Ultimate Magic: Monk's Vow of Poverty


Product Discussion

301 to 349 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

J. Christopher Harris wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
He can't craft as he is not allowed to own the materials/gold used in crafting.
He merely requires a patron! Perhaps he could get away with being a muse/ingenue. Will he pose for noodz?

+1. Seriously though, I could see a traveling Vow of Poverty monk who travels the countryside making items. Sure, he doesn't have an artisan kit, but those you could borrow, right?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

To explain a bit further, we have benchmark power curves that we shoot for most of the time, but we generally do not want to exceed them, because if we do, we move the curve and power bloat the whole system.

To this end, we shot low on this one. There are a lot of reasons why.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

to comment on the bold part of Jason's comment: --> heck yeah! one of the main reasons being that the 3.5 VOP was a horribly overpowered min/max bloat mess!!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ganny wrote:

I pretty much had the same idea, and I will probably end up playing the character cause I like the flavor of it...

An old Dwarven Zen Archer with Vow of Poverty, who has realized that all things material are just vanity, and forsakes them all in a personal quest for spiritual purity. His only possession? A longbow owned by his late human friend (Insert Name Here) he adventured with long ago, given to this Dwarf on the human's death bed.

I actually really, really like this idea. Though I wonder if each arrow counts as an item...I really hope not.

Yep, they are items. So, if he wants to, he can have 5 shots, but he has to run around naked.


mdt wrote:
Ganny wrote:

I pretty much had the same idea, and I will probably end up playing the character cause I like the flavor of it...

An old Dwarven Zen Archer with Vow of Poverty, who has realized that all things material are just vanity, and forsakes them all in a personal quest for spiritual purity. His only possession? A longbow owned by his late human friend (Insert Name Here) he adventured with long ago, given to this Dwarf on the human's death bed.

I actually really, really like this idea. Though I wonder if each arrow counts as an item...I really hope not.

Yep, they are items. So, if he wants to, he can have 5 shots, but he has to run around naked.

Bloody hell.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
J. Christopher Harris wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
He can't craft as he is not allowed to own the materials/gold used in crafting.
He merely requires a patron! Perhaps he could get away with being a muse/ingenue. Will he pose for noodz?

Vow of Poverty is not Vow of Chastity so as far as I'm concerned, as a DM I would allow that poor nude monk to do more than posing if he wants to! :P


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
J. Christopher Harris wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
He can't craft as he is not allowed to own the materials/gold used in crafting.
He merely requires a patron! Perhaps he could get away with being a muse/ingenue. Will he pose for noodz?
Vow of Poverty is not Vow of Chastity so as far as I'm concerned, as a DM I would allow that poor nude monk to do more than posing if he wants to! :P

As long as he's not getting paid for it. :)


Vrischika111 wrote:

my 2cents: VoP is NOT a feat (as I saw several times in this thread).

you don't 'pay' anything to get it. it's +/- an archetype that trades out still mind.

then (as opposed to 3.5) you can't have money, but you don't have to give it away. (more share for the party, total WBL for the party is respected)

your single heirloom item could be something like a legacy item (house rule, I agree)

everyone complains about VoP, but what about VoCelibacy ???
you cannot touch/be touched (even friendly touch spells)... how do you heal ? you cannot sleep close to another one.

Anyway. I like those options. and if not for a PC, for flavorful NPCs.

(note for myself: play a multi-vowed monk for my next PC)

The other vows are fine except Vow of Silence, which I don't think is mechanically bad I just don't like it from a roleplaying perspective. They may not be optimal but they are fun, especially if you have a GM that makes it interesting.


mdt wrote:
Ganny wrote:

I pretty much had the same idea, and I will probably end up playing the character cause I like the flavor of it...

An old Dwarven Zen Archer with Vow of Poverty, who has realized that all things material are just vanity, and forsakes them all in a personal quest for spiritual purity. His only possession? A longbow owned by his late human friend (Insert Name Here) he adventured with long ago, given to this Dwarf on the human's death bed.

I actually really, really like this idea. Though I wonder if each arrow counts as an item...I really hope not.

Yep, they are items. So, if he wants to, he can have 5 shots, but he has to run around naked.

He can have zero shots. The first 5 items are set he would just have a bow and no arrows.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Braden wrote:


The other vows are fine except Vow of Silence, which I don't think is mechanically bad I just don't like it from a roleplaying perspective. They may not be optimal but they are fun, especially if you have a GM that makes it interesting.

Treat the celeibate monk like Tenchi then? :) Have a half-dozen weird females show up at odd times throughout the story, all absolutely determined to marry him. :) A succubus, a harpy, an aasimar, a barbarian and a demure rogue. :) And all a bit grabby and jealous of each other? :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Braden wrote:


He can have zero shots. The first 5 items are set he would just have a bow and no arrows.

Then he needs to take improvised weaponry and give up on archery.

I can see a VoP monk of the empty hand holding up his eating utensil to the BBEG and shouting his catch phrase.

"SPPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!"

:)


Braden wrote:
mdt wrote:
Ganny wrote:

I pretty much had the same idea, and I will probably end up playing the character cause I like the flavor of it...

An old Dwarven Zen Archer with Vow of Poverty, who has realized that all things material are just vanity, and forsakes them all in a personal quest for spiritual purity. His only possession? A longbow owned by his late human friend (Insert Name Here) he adventured with long ago, given to this Dwarf on the human's death bed.

I actually really, really like this idea. Though I wonder if each arrow counts as an item...I really hope not.

Yep, they are items. So, if he wants to, he can have 5 shots, but he has to run around naked.
He can have zero shots. The first 5 items are set he would just have a bow and no arrows.

*Sigh* Well, there goes that idea.


To be honest, Pathfinder should stop bringing over, or updating previous 3.5 content or concepts, and make their own. But at the same time, it is hard not to fall into the trap of ivory tower design, because with each subsequent release of a rule book, you will arrive farther from the mark. The bumps in the road is the price you pay for continuing with the 3.5 infrastructure.


mdt wrote:
Braden wrote:


He can have zero shots. The first 5 items are set he would just have a bow and no arrows.

Then he needs to take improvised weaponry and give up on archery.

I can see a VoP monk of the empty hand holding up his eating utensil to the BBEG and shouting his catch phrase.

"SPPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!"

:)

Monk of the empty hand already gives up still mind, so it can't take vows.

Liberty's Edge

Braden wrote:
He can have zero shots. The first 5 items are set he would just have a bow and no arrows.

I have no doubt that by RAW you are correct. Still, I can't help but feel you're missing the forest for the trees.

This is a game people, not a court of law.


This is awesome! Now if my Paladin loses his Holy Sword I know that someone else will get one to "make up for the loss" and then he can just give it to me thus maintaining WBL for the party. I also need to hire some porters. Since I'm not the one carrying the items/cash it won't count against WBL.

For some reason, VoP reminds me of Pulp Fiction.

Vincent: "So if you're quitting the life, what'll you do?"
Jules: "...Then I'm basically going to walk the Earth.
Vincent: "What do you mean walk the Earth?"
Jules: "You know, like Caine in KUNG FU. Just walk from town to town, meet people, get in adventures."
...
Vincent: "So you decided to be a bum?"

SJ


It seems to me that people are failing to see a few things here:

- As Jason pointed out, if this is a trap, it is a lousy one. Besides, players new to the game, which would be in greater risk of making bad choices have much to get accostumed to before going into the "advanced option" books. This concern is unnecessary, I would say.

- It appears to me that one of the Pathfinder design choices has been to offer options to many different styles of play. In a low magic game this could be a viable option, while many other options usually considered great would cease to be so. Perhaps I would set my adventures in the mana wastes ?

- Lastly, don't forget these books are not merely player's options, but also GM toolsets. The vow of poverty, as written, is a great way for a GM to build an antagonist with high-level interesting abilities, but which is balanced against a party of lower level due to his lack of proper equipment.


@Sir Jolt: no. Just no. :P You don't have to carry something for it to count towards your WBL.

...

It's a pity that the ki mystic and monk of the empty hands cannot take vows. I'll ask my GM to make special dispensation for them. Perhaps give up traits or something.

Why?

Because I really like the idea of a monk of the empty hand with a vow of chains. Chains that can be used to flurry at enemies with. That is cool :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

My monk uses a chain without any silly vow mechanics. :P

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
poppycock! you are nitpicking Sir! you are nitpicking!!!! :)

I do, sir! I pick nits like an amphetamine-fueled chimp! :D


But with the vow it just feeeeels so much more riiiiight.

wackWACK! "The pain you feel is the pain of the world. The weight of these chains are the burden of your sins."


vidmaster wrote:
thats the thing that gets me about the forums to much focus on optimizing

Well it's always going to be there ... but isn't it better to write a book where the optimizers are actually optimizing rather than pointing out flaws? In the old days books like ToB or even Incarnum didn't get this kind of reception ... only books like the WotC ToM got this.

Pathfinder suffers from Trap'itis. Too much trap options (for instance all the ranger animal companions except for the wolf, or vow of poverty) not enough middle ground, not enough excellent options (for instance big cat animal companion and mobile fighter) and less overpowered stuff than in 3.5 ... the fact they manage to avoid overpowering content is to their credit, the fact that there is so much trap content is not and neither is that shooting for excellence forces you down very narrow paths.

Paizo needs to recognize that 3.5 didn't only suffer pure power creep for the most part, a whole lot of it made the game better ... ToB and MiC in particular made the game better. Interesting multiclassing PrCs made the game better too IMO.

In the end optimizers tend to avoid the overpowered stuff in actual play, trash talk the trap options and are more than willing to try to make the middle ground stuff work if they think the fluff is awesome.


Braden wrote:


(note for myself: play a multi-vowed monk for my next PC)
The other vows are fine except Vow of Silence, which I don't think is mechanically bad I just don't like it from a roleplaying perspective. They may not be optimal but they are fun, especially if you have a GM that makes it interesting.

My "optimal" monk is a charisma dumped Dwarf, so the wows for silence and other similar stuff are fine. Silence + trith + this new wushu archetype and the cool strikes of the APGs leads to e VERY interesting monk full of stuff and moves.

Good.

(in my setting, dwarves are not so nice and a lot are slave and gladiator owners. One of the roles in the dwarven society is gladiatorial fights... I wonder If i can manage to handle a third vote for the chains.. but 10 feet movements is really too awful :P)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Braden wrote:


(note for myself: play a multi-vowed monk for my next PC)

Hey, here's how to make it easier: 7 Cha and 7 Int, just have the monk say either:

"Hodor!"

"Hodor...."

"Hodor?"

"HOOOOOODOOOOOORRRRRR!!!!!!!!!"

(If Vow of Silence is taken, replace the above with appropriate facial expressions!!!)

EDIT: then, have him take leadership, and his only possession becomes his halfling cohort slave (with at least one level of oracle so as to have the "Lame" curse for flavor), which is strapped to his back using a harness listed on the cohort's character sheet, and have the cohort take double treasure share... :P


mdt wrote:


Then he needs to take improvised weaponry and give up on archery.

I can see a VoP monk of the empty hand holding up his eating utensil to the BBEG and shouting his catch phrase.

"SPPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!"

:)

Thanks mdt!

You just made me spary coffee through my nose ;)

I just have to use that character as an npc sometime!
(since I don't get to play, just GM nowadays).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:


one of the main reasons being that the 3.5 VOP was a horribly overpowered min/max bloat mess!!

It was horribly overpowered in the same way as the warlock and mystic theurge - looks that way on paper, doesn't work out that way in actual play.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Wow 325 posts so far about Vow of Poverty.

Most folks freaking out saying things like: "it is so weak", "I would not take that", "3.5 version was so much better", "Not a good choice", etc.

Those are not direct quotes but that is the gist of it. I did not read all 325 posts. I skimmed and read some, read most of the ones from the devs.

I have the perfect solution for all those people saying the 3.5 VoP is better then the Pathfinder one.
USE THE 3.5 VERSION IN YOUR HOME GAMES.

Sorry for the uses of all caps.

You don't like something don't use it, replace it with something else.

Oh and remember Pathfinder is a role playing game not just a roll playing game.

Silver Crusade

Matt Haddix wrote:
It was horribly overpowered in the same way as the warlock and mystic theurge - looks that way on paper, doesn't work out that way in actual play.

Disclaimer: The below is based strictly on my personal experiences.

Going to have to disagree with you there, my good friend. Warlock and Mystic Theurge were overpowered in their early careers but in the mid to late game, they were underpowered.

The 3.5 VoP never seemed to peak, in fact it seemed to get better, and better with every level. Further, the monk was able to do essentially whatever he wanted and if I challenged the monk, then everyone else as a whole would almost asurredly have died. Now, the situation with this character probably would have not been a situation had at that point I had the balls to stand up to my players. Not a problem anymore.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Vrischika111 wrote:

everyone complains about VoP, but what about VoCelibacy ???

you cannot touch/be touched (even friendly touch spells)... how do you heal ? you cannot sleep close to another one.

Wait, what? So let me get this straight.

There's now an option for the class whose entire shtick is killing people with their bare fists saying that they aren't allowed to touch other people with their bare fists?

Please tell me vow of celibacy doesn't work that way.

Liberty's Edge

Uninvited Ghost wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Uninvited Ghost wrote:
Read my post from earlier in the thread. I don't think people have a problem that it's not shot higher than your benchmark, or that it was shot a little lower, it's that it was shot very, very, very low.

I get that, but most of us here have little time to argue about how many "very"s to put in front of low.

Jason

I'm the guy who makes the crazy, fun, sub par multiclass characters in our group. I'm currently playing 2 casters in different campaigns. I didn't find one thing in the book that I wanted to take for either of them.

Want to be flippant about that?

Maybe you missed those words in parenthesis after my name above the post?

This is a really rude response. There are plenty of people that will like this book, and that generally like the products that Jason/Paizo makes. Your money's not worth more than mine or anybody else's, and I respect Jason's right to respond to some of the abuse he's taken in this thread however he wants to - including your instruction (!) that he search down and re-read a post you made earlier in the thread. As far as I'm concerned, he's acquitted himself very (very very very) courteously. Normally, I'd avoid being quite this smarmy with another member of the board that I haven't had any interaction with yet. But you don't seem to mind smarmy.

Jason admitted that they shot for the low end of the power scale. People in this thread are acting like brand-new Pathfinder greenhorns are going to stumble upon this one option in probably the third book they'd have needed to purchase (after the CRB and the APG), and settle on it as the option that they have to play. As though people who are brand-new to the game wouldn't themselves arrive at Cirno's idea of "Hey, I'll just play a monk, but not accept any treasure." If people want to be trapped by their own imagination, they're going to do it. They don't need rules to be trapped. These rules actually give them something for playing in a horribly derped way, thus un-trapping them. A little bit. It's a little tiny paragraph, people needs ta chillax.


Epic Meepo wrote:
Vrischika111 wrote:
everyone complains about VoP, but what about VoCelibacy ??? you cannot touch/be touched
Wait, what? There's now an option for the class whose entire shtick is killing people with their bare fists saying that they aren't allowed to touch other people with their bare fists? Please tell me vow of celibacy doesn't work that way.

Hm... Clarification here could be useful.

Only way I see is that they could use Monk Weapons.... ????


LoreKeeper wrote:

@Sir Jolt: no. Just no. :P You don't have to carry something for it to count towards your WBL.

I know, I was being facetious. Some people seem to think that the way around VoP is to take the vow and then not be poor (e.g. someone else actually has the money but isn't going to spend it and is going to give it to the monk whenever needed anyways). I was using an adsurd example to show the fallacy of that logic when taken to its conclusion. I admit that I should have been more clear on that. Sorry.

SJ

Sovereign Court

A UMVOP monk is still Impoverished. They have rags to wear, a bowl, blanket, sack, and their single valued item.

You can't spend that item in town to bribe guards. You can't spend that item to buy rations. You can't spend that item on a courtiers outfit (or even just a clean monks outfit) to impress (i.e. Bluff) the local Paravicountess that you're a Golden Erinyes nun on offical Crown business in her domain.

The UMVOP monk is going to have some serious handicaps, yes. That's the whole point! Not everyone has to play a character that's uber optimized. Lorekeeper's Peter the Pauper is a good example of a reasonably effective character. If said character is given a more generous ability creation method like Heroic (2d6+6) or even a 4d6 drop the lowest you'll see viable PC's against a system designed for unoptimized 15 pt buy characters.

--burning a hole in my Vrocket

Contributor

Quandary wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:
Vrischika111 wrote:
everyone complains about VoP, but what about VoCelibacy ??? you cannot touch/be touched
Wait, what? There's now an option for the class whose entire shtick is killing people with their bare fists saying that they aren't allowed to touch other people with their bare fists? Please tell me vow of celibacy doesn't work that way.

Hm... Clarification here could be useful.

Only way I see is that they could use Monk Weapons.... ????

Actually reading the text in question, rather than speculation, reveals:

"A celibate monk is not allowed to touch others or have others touch him (including touch spells from allies). Striking enemies in battle or being struck by enemies is not prohibited, but the monk shuns all peaceful or pleasurable contact."


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I think I need to rewrite the 3.5 VoP, and rename it 'Spiral Energy Adept'.

I see what you did there, Kamina.

People, you have to realize that even the oldest of gamers who are able to see the ins and outs of a system to the point where they can make Fistbeard Beardfist a viable character most likely will not do it. They'll make the character they want.

There are many ways to make a character contribute to a party. This Vow will not make you any less able to deal with party threats and that fact has been made by Lorekeeper. Peter the Pauper would probably be worse in one of my games, but I GM with a lot of people who like to have fun at Pathfinder, not win the game with uber characters. Pathfinder is a game to have fun in and if a person can have fun while playing an impoverished, celibate, silent monk, then let him have his fun.

I quote Chevy Chase, "I won D&D! And it was Advanced!"


King of Vrock wrote:
If said character is given a more generous ability creation method like Heroic (2d6+6) or even a 4d6 drop the lowest you'll see viable PC's against a system designed for unoptimized 15 pt buy characters.

Saying that as printed it will produce unviable characters ... you dirty dirty uber optimizer.

Shadow Lodge

Matt Haddix wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:


one of the main reasons being that the 3.5 VOP was a horribly overpowered min/max bloat mess!!
It was horribly overpowered in the same way as the warlock and mystic theurge - looks that way on paper, doesn't work out that way in actual play.

VOP was horrible because it begged meta-gaming and rules hacking.

If you took it at face value and your character took his percentage of loot and donated it then it was Ok or even a little underpowered.

What happened was players discovered early on that it was trivially easy to game the Feat and did it left and right. It brought out the worst in players IMO.
----

If a player wants to do a VOP monk in your group let them take the 3.5 version of the feat and remove his % of treasure from the group's loot. That character just doesn't get a portion of the parties treasure. That removes the temptation to game the system and the character gets the benefits of the feat. This isn't something that works well coded into the rules and requires a good bit extra work on the GMs part.

In Pathfinder (and D&D 3.5) wealth is a big portion of character power and there is no easy fix to make that go away. If people think there is a two paragraph feat or class ability that will work they are bound to be disappointed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeremiziah wrote:

This is a really rude response. There are plenty of people that will like this book, and that generally like the products that Jason/Paizo makes. Your money's not worth more than mine or anybody else's, and I respect Jason's right to respond to some of the abuse he's taken in this thread however he wants to - including your instruction (!) that he search down and re-read a post you made earlier in the thread. As far as I'm concerned, he's acquitted himself very (very very very) courteously. Normally, I'd avoid being quite this smarmy with another member of the board that I haven't had any interaction with yet. But you don't seem to mind smarmy.

Jason admitted that they shot for the low end of the power scale. People in this thread are acting like brand-new Pathfinder greenhorns are going to stumble upon this one option in probably the third book they'd have needed to purchase (after the CRB and the APG), and settle on it as the option that they have to play. As though people who are brand-new to the game wouldn't themselves arrive at Cirno's idea of "Hey, I'll just play a monk, but not accept any treasure." If people want to be trapped by their own imagination, they're going to do it. They don't need rules to be trapped. These rules actually give them something for playing in a horribly derped way, thus un-trapping them. A little bit. It's a little tiny paragraph, people needs ta chillax.

Reading it back, it was a rude response. My appologies to Jason and everyone who read it. It was likely not his intention, but his response to me rubbed me the wrong way.

I generally like the products that Paizo makes. Why would I be a subscriber if I didn't?

My money's not worth more, but others can choose to buy a product or not... I'm a subscriber (like you). I couldn't choose to not buy Ultimate Magic. Being a subscriber is partially a show of faith... that I know whatever they produce in that subscription will be of the highest quality. I feel my faith was... a little taken advantage of with Ultimate Magic.

I did not intend to demand he read my earlier post, that was poor wording on my part.

I feel this product does not meet Paizo's high standards. I feel that in an effort to not break the game by making the new content of the book too powerful, that they made them too not powerful. Too much so (very very very). It's a delicate balance to produce new content, but it seems to me that hitting near that line wasn't their goal, it was to make sure to not pass it, even if it means you don't get close to it. These are my uninformed feelings.

I'm passionate about Pathfinder, passion that I assume showed in my previous post, if my normally courteous manner did not.

Sovereign Court

Pinky's Brain wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
If said character is given a more generous ability creation method like Heroic (2d6+6) or even a 4d6 drop the lowest you'll see viable PC's against a system designed for unoptimized 15 pt buy characters.
Saying that as printed it will produce unviable characters ... you dirty dirty uber optimizer.

I say this as few of the groups I've played with use 15 point buy to generate characters. In fact almost none use point buy at all! I'm forcing my players, several of who ARE dirty, dirty, uber optimizers to run through Carrion Crown with 20 point buy to see how well they as a group measure up to a Paizo Adventure Path seeing how many people say the later chapters are so hard. Of course my group of 5 jumped to 8 the minute they heard I was running the AP so I have to tweak it which somewhat ruins my experiment.

--Vrock n Load.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
I feel this product does not meet Paizo's high standards. I feel that in an effort to not break the game by making the rules of the book too powerful, that they made them too not powerful. Too much so (very very very). It's a delicate balance to produce new content, but it seems to me that hitting near that line wasn't their goal, it was to make sure to not pass it, even if it means you don't get close to it. These are my uninformed feelings.

If the whole book disappointed you, then you should write a review, or make a post in the general forums. In this thread, and particularly in your post above and this one it is crude posturing at best.

Silver Crusade

Or, let any guy build a monk with VoP do a 25 point-buy on creation due to the hardening and will needed for a life like this.
Or again, like explained before, you can RP the acquisition via a temple/monastery/old geezer/happy village of "magic" items which only work for the monk as long as he respects his vow, and so, have no real monetary value in themselves. The monk could have one real powerful item from level 1 he could upgrade from transferring a part of the energy from magic items without ever touching a gold piece and while donating the other part of the now weakened item to his group or a charity, and some "mundane" objects which have a surnatural effect on him due to his strong will and the experience/events from his travel.

It needs some imagination to make it work, but it is a great RP tool, IMHO. And never forget you're the DM, if someone wants to mix it with Monk of the Empty Hand (and get a fun-as-hell concept), nothing stops you from just changing something else to make them stack.
Also, I know the topic here is more "THIS IS A TRAP !", but come on, a novice shouldn't even know about this, and a DM would talk beforehand to any player who would take it.
And this comes from someone who was really disappointed by the monk variants from the APG which are awesome in flavor but so weak in application for variants like Sacred Mountain and Drunken (especially the later, I dreamed about making a drunk Hotei or Buddha-like kickass obese stinking - and vomiting ! - hobo, but stacking Sacred mountain/Drunken master/Lotus was near unplayable, needed way too much houserule to work, and was REALLY my biggest deception... I hope the ultimate combat will come up with ways to build a martial artist with full BAB and high AC so I can do this or a playable Jackie Chan).


0gre wrote:


If the whole book disappointed you, then you should write a review, or make a post in the general forums. In this thread, and particularly in your post above and this one it is crude posturing at best.

I'm not trying to posture; I'm trying to explain myself. I'm not out to get anyone, or win any argument.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I am not going to touch the debate right now, but I have a related question. The second introductory paragraph in the monk section states, "This section introduces monk vows, which any user of ki can take to increase his ki pool."

Monks aren't the only ki-users any more. The internal alchemist archetype can take the extra ki feat and the ninja in the Ultimate Combat playtest uses ki. If they can take a vow, then what do they exchange for the right to do so? I only ask since the monk - THE primary ki-user in the game - has to trade out an ability to gain vows. They shouldn't get vows for free if the monk doesn't.

Personally, I feel vows should be "monk only", but it would be nice to hear an official answer.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Pinky's Brain wrote:
Pathfinder suffers from Trap'itis. Too much trap options (for instance all the ranger animal companions except for the wolf...

Couldn't agree with you more on the Ranger's animal companion. One of my fellow players had his animal companion die IN EVERY GAME he played the character, often before it could even act. He was SO frustrated!


O_o how did he managed to have the companion die at every encounter? Moreover, is the wolf necessarily the best? Couldn't be the Bear better to pin down untrippable enemies, or the cat for fast DPR?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Kaiyanwang wrote:
O_o how did he managed to have the companion die at every encounter? Moreover, is the wolf necessarily the best? Couldn't be the Bear better to pin down untrippable enemies, or the cat for fast DPR?

I think he started with a wolf (which did last the longest), moved on to an axebeak, then an elephant. There were at least two others as well, but I can't remember what they were.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
O_o how did he managed to have the companion die at every encounter? Moreover, is the wolf necessarily the best? Couldn't be the Bear better to pin down untrippable enemies, or the cat for fast DPR?

The bear is useless (you start with a cuddly small bear and it grows medium) and the big cat is excellent (you can just not pounce and rake and pretend it's a bear ... and it would still be better than the actual bear). Neither is relevant to the core ranger though, since he can't get them ...

PS. Ravingdork, does your player know that he can put armour/barding (mithral chain shirt is pretty common because it has no penalty for non proficiency) and magic items (DMs can quibble about item slots, but most will agree that a couple are believable/suitable) on his animal companion? Animal companions have no vow of poverty :)


Pinky's Brain wrote:


The bear is useless (you start with a cuddly small bear and it grows medium) and the big cat is excellent (you can just not pounce and rake and pretend it's a bear ... and it would still be better than the actual bear). Neither is relevant to the core ranger though, since he can't get them ...

Ok you say core - right. In that case, yeah. Wolf. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Pinky's Brain wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
O_o how did he managed to have the companion die at every encounter? Moreover, is the wolf necessarily the best? Couldn't be the Bear better to pin down untrippable enemies, or the cat for fast DPR?

The bear is useless (you start with a cuddly small bear and it grows medium) and the big cat is excellent (you can just not pounce and rake and pretend it's a bear ... and it would still be better than the actual bear). Neither is relevant to the core ranger though, since he can't get them ...

PS. Ravingdork, does your player know that he can put armour/barding (mithral chain shirt is pretty common because it has no penalty for non proficiency) and magic items (DMs can quibble about item slots, but most will agree that a couple are believable/suitable) on his animal companion? Animal companions have no vow of poverty :)

He did have some items, yes, but it didn't matter with the low HD and hit points. One good hit or nasty trap was all it took.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Now that this thread has devolved into members sniping at each other, I think we're done here.

I'm closing this thread.

Please feel free to discuss feedback (positive and, of course, negative) on the book in other threads.

I am personally playing a monk character right now, and I completely understand the criticisms about vow of poverty posted on this thread. I have personally discussed these issues with the design team, who are aware of the passions people feel about this one item in this book, and on the idea of "trap" options in the game in general.

For folks frustrated with vow of poverty, we hear you. The design team has heard you.

But this thread has gotten ugly, and I think it has outlived its purpose.

Please feel free to continue analysis and discussion of Ultimate Magic in other threads.

I hope (and expect) that even the folks who are frustrated by this one item will find plenty of other options they _do_ like in Ultimate Magic.

And, for the fellow monk-players out there, I just finished proofreading Ultimate Combat at 5:00 AM this morning, and I assure you there is lots of amazing monk material in that book that I am relatively certain you will love.

But for now, it's time to move on.

301 to 349 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Ultimate Magic: Monk's Vow of Poverty All Messageboards
Recent threads in Product Discussion