, than loot again" way-of-live of an adventurerer.
Anyway, I am sure we will find some inconsistencies during play when we get more used to VoP and the Saint template.
I'm not that strict when it comers to spending money or owning stuff. Of course, he's not allowed to use or own magic items, but relics might do the trick...
He's also allowed to own the neccessary spell components - I have no problem with that either, above all - things should be kept easy.
Any more thoughts...
Wow! This turned out a lot longer and ramblier than I was expecting. . .
. . . and so on!
I am usually pretty judicious on these boards, avoiding the ranting, etc . . . but frankly, Vow of Poverty sucks! It sucks! I won't use it, and I won't allow anyone else to use it. I think it is broken, broken, broken.
Why? It's not the abilities, etc. . . it's that, very simply, a vow of poverty is a role-playing decision that should be detrimental to the player. . . not turn them into an indestructable tank.
If a player HAS a vow of poverty, then great! Have some bonus XP when you role-play it well. But that's it. In second edition, I played a couple of characters who eschewed their posessions, and its a hard road. It's supposed to be.
But NO abilities. . . If you have a VoP, you should be unbalanced - but not ahead. . . far, far behind. You should routinely get punked, b$&!&-slapped, and otherwise humiliated by bad guys. Your main goal, at least in my experience, is trying to maintain dignity while sticking to a very challenging ethos. THAT'S a Vow of Poverty.
I am SO glad you went through the Math to determine the value of the abilities. I've already printed out your post to show to my gaming group later. . .
(sorry about the rant!) :)
|
|
I agree with Chris that a dedication like this shouldn’t be handled through a feat.
A vow like this should be acted out in terms of roleplaying only, i think.
It’s a cool concept and very challenging to play.
As a DM i really like it, when my players take on difficult character-concepts like this and i would award this with additional XP and would, from time to time, create a situation where this character can “shine”.
But i wouldn’t allow the feat. Sure, it gives the character benefits in game terms, but its disadvantages makes it even more trickier to play a character like this (and keep him alive) than it already is with just roleplaying it.
This is ever-so-slightly off topic, but....
I'm not a big fan of kill-and-loot either. It slows the game and in a heroic game it can be hard to justify. "My paladin dons the blackguard's spiky armor while the monk rifles the guy's corpse for change," is not something you want to hear from a "good" group.
Next day at the fence's joint: The cleric of Ehlonna "How much can I get for this hobgoblin's wedding band?"
In my game the party leaves stuff like that. The treasure is tabulated and distributed as normal, but is kept in a virtual "Bank". Then when a character has enough for an item (magic or otherwise) that they would like to have they let me know and it appears in the next availible treasure horde, or in a shop window, or stuck in a rock with a little engraved plate on it, or is given to them by their grandfather or what have you and then becomes part of the story. The amount of worth of the item is taken out of the bank and ta-dah they have an item they wanted. If they actually take the blackguard's spiky black armor then someone in the party has and its value is not added to the bank. Likewise actual rewards are not added to the bank. The other nice side effect is that the party is not necessarily uber-rich anymore nor do they have to cart around 50 masterwork longbows they took off of those troglodytes they fought and then sell them to someone. Besides who wants to go through a trog's loincloth for some change? The rule is if it's treasure they could have reasonably found and taken then it goes in the bank. It does not include the stuff in the secret door they missed.
As for Vow of Poverty, I really don't have that many problems with it. Monks and Druids really don't have the sort of expenses that fighers and wizards have and you are giving up so much more potential item min-maxing by taking the vow. The bonuses are there to make it possible to play a character who can't get/doesn't want equipment which, by the end of a character's 20 levels is almost more important than the character themself (in metagame terms). Unless you don't want to live to see those levels you just can't role-play the vow without getting a bonus to AC, Saves, damage, rice pudding etc... Seriously take any 20th-level-character and strip him of his equipment to see what I mean and now throw them up against something on par with their CR. Warduke's a pansy now. As for characters who have taken the vow of poverty getting beat up by bullies may I point out that David Carradine's Caine character in the TV show "Kung Fu" never had any money (or magic items for that matter). How else could you play an archetype like that in D&D?
"Here take these +1 lightning, acid, mighty cleaving, thundering, ghosttouch, keen kamas of speed."
"No really I'm fine."
"Well how about a gun or some armor at least."
"Seriously, I'm good. Really."
As for wizards and spellbooks try having the spells tattooed on (Complete Arcane I think).
Snatch these pebbles out of my hand,
The Great Green Grasshopper
|
|
QUOTE: Unless you don't want to live to see those levels you just can't role-play the vow without getting a bonus to AC, Saves, damage, rice pudding etc... Seriously take any 20th-level-character and strip him of his equipment to see what I mean and now throw them up against something on par with their CR.
Okay, you're definitly right on this point. If i say, that i'd like this vow to be roleplayed and not included as a feat, i should've said, that i wouldn't insist on this to be done as restrictive as it is in the book. I'd go as far as allowing only one weapon and only one set of clothes and no bags of treasure etc., but i wouldn't mind if the only weapon of the character would be magical or a masterwork item, nor would i demand a wizard to give up on his spellbook. This would be the benefit on roleplaying this instead of using it as a rule (or feat) that there'd be a little more room for interpretation of the vow because it is not about benefits and balance etc. , just about style and challenging roleplay.
I've got a monk character in my group that took the feat at 1st level and so far I've had no qualms with it. It's made for some really interesting role-playing and kept the character from getting hit pretty good a few times where it might have taken him out (the AC bonuses).
When equated to a gold piece value as previously posted, yeah, I guess it looks a bit out of whack. In my own campaign it seems to have worked out pretty good, though.
But consider the source when you ponder whether it's broken, warped, whacked, or what have you. BoED is intended for campaigns that are a cut above the normal variety and anything used from it should be viewed in that context. If you're just looking for some cool holy or extremely good elements to add to your average game, I'd go with Complete Divine and just skip out on BoED altogether. Your call.
|
Well, in my experience, the VoP is one of those feats that needs to be carefully examined. I agree that the character shouldn't get a bonus for a detriment, though I still allow it as a feat.
Exalted feats are given by a good diety or a celestial, or at least in the description it is mentioned that DM's should restict them to this. Thus, this is what I've told my characters:
If you want an exalted feat, you better play an exalted good character, then you better find either a good diety or celestial, and you better make this vow then and there. Also, you must have at least RPed that your character is this good, at least attempting to follow the restrictions of the vow. The diety or celestial may then even send the character to prove themselves.
Thus, they can't take the feat Sacred vow until (at least)level 3 at minimum and then Vow of Poverty at 6th level... BUT they must be impoverished under the rules until then. This has worked in the past.
As for Exalted characters, I basically treat them as more moral than good characters. Take that as you will, but just imagine an extra level on the alignment scale, allowing for a higher "good" than good.
I do this because I don't want a 1rst level character that has already had a Joan d'Arc experience. That's my preference as a Dm though, and has merited only 2 exalted characters in my game.
Here are a couple more things to consider for VoP. . .
1. All the Bonus Exalted Feats - these add up to some pretty nifty abilities. . . like bonus damage to evil creatures, golden ice, etc. Factor these in as well.
2. Everything's an exalted bonus. . . so any buffing spell almost always stacks.
3. As far as getting caught uneqipped with Dimesnion Door, flying creatures, etc., all classes have their relative strengths in this department. The VoP character is still adventuring with a group who have those capabilities. If you factor in Sustenence and those kinds of benefits (imagine that one on Athas!), the VoP PC gets more than he gives.
4. No share of treasure. This is easily remedied in SO many ways. . . but still, an entire facet of interparty role-playing and bookkeeping is elimintated for that character. . . and any published adventure is automatically overloaded and must be adjusted.
5. I think the Monk serves as a great Kung-Fu, walk-the-earth architype. . . why buff the crud out of him too?
Steve DID say that this VoP thing only works in certain campaigns, and that's true. Much like the Vow of NonViolence, it requires a certain type of game and some really good-roleplaying. . . but on the other hand, if this is the case. . . why give the Feats and abilities to balance them (or overbalance them) for regular kill-things-and-take-their-stuff types of play?
I dunno why this particular little thing bothers me so much. . . I can go blind reading rules and suppliments in everything WOTC publishes, nodding my head and enthusiastically expounding on every possibility that new rules can offer. . . but not this. That VoP table just irks the stank out of me.
(a second apology for a second rant) :)
- Chris
So to summarise my preliminary thoughts I'd advocate
-- anything "received" should be earned, most likely through service of some form
That adds such dimension to the role-playing. Brilliant, really. Your suggestion here makes far too much sense to have been left out of the original text.
I agree that a simple wooden holy symbol is a logical allowance for this feat. Disallowing an extra-holy holyman from channeling divine power might hamper dynamic storytelling of a legendarily devout good guy. I doubt the authors would have intended such an obstacle.
I don't have any problems with this feat and its impact. A Vow of Poverty is a special thing for a player to ask for, and in return I’d require the part of Saint Francis Dudley Do-Right to be played to the hilt. I agree with everyone who said they’d limit who has use of this feat. I don’t usually want to see two paragons of their race in a single party (Unearthed Arcana) and I don’t want to see six ascetics with the saint template band together to stomp righteously forward into a Dungeon adventure. Such an exalted character should truly stand out from the fray. Actually it's a bit of a must.
If a player has agreed to relinquish sex, meat, alcohol, sex, money, violence, or sex, they’ve, in game terms, agreed to strictly limit their behavior while role-playing an almost cinematically idealistic hero. I think that the narrative potential for everyone in such a character’s orbit is worth his or her leg up.
No more ‘greed is good’. Acquisition is but a golden calf phantasm to the wayward soul. The ascetic hears a suspicious rustling of leaves uphill from his party’s campsite. He thinks, “Death approaches us from cover of night and you, Marthann, desperately reach for your enchanted serren crossbow in hopes that the works of men will preserve you. I but touch my heart and smile. All I need I gain from love of my god. Behold the unwavering countenance of a righteous herald.”
Among most holy texts on Earth the essential belief of various vows of abstinence is that by giving something up you will get far more in return. You don't go on a spirit quest to lose water weight after all. In manifesting ultimate self reliance, a holy person might also demonstrate to commoners that holiness is something as real as a stone wall, something rewarding and worth aspiring to. So in the real world, if an ascetic holy master smells like yak butter gone bad whilst begging, that eye-watering pungency was likely not the intent of going without. The intent, aside from learning pious lessons, may have been to allow their sacrificial journey toward divine truth to serve as an inspiration to any onlookers in need of guidance.
So if in Tibet the giving up of material possessions gives one a spiritual advantage, in a magical game-world a Vow of Poverty gives a spiritual advantage that has a mechanical game value. It isn’t just a way of limiting the character for the sake of a generously power stripping, if not just downright interesting background story. If Oerth wasn't a place for clarity in our allegory we wouldn't vacation there as often as some of us do. You can walk it like you think it in a game world. I think D&D asceticism offers a pile-up of power-ups but I think it does so to empower the potential for a positively charged step away from constructing diamond golem bodyguards and temple raiding on Tarterus. PCs this divine will use their bonuses for great, world altering good. It's up to the DM to keep up the eternal challenge for such a rare and wondrous being.
I would allow a first level character the feat but the event that allowed such a celestial gift would have to DOMINATE his or her background story.
BTW, I'm not religious so don't worry about roughing me up with a counterpoint.
The Jade -
Well put. I tend to reward any player with a good backstory, and if they write it well enough I'll bend the rules a bit to fit their story... but like The Jade, I would require one hell of a story to allow a character the Vow at first level.
- Ashavan
The Jade -
Well put. I tend to reward any player with a good backstory, and if they write it well enough I'll bend the rules a bit to fit their story... but like The Jade, I would require one hell of a story to allow a character the Vow at first level.
- Ashavan
Yeah, I want a pageturner!
I also think that just because an ascetic character doesn't collect wealth, instead passing his or her share on to the needy, there is no reason why such acts need to remain completely selfless in the sense that regular reports of the good the donations are doing might reach the ascetic's ears.
Donated funds might help an orphanage to move from a wooden building to a stone structure ensuring that there will no longer be a threat of fire.
Perhaps an age long campaign through malevolent otherworldly wastes has garnered enough wealth (to be held by allies) to donate a platinum holy font to a church in dire need of plentiful holy water.
Horses and wagon could be bought for a metropolitan hospital for use as proto-ambulance.
What if an NPC on the verge of turning to a life of crime is turned around when the ascetic pays the NPC's debts and gives enough silver to easily start a new life in another city?
'Passing it on' will lead to the pleasing crash of plunging dominoes as one good act will lead another exponentially, creating a rippling effect of charitable goodwill.
Reports like these provide a special kind of reward that for some players will rival or surpass hearing news such as: "Your floating iceberg fortress has now been sheathed in an obdurium casement making it harder than adamantite, just like you commissioned. And the ten +6 trebuchets of speed have also been installed at various strategic landings. That will teach Iuz to threaten your crib!"
That adds such dimension to the role-playing. Brilliant, really. Your suggestion here makes far too much sense to have been left out of the original text.
So to summarise my preliminary thoughts I'd advocate
-- anything "received" should be earned, most likely through service of some form
Technically, an important part of a Bhikku's renunciation of wealth and possessions is learning humility from the understanding that even his very food is charity. The act of charitable giving benefits the donor, and receiving it in the correct spirit benefits both donor and recipient. There is no obligation of service in either case (although a blessing is often forthcoming). IIRC, Bhikku are not permitted to beg. If no one puts food in their bowl that day, they do not eat.
The monk who has taken a VoP should subsist only on what is freely given, and suffer hunger otherwise, learning to disregard that suffering as much as he disregards the pleasure of a full belly.
Adhering to that strict regimen makes surviving day-to-day a challenging RP prospect (that could get rather dull).
Technically, an important part of a Bhikku's renunciation of wealth and possessions is learning humility from the understanding that even his very food is charity. The act of charitable giving benefits the donor, and receiving it in the correct spirit benefits both donor and recipient. There is no obligation of service in either case (although a blessing is often forthcoming). IIRC, Bhikku are not permitted to beg. If no one puts food in their bowl that day, they do not eat.
The monk who has taken a VoP should subsist only on what is freely given, and suffer hunger otherwise, learning to disregard that suffering as much as he disregards the pleasure of a full belly.
Adhering to that strict regimen makes surviving day-to-day a challenging RP prospect (that could get rather dull).
I believe you're absolutely right. I think I was just looking for ways, in game terms, to make Chris Wissel more comfortable with the vow of poverty option before he popped a vein. Alas, the man simply hates the poor and would deny them improved AC.
;) Kidding, he's a Wereplatypussycat.
|
|
Abuse-wise, among the best uses I've seen are delaying VoP until very late level — this is an exception to the above rule — and using all your cash PRIOR to taking the Vow paying for Wishes to enhance your stats and other rituals.
Okay, you said Abuse-wise, so i guess that you too see the power-gaming aspect of this advice. I can't think of a way that this could be justified in terms of roleplaying. Wasting up all your belongings in a selfish way prior to taking a vow of poverty sounds paradox to me. Sure, it would pay out if you'd reduce it to the game-mechanics only, but it still leaves a bad taste and, as a DM, i'd never allow to use the feat in this way...
I'll be playing a monk with VOP in my friends next game. I had similiar arguments as listed here.
I think the loss of flexibility makes up for the pure gp value of some of the benefits.
The monk and the druid are the only two classes I can think of who dont lose much, if any, flexibility in taking VOP.
Bump. Here is the thread that discusses the GP value of Vow of Poverty.
Oops - I should have just linked it as we are on a different sub forum.
I dont think there is anything broken or wrong or extra powerful about vow of poverty. Sure, any pc as a trait can play a character with a vow of poverty, but that is definately not the same thing as taking a holy vow with absolute strictures that you will not violate and get rewarded from some Power for your devotion.
personally, I dont see how some classes could possibly take this vow like warrior, wizard and other gear dependant classes. Some others like ranger, monk, sorcerer would seem to lend itself well.
Our group rules this feat no so specifically that you may only have a staff; you may have any common or simple weapon or pick up anything laying around and use it at the moment; you just dont carry stuff like this around or let anyone carry it for you; you will give away any personal material weath at any time of anyone requests it of you including the shirt off your back as you believe abolutely in the Power that grants you your aestetic grace and that they will provide for your needs. If you starve to death or some such; well, it was in true service and was a failure on your part; not the divine powers or perhaps it/they have some plan you do not yet comprehend. In practice; these characters should take a hunter/gatherer skill set or perhaps sense motive and whatnot to beg, as well as crafter type skills to make gifts and give contributions to others or sell them for money to contribute to charity; also, a gm should have npc of this aestetics holy order recongnise and feel a bit compelled to invite this person to have dinner or stay over; or give him some jerky and cornbread or whatnot. I consider a person with a feat vow of poverty to be something akin to a shrine of that deific power. People of that order will come to this pc with their problems; leave gifts; expect gifts and help and even short term sustance from this pc.
Those with the feat vow of poverty are like paladins in that they are recognisable as forces of good and will attract the emnity of most selfish and all evil creatures; some diabolical power probably has agents specifically to destroy this pc or perhaps a horde of decievers ready to temp and try to get this person to betray his vow because his is a holy icon. It is very doubtful any unholy divine would give two hoots about any person mearly roleplaying this as a mindset or trait of personality that they can drop or adhere to at will.
well, there you go, my two coppers. Am kinda curious what the original poster wanted as it was kind of vague. To be exact it is good as you must be good to take the feat :) Do I think the bad guys should have vow of hording or whatnot; sure, seems fair. Maybe they would get less encumberance penalty; maybe get a penalty for not having enough accumulated. Get to wear an extra ring or something, have to eat an escallating amount each day as they gain levels; you know; be the antithesis of the aestetic with vow of poverty. heh maybe call them Lords of the Horde :) great for all those evil half dragon wannabees.
I agree that it depends on how it's used. Note that all of the vows in the BoED are more than just feats, they are roleplaying codes of conduct. The character who takes a vow feat is swearing a supernatural pact to act a specific way. The DM should talk with the player and make sure they understand that they need to avoid any violation of either the letter OR the spirit of the vow (sophists beware!) and that this will be strictly enforced.
Even the Sacred Vow feat (prerequisite for the rest of the vows), can cause problems: "You have willingly given yourself to the service of a good deity or cause, denying yourself an ordinary life to better serve your highest ideals." If an activity does not benefit the "good deity or cause," a character who has sworn this vow WILL NOT do it (and "making me better able to fight evil" is not a valid benefit). Also, unless the rest of the party serves the same deity or cause, the character will not wish to associate with them beyond one or two sessions.
For the Vow of Poverty, I'd say any item with a price other than 0gp, unless specifically mentioned as an exception (and a divine focus for divine spellcasters), is prohibited; this limits weapons to sling with stones, staff, and unarmed/natural weapons. A character with a VoP will refuse to use ANY material items not excepted to benefit himself (including maintaining and adding to a spellbook; ascetic wizards can only prepare Read Magic and spells already mastered with Spell Mastery prior to taking the vow). Spellcasters can only cast spells with costly material components if others donate them; they will NEVER cast the spells on themselves, unless required by the spell description AND it will benefit others directly. An ascetic can work for room and board (but not more) or live by hunting/gathering until 5th level. ALL money or items gained in excess of this must be donated to the needy or a charitable organization as soon as possible. Finally, remember: "If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it."
this limits weapons to sling with stones, staff, and unarmed/natural weapons.
Damn, forgot club.
Well in my game we have a monk who took a vow of poverty, and although it certainly has its benefits he isn't over or under powered compared to the rest of the group. Of course the player rolls more 1s and 2s than I thought humanly possible, which negates any advantages VOP might offer.
On the other hand his newly created half ogre, barbarian, fighter, exotic weapon master, warhulk, that has a strength of 50 when raging is another stoy. However the lowly +2 Will save makes him highly vulnerable to enchantment spells- I'm not sure what to do about this guy. I might disallow him.
Well in my game we have a monk who took a vow of poverty, and although it certainly has its benefits he isn't over or under powered compared to the rest of the group. Of course the player rolls more 1s and 2s than I thought humanly possible, which negates any advantages VOP might offer.
On the other hand his newly created half ogre, barbarian, fighter, exotic weapon master, warhulk, that has a strength of 50 when raging is another stoy. However the lowly +2 Will save makes him highly vulnerable to enchantment spells- I'm not sure what to do about this guy. I might disallow him.
heh he sounds very vulnerable to quicksand; can you play in a swamp :) other variants like rock to mud can come in handy to indirectly get rid of these combat monsters if needed. A large portable hole can do wonders also; a stick jockey can almost always be beaten if you play on his weaknesses. hehe not to rub a sore spot; but does he wear meduium or heavy armor? also how is this character at grappling with get rid of most weapon use; make a few monster grapplers and these should be nasty fights. I guess what I am saying is not to dissallow it; take it as a challenge to make the game challening and exciting no matter what character people want; the rules and game itself is openended enought; just think creatively and let him chop up stuff, but have a few surprizes once in a while. If the other party members are more or less equal to him then you really have no issues; if he stands out then he is likely to build a reputation and be the target of many attacks; you could just levitate him up a few feet; can move; can't engage; more or less out of the fight unless he can throw some daggers, you could handle things so that he will adventually see that he needs a more rounded character to handle vesatile situations. just a thought