|
Why does there seem to be so many people against this VoP? I can understand the VoP monk hate, but are people reluctant to let PCs without monk levels(or levels in any class that has a similar AC bonus)? My Vow of Poverty/Peace Paladin of Erastil was shot down quicker than a white dragon at a Fire Mage's convention.
So I ask, why?
So I ask, why?
I think because VoP provides a lot of benefits that can't be taken away very easily. Anti-magic doesn't stop them, iirc. They can't be stolen. They can't be sundered. They really can't be suppressed unless you're in some kind of divine-dead area. That's a lot of situations for a GM to work around.
Additionally, many adventures don't take the VoP character's restriction into account when providing treasure, and so the rest of the group sees a bump in treasure (increasing their efficacy) without much in the way of cost as they grab the VoP's share. With that, I think a lot of GMs see it as RP-cheese. The player pays lip service to the vow but then stumps for the party to take his share.
I've seen it suggested to make the VoP a prestige class, requiring the sacrifice of such funds, so that the treasure stays out of the campaign. I think that's not a bad idea, as long as you also work to tie such sacrifices into the community and the campaign and your player is really into extending the character as a devotee of the vow.
-Ben.
|
|
But that's just it, the paladin's share of the treasure was going to the Temple/Orphange of Erastil where he grew up. Also, it is very easy to take away the benefits. One cursed item, one king so grateful he gives the character his own land/keep and would have the character executed if he gave it away, or one cool item too many.
I think it has more to do with monk or druid VoP hate then other classes. VoP is not a problem on the fighter or on any class that really does like equipment but its an issue for druids and monks particularly.
Many years ago some one on these forums took VoP and converted it into magical items of the closest possible equivalent. So if VoP gives +2 to hit then look up +2 sword and if it adds +2 to AC then look up +2 armour. The finding was that VoP grant pluses far faster then the wealth by level system does. I no longer remember the exact numbers but it got pretty extreme by 10th level - the equivalent of more then twice the rest of the characters wealth by level. From 10th-15th the gap stops growing. From 16th on the gap starts to shrink rapidly and at 20th level the VoP character, for the first time, has less plusses then the other characters in the party.
Hence one can see the benefits for a druid or monk player - you get twice the treasure everyone else gets and the drawbacks are minor.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dragonborn3, the Vow of Poverty, like much of the Book of Exalted Deeds, challenges many of the base assumptions of the D&D game. If D&D is, at its heart, "kick open the door, kill the orc, take its treasure", then the Vow of Poverty eliminates that last part. (And the Vow of Peace eliminates another.) So the entire party needs to be on board with the proposal to play a very different style of game.
If the player doesn't understand this, and starts planing "work-arounds" for the Vow, then it becomes terribly cheesy. If the DM doesn't understand this shift, and keeps providing the party with the same kind of rewards, then the Vow can get tiresome.
At least, that's as how I understand it.
One cursed item, one king so grateful he gives the character his own land/keep and would have the character executed if he gave it away, or one cool item too many.
Perhaps that's just it-- he has to consider something special to deal with the character. It's additional planning and bookkeeping that some GMs don't want to be bothered with doing.
I think VoP often falls into the same matter-of-taste bin that psionics, incarnum, and some Unearthed Arcana material hits.
You may just need to find a table where they're cool with you giving it a go.
-Ben.
|
|
So a character that doesn't like to kill(and therefor uses a sap or merciful weapon) hurts the game play? A character who actually helps out his church? I don't want ways around the Vow! I want to play someone who doesn't kill, helps his church, tries to convert those he can, and doesn't give a case of dragon bile about his own personal wealth!
Plus fighting with only a staff is cool.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Additionally, many adventures don't take the VoP character's restriction into account when providing treasure, and so the rest of the group sees a bump in treasure (increasing their efficacy) without much in the way of cost as they grab the VoP's share. With that, I think a lot of GMs see it as RP-cheese. The player pays lip service to the vow but then stumps for the party to take his share.
Adventures don't need to take the VoP restriction, the feat itself does.
"BoED p.30, 31: Other Ramifications of PovertyHaving a Character in the party who has taken a vow of poverty should not necessarily mean that other party members get bigger shares of treasure! An aesthetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial. The majority of her share of the party treasure... should be donated to the needy..."
If DMs see it as RP cheese, they're probably allowing the player to get away with something they shouldn't. As with most things in BoED and BoVD, the DM needs to use their judgement... if a player seems to be abusing their vows/exalted feats, they probably are.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
So a character that doesn't like to kill(and therefor uses a sap or merciful weapon) hurts the game play? A character who actually helps out his church? I don't want ways around the Vow! I want to play someone who doesn't kill, helps his church, tries to convert those he can, and doesn't give a case of dragon bile about his own personal wealth!
Plus fighting with only a staff is cool.
It sounds like your character concept is sound. Why do you need mechanics to back it up? You can "not care" about your personal wealth and still use magic items because they're necessary to do the work of your church. Or even if you don't, make it work within the rules your GM will permit. Worst case scenario you die from being too far behind the power curve and then your GM has a martyr on his hands.
Additionally, many adventures don't take the VoP character's restriction into account when providing treasure, and so the rest of the group sees a bump in treasure (increasing their efficacy) without much in the way of cost as they grab the VoP's share. With that, I think a lot of GMs see it as RP-cheese. The player pays lip service to the vow but then stumps for the party to take his share.Adventures don't need to take the VoP restriction, the feat itself does.
"BoED p.30, 31: Other Ramifications of Poverty
Having a Character in the party who has taken a vow of poverty should not necessarily mean that other party members get bigger shares of treasure! An aesthetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial. The majority of her share of the party treasure... should be donated to the needy..."If DMs see it as RP cheese, they're probably allowing the player to get away with something they shouldn't. As with most things in BoED and BoVD, the DM needs to use their judgement... if a player seems to be abusing their vows/exalted feats, they probably are.
Yeah, this. VoP does not allow for the rest of the party to keep the VoP characters share of the treasure. Not if you're playing it right.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Adventures don't need to take the VoP restriction, the feat itself does.
"BoED p.30, 31: Other Ramifications of Poverty
Having a Character in the party who has taken a vow of poverty should not necessarily mean that other party members get bigger shares of treasure! An aesthetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial. The majority of her share of the party treasure... should be donated to the needy..."
That presumes that there's an opportunity to do so. A lot of parties don't split up treasure into shares. Characters buy what they need, with the blessings of the rest of the party. It's difficult when the VoP character suddenly demands that a fifth of the riches be given away.
As with all things that change the campaign in major ways, it's best for all the players to agree to something like a VoP-character entering the party beforehand.
I remember a 1st Edition AD&D paladin (in that version of the rules, Paladins need to donate most of their coin to the poor) arguing against going on an extended mission into the wilderness and the passages to the Underdark the party was seeking, on the grounds that he needed to be around civilization in order to donate charity to the needy.
So a character that doesn't like to kill(and therefor uses a sap or merciful weapon) hurts the game play?
It can hurt the other players' gameplay if they have to bend over backwards to accommodate your vow all the time. Now if the rest of the party are on board with it, there shouldn't be a problem (although a druid or monk can end up with a ridiculously high AC as pointed out above).
I have a monk 6/cleric 10 with VoP in my current campaign (v3.5). When we began, the player and I had a long talk about the ramifications of the benefits the vow provides as well as the costs it demands. In a way it was a tough decision for both of us; for me, because I was concerned he'd wreck the campaign.
However, 16 levels later it's been a mixed bag. He started out nigh impossible to hit, and so he charged in like a naked madman...but he couldn't hit things very well either (classic low-level monk issues), so it was a toss-up. Then, when he multi-classed into cleric (stopping all progression as a monk), it began to shift. He was still difficult to hit, but his vow really kicked into high hear with a patron church to supply.
The biggest detriment was felt by the others in the party, who were constantly called upon to chip in greater shares of their personal treasure when an ally needed costly healing (or raising).
All in all, it has worked fine. Everyone has gotten used to his peculiarities, though they still chafe from time to time. The VoP has been the game-breaker I thought it would, and the player has really enjoyed the side-story of his character. In retrospect, were someone else to choose this option, I might tweak it a little first, as it does peak at mid-levels (as mentioned).
|
|
In one group I was in, there were two VoP monks (out of 8 players). They sucked up so much money in donations, and we had agreed to split the money evenly (this was the first time I had experienced splitting the money, rather than finder's keeper's). It was one of the most agonizing things to see that large chunk of money just disappear into thin air... Because they got their benefits regardless of how much money they donated, we still needed magic items to keep up with them. Also, I found it extremely aggravating to work around their holier-than-thou alignment restriction, especially when I was playing a CN Beguiler. You can only imagine how hard it was for our NE Rogue....
Also, this had apparently been a theme for the two players. They pretty much admitted that they hadn't played anything other than VoP monk's ever since they found out about them. The Rogue and I never did diplomacy within ear-shot of the monks (which had to be a decent distance due to their high listen checks), because the DM had us working for a thieves guild (no real choice on our part. "You play thief-like characters, you belong to a thieves guild and are on a secret mission!") and had to trick the Monks into doing our bidding... Which wasn't exactly that hard, as the only skill they hadn't maxed was Sense Motive.
I guess my main problem with VoP is that it is mostly a metagame feat. 95% of the time, only a Druid or Monk would even consider taking it, and it pretty much only gives them benefits since they are most likely going to play along those lines anyways (No armor or weapons? Monk's don't need them, and Druids are going to be animals most of the time).
|
|
It is mentioned in the Book of Exalted Deeds that the donations may pay for or reduce the cost of much needed healing from the temple. One of the things with DnD is that it is usually harder to keep your enemy alive for later(like if you needed to interrogate him). Since it's harder to convert someone than kill them(most of the time), I see no problem with it. If all else fails, I can remove the Vow of Nonviolence/Peace from his build and add something else.
He was supposed to be the hard-to-hit healer of the group -he would even have the Stigmata feat at higher levels- and the interrogater. In high level games, he would also have (good)dragons, as allies(cohort and mount).
I had a cleric3/monk4/sacred fist5 with VoP in a party and though he got quite powerful, no one considered it too powerful. Nor did anyone gripe about his share of the loot going to charity.
The massive donations to whatever local good church was nearby got us a lot of free healing and rooms for the night.
As far as treasure shares are concerned, our group doesn't split everything down to the copper. If an item is usable/desireable to a PC that PC gets it (If two or more PCs want it, it goes to a vote). The benefit to the others is that that PC is now in a better position to help keep the others alive and the party as a whole successful. No one has to pay off the other PCs for an item that they may want or need (I have known other gaming groups that do it this way). Cash money, gems and unwanted items all get sold and split evenly.
But in order to make VoP work, the DM must be strict about the restrictions on the PC with VoP. My guy came across a relic extremely holy to my faith and it was a hard call leaving it to others. He could not even carry it because it imparted benefits to anyone of the faith who possessed it.
|
|
It sounds like your character concept is sound. Why do you need mechanics to back it up? You can "not care" about your personal wealth and still use magic items because they're necessary to do the work of your church. Or even if you don't, make it work within the rules your GM will permit. Worst case scenario you die from being too far behind the power curve and then your GM has a martyr on his hands.
The embolded text is the reason I need mechanics. As much as would I loved to play the character without the mechanics, I don't want him to die. I also want to see if it is possible to actually play(in the weekend group I play with) a Vow of Poverty/Peace character. Always I have worried about getting loot to better equip my character, and worried about ecperiance. I want to role-play someone who doesn't need money to be successful. But it seems that may never happen...
It sounds like your character concept is sound. Why do you need mechanics to back it up? You can "not care" about your personal wealth and still use magic items because they're necessary to do the work of your church. Or even if you don't, make it work within the rules your GM will permit. Worst case scenario you die from being too far behind the power curve and then your GM has a martyr on his hands.The embolded text is the reason I need mechanics. As much as would I loved to play the character without the mechanics, I don't want him to die. I also want to see if it is possible to actually play(in the weekend group I play with) a Vow of Poverty/Peace character. Always I have worried about getting loot to better equip my character, and worried about ecperiance. I want to role-play someone who doesn't need money to be successful. But it seems that may never happen...
With VoP you will only be worried about experince.
The bigger issue I have from an RP perspective is are the other players ok with you taking it. It does force their hands on a number of topics and they have to be on board with that ahead of time or it's like the guy who wants to play a Paladin in an all mercenary party. It forces the other players to act in ways they may not wish to or it will cause a ton of party Drama that the DM simply wishes to avoid. When your RP will force a change in everyone else's you have to be respectful of the DM's desire to avoid that and accept his ruling. Maybe talk to him about running a game where you guy would be more fitting, maybe talk to the players about it as well. But keep in mind VoP is open to some serious cheese issues and that is easy to see from a quick read of it, many DMs will just run from what they know could be a problem and that too could be your DMs issues.
|
|
The paladin part isn't much of a problem, as there is already one in the party. Erastil may not be a Deity in the game world, but that was flavor to help fill out the character. The other pally in the group isn't nearly as focused in healing(a good thing) as the pally I want to play. Since the party really needs someone who can heal, I thought I would try something new(the Vows) and mix it with something old(my playing a paladin, which I haven't done since I first started playing).
The problem with Vow of Poverty is that it changes the paradigm of the game; D&D is traditionally about killing things and taking their stuff, yet this is a feat that forces the character to care nothing about half that equation. That is not a concern for the DM, nor is it a reason for the DM to forbid it, as the PCs' motivations are not for the DM to decide; rather, it's a topic the other players must come to accept or reject, as they are the ones who are ultimately affected by it most, as they are going to have to work around it in more meaningful ways. If a party does not accept a member, that member can and should be booted out of the party post haste; if the only reason a character's still in the party is the big neon "P" over their head, there's a problem.
As for the reason DMs oftentimes ban it? The mechanical reason usually involves either its complexity (which is ultimately countered by the lack of magic items), the inability to take it away easily (which is ultimately a control freak problem), or fear of big numbers and all things mechanically unusual, oftentimes with a spot of ignorance as to how meaningful those numbers actually are and how powerful the feat actually is. Though there plenty of other reasons; the VoP character doesn't fit the party, but the player's being obstinate about it, or the like.
Ultimately, it's not a very powerful feat. It grants you a lot, sure, but the cost is so massive that even Druids should think twice about taking it.
I think because VoP provides a lot of benefits that can't be taken away very easily. Anti-magic doesn't stop them, iirc. They can't be stolen. They can't be sundered. They really can't be suppressed unless you're in some kind of divine-dead area. That's a lot of situations for a GM to work around.
"I can't give the players the finger as easily" is not a valid reason to hate something. A DM who is constantly throwing out antimagic fields and stealing/destroying gear to railroad the players is not a very good DM. The fact that the DM has more trouble pulling out the big, giant, "Screw you," button is not a fault. The fact that the character is capable of defending herself in adverse situations is not a problem.
Many years ago some one on these forums took VoP and converted it into magical items of the closest possible equivalent. So if VoP gives +2 to hit then look up +2 sword and if it adds +2 to AC then look up +2 armour. The finding was that VoP grant pluses far faster then the wealth by level system does. I no longer remember the exact numbers but it got pretty extreme by 10th level - the equivalent of more then twice the rest of the characters wealth by level. From 10th-15th the gap stops growing. From 16th on the gap starts to shrink rapidly and at 20th level the VoP character, for the first time, has less plusses then the other characters in the party.
However, those pluses are ultimately meaningless; for a Monk especially, what they need isn't pluses, but options. They need a variety of magical effects that Vow of Poverty quite simply doesn't grant. And +X to Stat Y is not the pinnacle of magic item power; there are items out there with powers far more immense, and cutting them off, nixing that variety and those options, is far more drastic and sweeping than the loss of numbers; the problem may not be nearly as severe for a Druid, as an innate caster, but they're hideously overpowered out of the box anyways, while the Monk with Vow of Poverty loses at least as much as it gains.
If DMs see it as RP cheese, they're probably allowing the player to get away with something they shouldn't. As with most things in BoED and BoVD, the DM needs to use their judgement... if a player seems to be abusing their vows/exalted feats, they probably are.
This is absolute rubbish. There are countless cases where DMs rail at players for abuse just because they're afraid of big numbers, when the player isn't doing anything at all. Don't trust a faulty gut; use your head and analyze the situation critically. And, more importantly, talk to the player without the assumption that they're some evil cheesemonkey munchkin powergamer or whatever rot.
It sounds like your character concept is sound. Why do you need mechanics to back it up? You can "not care" about your personal wealth and still use magic items because they're necessary to do the work of your church. Or even if you don't, make it work within the rules your GM will permit. Worst case scenario you die from being too far behind the power curve and then your GM has a martyr on his hands.
Not the question, chief. The question is why DMs are against the mechanics. Not what else you could do.
What's more, falling behind the power curve is a Big Deal. For a DM to tell a player, "You can play that character concept, but you have to suck to do it," is absolutely horrible. Players are supposed to be allowed to actually play the game, and make characters who are effective, who can overcome challenges, who can keep up, who can compete, who can achieve. Forcing a character into impotence denies them all of that, and makes playing the game the enemy of roleplay, which is something a DM should try to keep to an absolute minimum.
And do not the difference between playing and abusing before replying to this, folks.
It can hurt the other players' gameplay if they have to bend over backwards to accommodate your vow all the time. Now if the rest of the party are on board with it, there shouldn't be a problem (although a druid or monk can end up with a ridiculously high AC as pointed out above).
Except that "ridiculously high AC" is ultimately what it takes to have base relevant AC; attack bonuses scale a lot faster than armor class, to the point where you have to pour pretty much everything into your armor class just to make it relevant past the low levels. The Vow of Poverty Monk's AC is a case of DMs being afraid of big numbers when they really don't matter; at higher levels, against an enemy that can actually threaten the party, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.
In one group I was in, there were two VoP monks (out of 8 players). They sucked up so much money in donations, and we had agreed to split the money evenly (this was the first time I had experienced splitting the money, rather than finder's keeper's). It was one of the most agonizing things to see that large chunk of money just disappear into thin air... Because they got their benefits regardless of how much money they donated, we still needed magic items to keep up with them. Also, I found it extremely aggravating to work around their holier-than-thou alignment restriction, especially when I was playing a CN Beguiler. You can only imagine how hard it was for our NE Rogue....
The vanishing money was a non-issue; it was their money, after all, their fair share. They hold claim to a quarter of the money, so it's only fair they get it, and if they choose to donate it, it's no business of yours to get worked up over it. If they somehow got a hold of more than a quarter of the wealth, then... well... why would you allow that?
As for the alignment issues, the same would hold true for a Paladin in the party; it's a group template issue, not a Vow of Poverty issue; the group hadn't worked together in character creation to make sure the characters could actually work together. This is not a drawback of Vow of Poverty. The group should have collaborated to ensure a functional party, which may have ultimately been without evil thieves or ultrapious Monks in the end if y'all had, but more importantly, everyone would have been on the same page.
The bigger issue I have from an RP perspective is are the other players ok with you taking it. It does force their hands on a number of topics and they have to be on board with that ahead of time or it's like the guy who wants to play a Paladin in an all mercenary party. It forces the other players to act in ways they may not wish to or it will cause a ton of party Drama that the DM simply wishes to avoid. When your RP will force a change in everyone else's you have to be respectful of the DM's desire to avoid that and accept his ruling. Maybe talk to him about running a game where you guy would be more fitting, maybe talk to the players about it as well. But keep in mind VoP is open to some serious cheese issues and that is easy to see from a quick read of it, many DMs will just run from what they know could be a problem and that too could be your DMs issues.
But again, that's not the DM's place; it's the other players' place to decide if they have a problem with it. Bob shouldn't just say, "I don't think Alice, Carmen, and David would like it," when Alice, Carmen, and David are all sitting right next to him with working vocal chords.
I have had it in my game before, and I see it as a trap feat. It looks good on paper, but it does not replace magic items, and if the party ever needs the VoP character to use a magic item they are out of luck or that character is out of luck. In order to take care of any supplies that such as scrolls that may be used on a VoP player's behalf I allow 20% of his would be wealth to go to the party. If he ever donates more than that to the party he loses the feat.
PS: I have not read any post other than the OP's so these points may have already been countered.
hogarth wrote:
"It can hurt the other players' gameplay if they have to bend over backwards to accommodate your vow all the time. Now if the rest of the party are on board with it, there shouldn't be a problem (although a druid or monk can end up with a ridiculously high AC as pointed out above)."Except that "ridiculously high AC" is ultimately what it takes to have base relevant AC; attack bonuses scale a lot faster than armor class, to the point where you have to pour pretty much everything into your armor class just to make it relevant past the low levels. The Vow of Poverty Monk's AC is a case of DMs being afraid of big numbers when they really don't matter; at higher levels, against an enemy that can actually threaten the party, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.
I was mostly talking about low levels (e.g. levels 1-5, where I do most of my playing); AC can make a big difference at that point. But even so, I think that having a really high AC is overrated.
I have two problems with VoP:
1. In 3.5? Druids were the problem, not monks. Had a Sentinel of Barrhai in Savage Tide with VoP who easily outfought all the other fighters in the party combined, in addition to being a full caster. Now that wild shape has been nerfed a bit, hopefully that situation is improved somewhat.
2. Feats that grant more feats just rub me the wrong way. That's like wishing for more wishes. Ixnay!
One minor quibble and correction.
All Exalted Feats are Supernatural, and thus are suppressed inside an Anti-Magic Shell. Thus, VoP fails in an A-M shell as well.
The big problem with VoP is you have to play an Exalted Character. That gets role-playing in the way of my mechanics, and impacts the characters others play unduly. If you ignore those RP restrictions, VoP is itself overpowered...the things you cannot do make the feat valid.
That's generally the biggest rub. The low level benefits are significant, at high level they are 'meh'. Not having magic items that allow things like flight and planeshifting and dim dooring and other stuff is a bigger penalty then a +8 buff to one stat pre-Epic.
As for AC and TH...if gold is spent wisely, they go up at virtually the same level. The key is not to restrict yourself to the standard array of Dex, Armor, Nat Armor, and Deflection. Instead, load up on el cheapo +1 bonuses all around. I use the word DISMAL (Deflection, Insight, Sacred, Morale, And Luck)Rings. For ~18k, you can get a +5 bonus to AC from a Ring like this. That is considerably cheaper then 50k for a +5 Ring of Prot, or 25K for an amulet of Nat Armor +5. And it can be added incrementally.
It's possible to get +15 AC out of a DISMAL ring pre-Epic. +10 Works out to about 80k.
i.e. quit thinking inside the box they give you, and use the Crafting rules properly. They even tell you to buy all the low bonuses you can before upgrading...they simply don't go into the bonuses that are almost always provided by only spells.
==Aelryinth
I have two problems with VoP:
1. In 3.5? Druids were the problem, not monks. Had a Sentinel of Barrhai in Savage Tide with VoP who easily outfought all the other fighters in the party combined, in addition to being a full caster. Now that wild shape has been nerfed a bit, hopefully that situation is improved somewhat.
2. Feats that grant more feats just rub me the wrong way. That's like wishing for more wishes. Ixnay!
1) that's a problem with wild shape, not VoP, and of course, to the restrictions on Melee combatants.
2) Think of it more like a +0 template. By giving up 750k of wealth, you apply this template to the character. I made a similar 'template' called the Forsaken, based around the (useless) PC of similar name, where they couldn't use magic at all, but were a lethally non-magical class in and of themselves. Always irked me that the most magical creatures were the most magically resistant.
==Aelryinth
But even so, I think that having a really high AC is overrated.
If you are a fighter AC can't really be over rated since that is your main defense. If you are a caster who can be unseen, almost untouchable, or at least give the opponent a 50% miss chance then you are right, AC does not matter. Mirror Image as an example is almost always useful.
If you are a fighter AC can't really be over rated since that is your main defense.
But even so, I think that having a really high AC is overrated.
My point is that getting a really high AC requires a lot of resources that would probably be better invested in offense instead. YMMV, of course.
|
|
My point is that getting a really high AC requires a lot of resources that would probably be better invested in offense instead. YMMV, of course.If you are a fighter AC can't really be over rated since that is your main defense.
But even so, I think that having a really high AC is overrated.
The old "Stop the damage from happening by killing the monster faster" argument? Hm... without Vow of Peace, monsters will fall faster as non-lethal and lethal damage start to pile up...
However, those pluses are ultimately meaningless; for a Monk especially, what they need isn't pluses, but options. They need a variety of magical effects that Vow of Poverty quite simply doesn't grant. And +X to Stat Y is not the pinnacle of magic item power; there are items out there with powers far more immense, and cutting them off, nixing that variety and those options, is far more drastic and sweeping than the loss of numbers; the problem may not be nearly as severe for a Druid, as an innate caster, but they're hideously overpowered out of the box anyways, while the Monk with Vow of Poverty loses at least as much as it gains.
+X or Y to a stat may or may not be the pinnacle of what one can get from magic items (they were always very popular among my players however) but it goes beyond this - your not just getting stat boosters - your getting stat boosters at 1/2 price, or more accurately, your getting twice as many stat boosters as you could get otherwise.
That can be huge or it may not matter that much depending on the party make up and what the game will be about. Obviously if your rarely going to be in combat then this is not a very good feat as it mainly just helps you kill stuff. One the other hand if your in an AP then this will be a great feat as you'll fight a lot of things during the course of an AP - if your in one of the more recent Paizo APs even better - you'll never get to the levels where your feat under performs compared to magic wielding characters.
The other important aspect is party make up. The VoP character really wants to adventure with a mage who can provide all his dimension dooring and flying needs. The VoP character really excels if some one can take care of covering the weak points. The character looses a lot of appeal if no one has that support role covered since not being able to fly is kind of a show stopper by the mid levels.
My point is that getting a really high AC requires a lot of resources that would probably be better invested in offense instead. YMMV, of course.If you are a fighter AC can't really be over rated since that is your main defense.
But even so, I think that having a really high AC is overrated.
I generally don't agree - high AC almost always pay's off. If for no other reason then it reduces the ability of the monsters to use power attack and thus limits the number of truly devastating attacks that the monsters are likely to land.
|
However, those pluses are ultimately meaningless; for a Monk especially, what they need isn't pluses, but options. They need a variety of magical effects that Vow of Poverty quite simply doesn't grant. And +X to Stat Y is not the pinnacle of magic item power; there are items out there with powers far more immense, and cutting them off, nixing that variety and those options, is far more drastic and sweeping than the loss of numbers; the problem may not be nearly as severe for a Druid, as an innate caster, but they're hideously overpowered out of the box anyways, while the Monk with Vow of Poverty loses at least as much as it gains.+X or Y to a stat may or may not be the pinnacle of what one can get from magic items (they were always very popular among my players however) but it goes beyond this - your not just getting stat boosters - your getting stat boosters at 1/2 price, or more accurately, your getting twice as many stat boosters as you could get otherwise.
That can be huge or it may not matter that much depending on the party make up and what the game will be about. Obviously if your rarely going to be in combat then this is not a very good feat as it mainly just helps you kill stuff. One the other hand if your in an AP then this will be a great feat as you'll fight a lot of things during the course of an AP - if your in one of the more recent Paizo APs even better - you'll never get to the levels where your feat under performs compared to magic wielding characters.
The other important aspect is party make up. The VoP character really wants to adventure with a mage who can provide all his dimension dooring and flying needs. The VoP character really excels if some one can take care of covering the weak points. The character looses a lot of appeal if no one has that support role covered since not being able to fly is kind of a show stopper by the mid levels.
Lets also not forget how MAD monks are to begin with. Anything that can help in that department without too much sacrifice is always appreciated. The fact that Vow of Poverty is a good gain of wealth by level until mid to high levels, means that the monk just keeps going and if he's smart, he'll be able to do just fine with his options.
Of which Pathfinder gives many.
The big problem with VoP is you have to play an Exalted Character. That gets role-playing in the way of my mechanics, and impacts the characters others play unduly. If you ignore those RP restrictions, VoP is itself overpowered...the things you cannot do make the feat valid.
This is the only major problem with VoP, IMO. I always thought that a simpler I'm Just a Poor Sod feat would be great for players who just don't want to deal with magical items, for whatever reason. No prereqs--the player just has to stick to the spirit of the deal: you get these bonuses and abilities in exchange for not being a bling-tree and not trying to milk it by shape shifting.
I disallow the Vows and such for a few reasons, #1) because it seems like a crutch more than anything as far as roleplaying goes, being the mechanical reason to donate and be good rather than just being a character trait, #2) because my players who would use it, only do so for munchkanistic reasons... case in point, the first time one of my players was making a character he said the following " Can I use a feat from a book other than the ph?" "Probably I said, what book?" "Book of Exalted Deeds." "Vow of Poverty?" I asked. "Yes" he replied, and quickly I said "You were thinking a monk right?" "Yes, how did you know?" "I have heard of this feat." "Oh" he replied "I didn't know you would know of the feat, so I thought I would see if I could slip it past you."
This second exchange is why I am critical of things players want, because he wanted it purely for the comboness with monk, and not really any desire to add to roleplaying. Now granted that alone isn't enough for me to say no to a feat, because if so the fighter who builds up to weapon mastery or some other cool feat who does it to be really effective with his weapons is doing so for no rp reason, but purely a game advantage one. I said no because the player had heard it to be broken or thought it was and then tried to slip it by me.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
If DMs see it as RP cheese, they're probably allowing the player to get away with something they shouldn't. As with most things in BoED and BoVD, the DM needs to use their judgement... if a player seems to be abusing their vows/exalted feats, they probably are.This is absolute rubbish. There are countless cases where DMs rail at players for abuse just because they're afraid of big numbers, when the player isn't doing anything at all. Don't trust a faulty gut; use your head and analyze the situation critically. And, more importantly, talk to the player without the assumption that they're some evil cheesemonkey munchkin powergamer or whatever rot.
You seem to have misunderstood my point. I'm not afraid of 'big numbers'; I'm not accusing players of being 'munchkin powergamers'. Mechanically, the feat is tame.
What I was warning against was what Stewart Perkins encountered, players using feats beacuse they 'thought they could slip it past the DM', players trying to work around the spirit of the feat.
A big reason BoVD and especially BoED are for 'Mature Audiences' is they provide players with mechanics to fit their fluff. Not the other way around. The DM needs to be able to trust the players to cooperate so they can tell that communal story.
Why the hate?
Simple answer: Because it is an often abused feat. Munchkins gravitate towards it.
Most players that want this feat want it for the wrong reasons and seem to have a coincidentally high rate of trying to use it only with a monk or druid at the same time.
Also as previously pointed out it affects the story style and the other player's playing options heavily.
If you are a fighter AC can't really be over rated since that is your main defense. If you are a caster who can be unseen, almost untouchable, or at least give the opponent a 50% miss chance then you are right, AC does not matter. Mirror Image as an example is almost always useful.
That AC is credited as a defense for the Fighter still doesn't make AC any good as a defense. Particularly since Fighters' AC still isn't very good, and it still isn't the best defense available to the Fighter, even under their own power. No, their best defense is killing people before their window of survival closes.
The old "Stop the damage from happening by killing the monster faster" argument?
That's what the system rewards, though replace "kill" with "beat. Once an enemy's blind, or immobilized, or asleep, or landlocked while you're airborn, who really cares that they're not dead yet?
D&D rewards being aggressive. It's the nature of rocket tag.
I disallow the Vows and such for a few reasons, #1) because it seems like a crutch more than anything as far as roleplaying goes, being the mechanical reason to donate and be good rather than just being a character trait, #2) because my players who would use it, only do so for munchkanistic reasons... case in point, the first time one of my players was making a character he said the following " Can I use a feat from a book other than the ph?" "Probably I said, what book?" "Book of Exalted Deeds." "Vow of Poverty?" I asked. "Yes" he replied, and quickly I said "You were thinking a monk right?" "Yes, how did you know?" "I have heard of this feat." "Oh" he replied "I didn't know you would know of the feat, so I thought I would see if I could slip it past you."
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that in any capacity, and it is in no way munchkinism. Particularly since Monk is one of the classes that get hurt most by taking Vow of Poverty. Yes, their return is higher than others, but the profit margin is smaller or even negative compared to their sacrifice.
What's more, coming up with a combination that works well is not munchkinism. Wanting to play a character who uses a cool mechanic is not a bad thing. Playing the game is not a sin when everyone is getting together to play a game.
Simple answer: Because it is an often abused feat. Munchkins gravitate towards it.
Most players that want this feat want it for the wrong reasons and seem to have a coincidentally high rate of trying to use it only with a monk or druid at the same time.
That's like saying you should fill in your Burmese tiger pit the first time you see a Burmese tiger.
If you go VoP Monk for power, you're falling into a trap. If a player takes the VoP Monk thinking they're pulling off some grand, fantabulous scheme for massive power, they're going to end up either on par with or inferior to the rest of the party before long. Why does it matter if the player then goes home and says, "Tihihihihi, those fools shall kneel before my power!" when in reality the character's the weakest in the party, or at worst, on par?
If a player takes the VoP Monk thinking they're pulling off some grand, fantabulous scheme for massive power, they're going to end up either on par with or inferior to the rest of the party before long. Why does it matter if the player then goes home and says, "Tihihihihi, those fools shall kneel before my power!" when in reality the character's the weakest in the party, or at worst, on par?
Viletta, you make some very good points (with a little snarkiness but fun to read). But a recurring theme in your point is that the VoP is really a lot weaker than it seems and the character who takes it will eventually suffer more than he gains. Could you explain your reason for saying this? I'm having difficulty working that out in my own head. Thanks!
Viletta, you make some very good points (with a little snarkiness but fun to read). But a recurring theme in your point is that the VoP is really a lot weaker than it seems and the character who takes it will eventually suffer more than he gains. Could you explain your reason for saying this? I'm having difficulty working that out in my own head. Thanks!
One reason so many consider Vow of Poverty overpowered is the assumption that all gear arrangements are created equal, and to reproduce the exact abilities Vow of Poverty offers would cost twice wealth by level. However, that's assuming the benefits of Vow of Poverty not only cost double WBL, but are also worth double WBL, and it ignores the severe weaknesses in the ability set of VoP, as well.
For example, Vow of Poverty grants whatever weapons you use the benefits of being a +5 weapon that is treated as good for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction. You cannot get the effect of, say, a +1 Holy Frost Shocking weapon. This is a big deal, because enhancement bonus doesn't mean much. At higher levels, someone on the team is going to be able to spare a casting on Greater Magic Weapon to turn your +1 Holy Frost Shocking sword into a +2-5 Holy Frost Shocking sword, a +9-equivalent weapon, while the VoP character is stuck with a lowly +5 enhancement. And that's setting aside the fact that many weapon properties are flat more useful than an extra +1 enhancement.
Further, VoP lets you bypass /good and /magic DR, sure, but melee types generally have /adamantine, /iron, and /silver DR to contend with as well, and oftentimes carry alternate weapons made of those materials, or alchemic goodies that replicate the effect. While Monks may get the ability to bypass the /adamantine DR at level 16 (long after it's come up many, many times), they can't carry those extra cold iron and silver weapons.
Characters often have magic items that have inexpensive but powerful effects, like the boots of striding and springing, feather token: tree, some source of flight, and any of dozens of other effects that offer far more power (particularly at higher levels) than their price would suggest. While stat boosters are oftentimes worthwhile, they're generally carefully selected and mixed with various useful effects. Removing those useful effects to double, triple, even quadruple up on stat boosters does not change the fact that you just ripped a bunch of your strengths out and gave yourself a laundry list of weaknesses so big they can be seen from space. Particularly since more and more enemies require that you have the ability to fly, or have defenses on standard save-or-lose effects up to and including death; that +3 resistance bonus to saves by level 17 doesn't mean much, particularly since most of your allies by that point are going to be sporting +5 cloaks of the same.
Vow of Poverty forces you into a very specific set of phantom gear with major gaps and glaring weaknesses. Yes, it would be expensive to replicate, but in terms of power and flexibility, it's just not very good compared to what you lose when you throw away your flexibility.
|
|
Here he is, The Orphaned Champion of Orphans(subject to change). An (e) represents something gained from the Vows(feats, ability score bonuses, etc). I did not include any of the other abilities gained from Vow of Poverty to keep the list simple.
Ethric Lesit(Draconinc for "No Nest")
Human Male, Paladin(1-20)
Str14 Dex14 Con15(13+2)
Int10 Wis14 Cha15
Levels
1: Sacred Vow, Vow of Poverty
2: Vow of Peace(e), Trick(Healing Hands)
3: Subduing Strike
4: +1 Cha, Vow of Peace(e)
5: Dragonfriend
6: Holy Subdual
7: Eschew Materials, +2 Cha(e)
8: +1 Dex, Nimbus of Light(e)
9: Augment Healing
10: Holy Radiance
11: Leadership, +2 Cha(e), +2 Wis(e)
12: +1 Dex, Stigmata(e)
13: Dragon Cohort
14: Gift of Grace(e)
15: Force of Personality, +2 Cha(e), +2 Wis(e), +2 Con(e)
16: +1 Con, Intuitive Strike(e)
17: Heroic Destiny
18: Gift of Faith(e)
19: Fearless Destiny, +2 Cha(e), +2 Wis(e), +2 Con(e), +2 Str(e)
20: +1 Con, Vow of Purity(e)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Viletta,
Thank you for articulating the argument I've had against the people who swoon over Vow of Poverty. The benefits to the character are akin to an inherent apparatus of Kwalash, the crab-like submarine. "Woo hoo. I have a suite of really expensive toys ... that I never get to use. But, hey! At 16th Level, I'm great against Rust Monsters!"
Viletta, you make some very good points (with a little snarkiness but fun to read). But a recurring theme in your point is that the VoP is really a lot weaker than it seems and the character who takes it will eventually suffer more than he gains. Could you explain your reason for saying this? I'm having difficulty working that out in my own head. Thanks!One reason so many consider Vow of Poverty overpowered is the assumption that all gear arrangements are created equal, and to reproduce the exact abilities Vow of Poverty offers would cost twice wealth by level. However, that's assuming the benefits of Vow of Poverty not only cost double WBL, but are also worth double WBL, and it ignores the severe weaknesses in the ability set of VoP, as well.
For example, Vow of Poverty grants whatever weapons you use the benefits of being a +5 weapon that is treated as good for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction. You cannot get the effect of, say, a +1 Holy Frost Shocking weapon. This is a big deal, because enhancement bonus doesn't mean much. At higher levels, someone on the team is going to be able to spare a casting on Greater Magic Weapon to turn your +1 Holy Frost Shocking sword into a +2-5 Holy Frost Shocking sword, a +9-equivalent weapon, while the VoP character is stuck with a lowly +5 enhancement. And that's setting aside the fact that many weapon properties are flat more useful than an extra +1 enhancement.
Further, VoP lets you bypass /good and /magic DR, sure, but melee types generally have /adamantine, /iron, and /silver DR to contend with as well, and oftentimes carry alternate weapons made of those materials, or alchemic goodies that replicate the effect. While Monks may get the ability to bypass the /adamantine DR at level 16 (long after it's come up many, many times), they can't carry those extra cold iron and silver weapons.
Characters often have magic items that have inexpensive but powerful effects, like the boots of striding and...
Most of this is why we see the feat coupled with a monk or druid and not the fighter.
Monks are already using their hands for combat - there are no items for monks to make your fists Metaline nor can you add 5 different types of damage to your monks fist attacks. Monks also deal with many of the weak points +3 to saves is very nice if your character class gives you good saves across the board - your saves are already some of the best in the party. Your natural AC is good if your a monk but you can't wear armour - so you can't wear magic armour but this feat boosts your AC without requiring armour. Monk's already gravitate toward stat boosters simply because they don't have any particular use for either magical weapons or magical armour and their class traits cover many of the other issues that magical gear helps with (saves, speed, busting through some types of DR).
Same deal with druids - its irrelevant what cool magical gear your druid has much of the time because you loose that magical gear when you shape shift. So if your a druid that plans to be shape shifted a great deal your magical gear is not going to apply but VoP will.
Monks are already using their hands for combat - there are no items for monks to make your fists Metaline nor can you add 5 different types of damage to your monks fist attacks. Monks also deal with many of the weak points +3 to saves is very nice if your character class gives you good saves across the board - your saves are already some of the best in the party. Your natural AC is good if your a monk but you can't wear armour - so you can't wear magic armour but this feat boosts your AC without requiring armour. Monk's already gravitate toward stat boosters simply because they don't have any particular use for either magical weapons or magical armour and their class traits cover many of the other issues that magical gear helps with (saves, speed, busting through some types of DR).
You are aware that you're listing reasons why Monks suck, rather than why Vow of Poverty is overpowered, correct?
And if Book of Exalted Deeds is in, then Savage Species is in, meaning the most basic item Monks need to even function at all comes in; the Amulet of Natural Attacks, which can hold weapon properties like flaming or corrosive. And the Monk standard for getting enhancement bonuses is Greater Magic Fang, rather than Greater Magic Weapon, meaning the +9-equivalent stand.
Further, a standard Monk is going to carry a cold iron and adamantine weapon of some sort (since Ki Strike: Adamantine comes too late), even though the weapon's not going to be any good; a 1d6 kama trumps a 3d6-10 unarmed strike, after all. Quicksilver or silversheen can be applied to any weapon to grant it the properties of alchemical silver, and unarmed strikes qualify as weapons.
The Monk may not use conventional weapons or armor, but she still relies heavily on magic items. Like Bracers of Armor. The Scorpion Kama lets you use your unarmed damage, and even dual wield for your unarmed damage. Ye olde ring of invisibility is a godsend for Monks. Everyone absolutely needs a source of flight come higher levels, and a Vow of Poverty cannot get one, at all. There are many, many more magic items in the game than just weapons and armor. Although at first glance, the Monk doesn't look like it loses as much as others with Vow of Poverty, they're making massive sacrifices there, and they're giving up things that are worth far more than a couple more overpriced stat boosts.
Vow of Poverty may have some advantages, but even for a Monk, the weaknesses are so massive and so glaring that it's absurd to ignore them and declare the feat broken.
Same deal with druids - its irrelevant what cool magical gear your druid has much of the time because you loose that magical gear when you shape shift. So if your a druid that plans to be shape shifted a great deal your magical gear is not going to apply but VoP will.
Setting aside the Wilding Clasps, the problem with a VoP Druid with regard isn't the "VoP" half, I assure you.
I like to look at it this way: most people drawn to the VoP tend to be powergamers, so it can greatly offset the balance in the game as far as the party goes and the GMs might overlook the fact that a PC taking the VoP should have a set of "morals" that they should abide by when playing, and if broken, should bring about repercussions on the player so they in many cases "run amok" overpowering the partymembers, and straining th GM
in fact I had a friend taking the VoP a while ago and as a result had him work on a rather extensive set of moral laws to abide by and present them to me so I could make changes or additions if applicable because he had powergaming tendencies
to my surprise the whole thing worked out nicely, though their were some rocky points from 5-~13th level. but again most of the obvious problems that the VoP can bring about can be nullified by a good roleplayer
I like to look at it this way: most people drawn to the VoP tend to be powergamers, so it can greatly offset the balance in the game as far as the party goes and the GMs might overlook the fact that a PC taking the VoP should have a set of "morals" that they should abide by when playing, and if broken, should bring about repercussions on the player so they in many cases "run amok" overpowering the partymembers, and straining th GM
That is both a powerful accusation to level, particularly when the feat makes the character less powerful in nearly all cases where the DM is treating the players fairly and the players are playing and building sensibly. And moral codes are already built into exalted status and the vow itself. Not that it's really necessary to balance out the constraints inherent to the feat.
And if Book of Exalted Deeds is in, then Savage Species is in, meaning the most basic item Monks need to even function at all comes in; the Amulet of Natural Attacks, which can hold weapon properties like flaming or corrosive. And the Monk standard for getting enhancement bonuses is Greater Magic Fang, rather than Greater Magic Weapon, meaning the +9-equivalent stand.Further, a standard Monk is going to carry a cold iron and adamantine weapon of some sort (since Ki Strike: Adamantine comes too late), even though the weapon's not going to be any good; a 1d6 kama trumps a 3d6-10 unarmed strike, after all. Quicksilver or silversheen can be applied to any weapon to grant it the properties of alchemical silver, and unarmed strikes qualify as weapons.
The Monk may not use conventional weapons or armor, but she still relies heavily on magic items. Like Bracers of Armor. The Scorpion Kama lets you use your unarmed damage, and even dual wield for your unarmed damage. Ye olde ring of invisibility is a godsend for Monks. Everyone absolutely...
I must say that just because Book of ED is in, does NOT automatically say that Savage Species to be in. Most groups use what they have. While I may have access to a Savage Species doesn't mean every game group does. If a member of my group picked it up then it is available, with specific approval. My point is, just because there is a "counterbalance" in some other book doesn't make a feat not broken or not a problem or what have you.
Secondly I honestly have never seen a monk played using the fighter golf bag of weapons trick. I know that alot of us plan for these things and resort to that, but most people just don't. Sure metagamers will carry laundry list of special gear, but I rarely see that and if I do it's because the DM overuses enemies with a specific DR or the player is one of those people who memorize the MM and can quote the weaknesses of said monster.
My last point is yes, those magic items are good for a monk. But VoP really shines in games that don't meet wealth by level requirements. WHat I mean is this, You look at any standard 3.5 game and the wealth characters actually find through the levels versus whats supposed to had and you'll find they differ quite a bit. Especially any modules or Adventure paths such as those in Dungeon Magazine. I have found that the players need to have their gear basically redone every few adventures in an AP or set of modules as they fall way behind par. In these situations VoP suddenly becomes outrageously good for the one guy who has it, and then comes in the rp ramifications for the poor people who may or may not want to deal with it. (in fairness the Rp consequences fall in line with the Paladin ones which is a thread all to itself.)
But those are my 2 coppers.
I must say that just because Book of ED is in, does NOT automatically say that Savage Species to be in. Most groups use what they have. While I may have access to a Savage Species doesn't mean every game group does. If a member of my group picked it up then it is available, with specific approval. My point is, just because there is a "counterbalance" in some other book doesn't make a feat not broken or not a problem or what have you.
Nitpicking doesn't alter the fundamental point that Monks are strongly gear-dependent, even though they don't typically use weapons or armor. Vow of Poverty removes a vast array of magic items that they depend on to get by.
Secondly I honestly have never seen a monk played using the fighter golf bag of weapons trick. I know that alot of us plan for these things and resort to that, but most people just don't. Sure metagamers will carry laundry list of special gear, but I rarely see that and if I do it's because the DM overuses enemies with a specific DR or the player is one of those people who memorize the MM and can quote the weaknesses of said monster.
It's not metagaming. If my job were to kill monsters with swords and I lived in a world with werewolves, you can bet I'd invest in at least some cheap silver dagger. That's as sensible and grounded in the game world as the swordsman who carries a crossbow as a side arm.
And just because things happen one way in your game does not mean that it's tactically sound.
My last point is yes, those magic items are good for a monk. But VoP really shines in games that don't meet wealth by level requirements. WHat I mean is this, You look at any standard 3.5 game and the wealth characters actually find through the levels versus whats supposed to had and you'll find they differ quite a bit. Especially any modules or Adventure paths such as those in Dungeon Magazine. I have found that the players need to have their gear basically redone every few adventures in an AP or set of modules as they fall way behind par. In these situations VoP suddenly becomes outrageously good for the one guy who has it, and then comes in the rp ramifications for the poor people who may or may not want to deal with it. (in fairness the Rp consequences fall in line with the Paladin ones which is a thread all to itself.)
Design assumption is wealth by level. If you play through the levels, it's oftentimes even more, due to crafting and the like, if you're actually getting loot from your encounters as you're supposed to. The fact that some adventure paths are poorly designed with regards to loot is irrelevant. And what's more, being able to stay on track when the DM and the AP writers are trying to screw you out of loot is not in any way, shape, or form overpowered; it's just staying on course without forcing those interventions.
Players of Dungeons and Dragons sure love their loot, don't they? It amazes me- so much so I'm surprised they didn't name the game DD&T: Dungeons, Dragons, and Treasure!
There is some good arguments on both sides for why to allow or not a feat that honestly has some fairly sever repercussions on a player, and hence the game. This is the type of thing that requires some dialogue in the group, as well as player-to-DM. I'll admit that I have banned the use of Vow of Poverty in certain cases. In these cases I felt the player was interested primarily in the numerical and mechanical advantages, not in the story development and role-playing aspects that the feat represents.
I have also been the party wizard back in 3.0 with a Foresaker prestige class in play. For those that may not know, the Foresaker not only refused to use magic items, he avoided magic at all costs! That was... frustrating. Yet it was amusing, and our two very different characters developed a friendly rivalry. (("Hey everyone, I can turn us all invisible and we can sneak through... oh, nevermind. I know, I'll teleport us.... no, I guess not. Hrmmm...."))
Dragonborn, from what I have read of your character and intention with the feat, I would certainly applaud and encourage your use of the Vow of Poverty. I feel confident that the other problems that may or may not arise from the feat could be easily dealt with as the game progresses.