Since I like to bang my head against the wall...
No. Roleplayers realise that not all characters are created equal. You create a character concept, and then you build for that concept. I've played my share of Dark Sun Half-Giants (now there's a social retard if ever there was one). I've played my share of evil nobles who use nothing but their wits (seriously. I've played characters that never entered combat once. Not ever. Obviously it wasn't D&D, but it was a roleplaying game). Different character concepts require different stats.
I don't understand how this has anything to do with the point. If you're saying that you have to min/max the stats to not die as a vow of poverty monk we're on the same page, only I think that's a terrible thing. Monks have it bad enough with stats without having to dump charisma even further by playing a dwarf to get a good wisdom and constitution so he can not die. A roleplayer will build the character he wants as best he can using the rules, when the rules for one specific concept lead to needing a very specific set of stats and conditions to even get close to average it detracts from roleplaying, as you have to be completely concerned with the character not dying before you can be concerned with playing the role.
How come optimisers are allowed to min/max for no reason but they want to make the most powerful character possible. When I can't min/max in order to make a character that fits a particular concept because it's interesting from a roleplaying perspective? That doesn't seem fair.
Because your example of how to make a monk using this that's still below average requires him to be min-maxed just to be nearly comparable ton unoptomized character. If the whole point of this option is to let players have flavor, why is it that it takes the monk being min-maxed and holding onto items that violate the vow to self buff just to almost be good enough?
Also, you state clearly that the party is spending his share of the loot on items to boost him. Do you not see the complete shattering of flavor when the "vow of poverty" monk has to have the party spend a full share of the funds received on him instead of donating it to the poor, a temple, or something else that matches the concept in some way?
Anyways, we'll just have to agree to disagree since your points aren't reaching me and mine obviously aren't reaching you. I think this vow of poverty is a disservice to monk players who actually want to roleplay the concept of the iconic non-materialistic wandering monk in any of the APs Paizo has written, turning the character concept either into a self-imposed optimization challenge or a loophole finding challenge where the monk either has his share of the treasure converted into items directly for his use or buys up(sorry, has someone else buy and give him, since that's not the same at all) one massively expensive magic item with his share of the funds. If by this point you don't agree with me I think it's safe to assume we won't agree, so it's probably best not to derail the discussion anymore.
The archetype of the mystical ascetic represented by the monk in the first place, let alone a monk designed with something like Vow of Poverty in mind, is of someone whose discipline spiritual enlightenment gives her such control over her body to become a formidable force. It strikes me as wholly thematically appropriate with the physical and spiritual enlightenment preached by Zen Buddhism that a true Vow of Poverty could boost all of the Big Six as the monk gains ever greater control over his own body. Certainly, saves seem incredibly appropriate, while the enhancement bonus would come from the fact that he is radiating holy power which infuses any attempt to defend himself. You could also give him Permanent True Seeing as enlightenment lets him see past surfaces. Levitation and Flight as he slips the mortal bonds of earth and material concerns which weigh him down. Any number of bonuses can easily be justified by the increased discipline, enlightenment, and transcendence provided by living according to the strictures of a Vow of Poverty.
Moreover, there's already precedent for a sacrifice that gives back what it took, in the form of Oracular curses--the abilities granted by several, notably the Clouded Vision and Deaf curses, effectively nullify the major penalties of the curse, particularly the ones which are relevant in combat.
And, anyway, it's kind of ridiculous to talk of not getting back something in the same form when you take a Vow of Poverty, because you're giving up virtually [i]everything/[i]. Very nearly every major bonus or effect in the game, with the obvious exception of Class Features, is, or can be granted by magic items. More or less any bonus that a Vow of Poverty could grant which would be remotely balanced, would, by definition, give them back at least one thing they 'gave up', and probably most of it.
The archetype of the mystical ascetic represented by the monk in the first place, let alone a monk designed with something like Vow of Poverty in mind, is of someone whose discipline spiritual enlightenment gives her such control over her body to become a formidable force. It strikes me as wholly thematically appropriate with the physical and spiritual enlightenment preached by Zen Buddhism that a true Vow of Poverty could boost all of the Big Six as the monk gains ever greater control over his own body. Certainly, saves seem incredibly appropriate, while the enhancement bonus would come from the fact that he is radiating holy power which infuses any attempt to defend himself. You could also give him Permanent True Seeing as enlightenment lets him see past surfaces. Levitation and Flight as he slips the mortal bonds of earth and material concerns which weigh him down. Any number of bonuses can easily be justified by the increased discipline, enlightenment, and transcendence provided by living according to the strictures of a Vow of Poverty.
I agree, the concept of forsaking material goods for spiritual power or enlightenment is a pretty common one, and there's precedent in Pathfinder for receiving supernatural rewards for sacrifices and following a code, like the oracle and even the cleric and paladin. There's also prescedent for innate power allowing supernatural feats, like sorcerers and their innate ability to work magic and break the laws of physics. I wouldn't think it'd be too hard to imagine a half dozen possibilities for why a vow of poverty could be justified so that the monk would get some of the capabilities he is giving up. Ah well, too late for that now, it's in the hands of house rules and DM fiat at this point unless Ultimate Combat offers a low/no magic system of some kind(I'd be so, so happy if this were the case).
|
Do not make blanket assumptions about optimizers vs. role players. As has been stated many times before by many more intelligent people than myself, the two terms are NOT mutually exclusive.
Why are you making assumptions that he is talking about optimizing vs flavor? All he said who cares if it is optimal. I agree that the flavor in my opinion is good and I for one am glad that they included it.
Oh. And the dragon shaman has terrible flavor, which is my actual problem with the archetype. It is NOT a shaman of dragons. It is a shaman of lizards that can potentially get wings for a few minutes per day. It does not get a draconic companion, cannot wild shape into a dragon, cannot communicate with dragons any better than a standard druid, and only gets 2 powers that relate to dragons in the slightest. One grants you a single aspect of a dragon for a number of minutes per day equal to your level, and the other gives you energy damage on your bite attack (something dragons do not get, might I add), which you only have when you are utilizing the aspect or transformed into a lizard.
Now everything is going to fit in to your view of what is good or not, nor is it going to all be good in my opinion. As you mentioned you think that the Words of Power are awesome. In my opinion I find them ok... not all that exciting. The Dragon Shaman is something I find cool and full of flavor. If someone wants to run with it I find that they could get some good ground and a great feel for player background and such too.
I plan to give that archetype a full review later. For now, let this thread die.
As far as clarifying my statement, I feel insulted that the paizo designers felt that certain design choices were intriguing and well-designed enough when, after only a cursory examination, it is quite evident that...
Not everything in every book is meant to be ideal for everyone in the RPG world. I for one am not a fan of each and every little detail in each book. I take what I need and discard the rest. Ultimate Magic has optional rules in it and it is not meant for everyone. If you are part of the "not meant for everyone" crowd, that is fine. But feeling insulted because something does not meet your criteria for what is good in your opinion is insulting to the people that write and design the book. You make it sound like your opinion is the end of all and be all of the RPG industry and that your opinion is what matter and that they should have consulted you before putting it out. This is what your last statement makes it SOUND like and implies. Just say you do not like it and leave it at that.
I for one DO find the Vow of Poverty and Draconic Shaman to both be intriguing and worth checking out. So are you insulted that I find it so? Think about it for a moment and see the vitriol in your words.
It's a second level spell. Minimum caster level is 3rd level.
1st level spell actually.
The archetype of the mystical ascetic represented by the monk in the first place, let alone a monk designed with something like Vow of Poverty in mind, is of someone whose discipline spiritual enlightenment gives her such control over her body to become a formidable force. It strikes me as wholly thematically appropriate with the physical and spiritual enlightenment preached by Zen Buddhism that a true Vow of Poverty could boost all of the Big Six as the monk gains ever greater control over his own body. Certainly, saves seem incredibly appropriate, while the enhancement bonus would come from the fact that he is radiating holy power which infuses any attempt to defend himself. You could also give him Permanent True Seeing as enlightenment lets him see past surfaces. Levitation and Flight as he slips the mortal bonds of earth and material concerns which weigh him down. Any number of bonuses can easily be justified by the increased discipline, enlightenment, and transcendence provided by living according to the strictures of a Vow of Poverty.
Moreover, there's already precedent for a sacrifice that gives back what it took, in the form of Oracular curses--the abilities granted by several, notably the Clouded Vision and Deaf curses, effectively nullify the major penalties of the curse, particularly the ones which are relevant in combat.
And, anyway, it's kind of ridiculous to talk of not getting back something in the same form when you take a Vow of Poverty, because you're giving up virtually [i]everything/[i]. Very nearly every major bonus or effect in the game, with the obvious exception of Class Features, is, or can be granted by magic items. More or less any bonus that a Vow of Poverty could grant which would be remotely balanced, would, by definition, give them back at least one thing they 'gave up', and probably most of it.
Well, the curses never return back what they took. They offer ways around, not directly what was taken. That's why I was suggesting things like antimagic field, which evens the playfield in another way. Or perhaps ghost touch for bypassing those precious armours which you've taught yourself to ignore.
If you're saying that you have to min/max the stats to not die as a vow of poverty monk we're on the same page, only I think that's a terrible thing.
So not only do we have to listen to optimisers tell us how min/maxing has no impact on roleplaying. We now have to listen to people tell us we're not allowed to min/max because it impacts on our roleplaying? Seriously? I'm offended that somehow optimisers are better roleplayers then me simply because they're optimisers.
Because your example of how to make a monk using this that's still below average requires him to be min-maxed just to be nearly comparable ton unoptomized character.
Yes. You'll need to build your character more carefully when you take a massive mechanical disadvantage because it's an interesting roleplaying concept.
I think this vow of poverty is a disservice to monk players who actually want to roleplay the concept of the iconic non-materialistic wandering monk in any of the APs Paizo has written, turning the character concept either into a self-imposed optimization challenge
Right. So here are the conditions as layed out for creating a Vow of Poverty monk:
- Not allowed to min/max.
- Not allowed to have spells cast on you.
- Your family heirloom cannot be a magical item.
- Not allowed to accept any consumables being used on you. So that cleric with the cure light wounds wand? Not allowed to cast those on me. I'll just get better myself.
- Must demand your share of the loot to stop the party from using your share of the loot to boost you up while remaining within the strictures of the Vow. You must then give your treasure to orphans.
- In the event of an ambush at night when everyone is asleep, you must be as powerful as a Wizard with all his spells and as powerful as a fighter with all of his magical items. Because only monks are at a disadvantage when caught asleep.
You're right. Under these condition the Vow of Poverty monk is not playable.
1st level spell actually.
You're right. My mistake. So it will last 10 rounds (so obviously you cast the buff after bull's strength). Very rarely have I found combat to last more then 9 rounds.
Arguments or debate aren't bad in and of themselves; they can be highly useful and constructive in making informed decisions and bringing things to light. The trick is keeping it civil, and while this thread is hardly perfect--and it <i>was</i> started as a bit of an end-run, originally--on the whole, it feels better-spirited than the last one.
If you're saying that you have to min/max the stats to not die as a vow of poverty monk we're on the same page, only I think that's a terrible thing.So not only do we have to listen to optimisers tell us how min/maxing has no impact on roleplaying. We now have to listen to people tell us we're not allowed to min/max because it impacts on our roleplaying? Seriously? I'm offended that somehow optimisers are better roleplayers then me simply because they're optimisers.
You aren't even trying to understand my points now but I'll try one last time and bow out of this thread so it doesn't get closed. I'm not an optimizer, I'm just not very good at it, which already means that Monks can be tough for me to play. What I dislike about this vow of poverty is that, because I want to take it for the flavor, I have to find the most optimized stats possible to build my character around to make it work. I don't care if you min/max or not to fit a concept, there's nothing wrong with it at all, but a concept as iconic as the monk who disdains wealth shouldn't only be viable if you do so. You should be able to build that iconic concept even without min/maxing and finding loopholes, but that is not the case with this vow.
Also, I don't think once I said that optimizers are better, or worse, roleplayers than those who aren't. Optimizing and roleplaying are two different things altogether, you can be one and the other, however this vow forces you to be both to survive and as someone who is bad at optimizing that goes against my view of how this iconic concept should be done.
Because your example of how to make a monk using this that's still below average requires him to be min-maxed just to be nearly comparable ton unoptomized character.Yes. You'll need to build your character more carefully when you take a massive mechanical disadvantage because it's an interesting roleplaying concept.
And you don't see the problem with this? The fact that when taking a feat or ability that is flavorful you are also forced to make sure you optimize otherwise your iconic monk won't survive.
I think this vow of poverty is a disservice to monk players who actually want to roleplay the concept of the iconic non-materialistic wandering monk in any of the APs Paizo has written, turning the character concept either into a self-imposed optimization challengeRight. So here are the conditions as layed out for creating a Vow of Poverty monk:
Sigh, fine I'll go point by point, then you can have the last word and win the argument so I don't have to try to present my point anymore and be yelled down because I don't like how the vow works(funny how when someone likes something everyone who doesn't like it is stupid for not seeing how great it is).
Not allowed to min/max
Nope, never once said this, min/max all you want but when the only VoP monk that was close to average is presented as completely min/maxed it shows that the concept requires such mechanical wrangling to survive. I wanted the concept to be ok even if you didn't min/max, for this iconic concept to be possible to play without needing to completely drop mental stats and pick a very specific selection of feats and abilities.
Not allowed to have spells cast on you.
Again, no, spells are part of the game and everyone gets one or 2 mass buffing spells before a big fight if there's a wizard or cleric in the party. I didn't want to see the monk be dependent on getting spells cast on him just to get back close to where he would normally be before being buffed.
Your family heirloom cannot be a magical item.
Sure it can be a magical item. What it can't be, in my mind, is the ultimate 200,000gp magic item that you get upgraded for you constantly over the course of the game. If the game encourages that, which it does by RAW, it's not really a vow of poverty at all it's a vow of one incredibly expensive item.
Not allowed to accept any consumables being used on you. So that cleric with the cure light wounds wand? Not allowed to cast those on me. I'll just get better myself.
Again with the words in my mouth, where did I say a cleric couldn't heal you? What I didn't like is hanging onto potions and wands, since that's against the vow's spirit and letter, and also I was against having the entire normal share of the Monk's loot being spent on consumables used for his benefit. It isn't a vow of poverty if you have the same wealth as before it's just held by your friends instead any more than putting your money in a bank account for them to hold for you keeps that money from being yours.
Must demand your share of the loot to stop the party from using your share of the loot to boost you up while remaining within the strictures of the Vow. You must then give your treasure to orphans.
Pretty much, yeah, though not particularly orphans. A vow of poverty where you keep your share of the money just let the party hold it for you is not a vow of poverty. What is hard to understand about wanting to play the concept of a monk who trades material things for spiritual well being and gives away his material wealth to care for the downtrodden and less fortunate?
In the event of an ambush at night when everyone is asleep, you must be as powerful as a Wizard with all his spells and as powerful as a fighter with all of his magical items. Because only monks are at a disadvantage when caught asleep.
Now you aren't even trying to respond to my actual words. And also, do you know a single campaign where a fighter doesn't sleep in all his magic items except his armor, and often even that? It isn't that the VoP monk isn't the best ever when caught sleeping, it's that in any situation during travel where you encounter something he needs 2-3 spells cast on him before he can approach where he would be even as an unaware normal monk. I don't know your campaigns but I don't often get nice 30 second warnings so that the wizard and druid/cleric have time to buff me personally and then do the normal full party buffs.
Anyways, as I said before we aren't going to see eye to eye on this no matter what and as the thread itself has more use than just the vow of poverty I am going to bow out after this and just go back to reading the thread, so you can respond and get the last word, win the argument, and be completely right from your point of view(that sounds sarcastic when I read it, but it's really not. From your point of view you are right as the concept you created is possible by the mechanics, it just shouldn't be the only possible concept in my point of view). Sorry to everyone else in the thread if my argument about the vow detracted from the whole purpose of the thread or was unpleasant to read. And sorry Jason for making you have to take a look at the thread. Y'all are a great company and run a great website and I hope I didn't detract from it too much. I guess I'm just a little too passionate about one single option in a generally great book, but only because I like Pathfinder and this monk concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I continue to be amused that the proof that VoP isn't that bad is to subvert it every way possible.
Ok I don't have magic items but all my gold goes to the wizard who makes a billion potions and constantly casts spells on me and gives me the potions and I have a super powerful artifact that radiates magic and I have lots of spells cast permanently on myself with all my gold and I've never given away a single coin to the poor but aren't I pure in my poverty?
I continue to be amused that the proof that VoP isn't that bad is to subvert it every way possible.
Ok I don't have magic items but all my gold goes to the wizard who makes a billion potions and constantly casts spells on me and gives me the potions and I have a super powerful artifact that radiates magic and I have lots of spells cast permanently on myself with all my gold and I've never given away a single coin to the poor but aren't I pure in my poverty?
+1
We closed the previous thread because it had outlived its usefulness and was just causing arguments. And its just continues in another.
Or am I misreading this thread. I will admit to only skimming.
I don't know what the other thread was (I haven't read it), but in this thread we've got points and counterpoints being discussed. People initially said it's not viable AT ALL. Others said "yes it is" without anything to back it up. I've attempted to back it up and we're now discussing something conrete.
I'm not an optimizer, I'm just not very good at it,
Neither am I.
which already means that Monks can be tough for me to play. What I dislike about this vow of poverty is that, because I want to take it for the flavor, I have to find the most optimized stats possible to build my character around to make it work.
I often have the opinion "if I can do something. Surely anyone can." I've never put much thought into optimising. Even with these stats, it didn't require me to agonize over how to get them higher. I read through the class features, saw which stats were relevant and ensured the appropriate scores were of an appropriate amount. That meant decreasing a couple of other scores.
That said, it's possible I've accidentally gotten half way decent at optimising then I thought. I assume the stats I posted aren't really optimal, and that someone whose actually experienced at optimising could get a much better outcome. That said, I'm pretty sure the Fight On feat isn't actually the optimal choice. I largely took it because it sounded like fun and I actually qualified for once ;)
but a concept as iconic as the monk who disdains wealth shouldn't only be viable if you do so. You should be able to build that iconic concept even without min/maxing and finding loopholes, but that is not the case with this vow
I don't think the consumables is really a loophole. But I can understand the perspective that it might be. It is certainly something I would check with my DM before springing on them.
Also, I don't think once I said that optimizers are better, or worse, roleplayers than those who aren't.
No you didn't. I've had to listen to optimisers tell me for years that they can roleplay just as well me. I've also had to read pages of people saying it on these forums as well.
The one time I do a bit of min/maxing to make a suboptimal choice playable, I get told "you can't do that because that's going to impact your roleplaying." That got me a bit angry. Apologies for directing it at you.
And you don't see the problem with this? The fact that when taking a feat or ability that is flavorful you are also forced to make sure you optimize otherwise your iconic monk won't survive.
It's D&D. What's more, it's 3.5e D&D where magical items are even more important then 4th ed (where you can simply grant static bonuses at certain levels and get the same effect as a dozen magical items). There's no simple balanced way to do it in 3.5e without causing a big headache for the DM. Either they give so many bonuses that everyone takes the vow. Here they've made a playable, but difficult option.
Again, this is 3.5e where different classes and character options are designed to be more difficult then others. In 4th ed every class was as simple and complicated as each other. The learning curve between a fighter and a wizard was almost non-existant. This isn't the case in Pathfinder and it's something all the 3.5ers who came to Pathfinder apparently enjoy (I'll admit I have come to enjoy it myself over time).
Sigh, fine I'll go point by point,
Not all of those points were directed at you. I believe it was in one of the first posts someone said "you have the entire party catering around you" when all I requested was a single wizard to cast one of the most common spells wizards use. That line of reasoning made me feel that no matter what I said, people were going to fabricate reasons to dislike the vow.
funny how when someone likes something everyone who doesn't like it is stupid for not seeing how great it is
My argument has never been "you must like this vow." It has only been my intention (if I got a bit carried away I apologise) to argue on whether or not it's possible to play a Vow of Poverty monk. Many people were saying it is completely impossible to be at all viable and take the vow. I don't think that's true.
do you know a single campaign where a fighter doesn't sleep in all his magic items except his armor, and often even that?
Yes. Every single campaign because the DM makes a point of it being a stupid idea to try to get a restful night's sleep while in full plate armour.
and I've never given away a single coin to the poor but aren't I pure in my poverty?
Except for the part where I didn't take that magic item. I accepted that restriction. Only afterwards were the additional restrictions brought up.
The one time I do a bit of min/maxing to make a suboptimal choice playable, I get told "you can't do that because that's going to impact your roleplaying." That got me a bit angry. Apologies for directing it at you.
I'd just like to note that you ony got crap for min/maxing because if you have to do it to be playable then this being a viable option goes out the window.
Nothing wrong with min/maxing as long as the character doesn't require it.
I'd just like to note that you ony got crap for min/maxing because if you have to do it to be playable then this being a viable option goes out the window.
Nothing wrong with min/maxing as long as the character doesn't require it.
I'm not trying to rehash the same argument. But how is this not simply saying "you're only allowed to min/max characters that are already quite powerful"?
That sentence and what you've said look exactly the same to me. It's okay to min/max powerful characters, but it's not okay to min/max weaker characters?
I'd just like to note that you ony got crap for min/maxing because if you have to do it to be playable then this being a viable option goes out the window.
Nothing wrong with min/maxing as long as the character doesn't require it.
I'm not trying to rehash the same argument. But how is this not simply saying "you're only allowed to min/max characters that are already quite powerful"?
That sentence and what you've said look exactly the same to me. It's okay to min/max powerful characters, but it's not okay to min/max weaker characters?
Min/max is the act of minimizing stuff in order to maximize other things (quite obviously), If your end result is "decent" then you haven't maximized anything, you've just made certain areas suck more and other areas on par.
That and you shouldn't have to use the same character sheet every time you want to play a VOP monk. You can't honestly say that sounds right to you. All VOP monks are clones of one guy apparently. The rest died of suckage.
Min/max is the act of minimizing stuff in order to maximize other things (quite obviously), If your end result is "decent" then you haven't maximized anything, you've just made certain areas suck more and other areas on par.
Aaah, so I haven't min/maxed then?
That and you shouldn't have to use the same character sheet every time you want to play a VOP monk. You can't honestly say that sounds right to you. All VOP monks are clones of one guy apparently.
That isn't the point at all. This cannot be the ONLY viable way to build a VoP. It is one way I've thought of. But I'm new to 3.5e compared to lots of you older guys. What's more I've never put any thought whatsoever into optimisation. I'm sure if an optimiser put their mind to it they could crap all over what I've done. The point of my build is to say "it's possible." I'm sure more experienced people can come up with much better builds then I have.
They really can't, that's why your build is the only one posted.
|
The problem with the VoP IMO is that people think that by forsaking material the should get better at material. That counters itself and is nonsesnse.
No.
You're forsaking external crutches to strengthen yourself.
You're forsaking the vast majority of the Equipment section and the entirety of the Wondrous/Magic Item sections in order to focus on strength from within.
This is exactly the kind of thing I don't want to be forced to do to make such a monk viable for AP play.INT 7 (-2)
CHA 5 (-3)
Well it is essentially a smelly crazed hobo. Makes sense to me.
Like Irori.
I knew Irori, I worked with Irori, and you, sir, Mr. 20-Point Point Buy, are no Irori....
The problem with the VoP IMO is that people think that by forsaking material the should get better at material. That counters itself and is nonsesnse.No.
You're forsaking external crutches to strengthen yourself.
You're forsaking the vast majority of the Equipment section and the entirety of the Wondrous/Magic Item sections in order to focus on strength from within.
These factors are already represented by experience and abilities, Which are IMO not the thing you want to give to a person via vows. Or breaking/abandoning the vow would decrease the abilities or permanent remove the levels?
I think we should raise hell about a mechanical option which is cripplingly handicapping. I think we should raise hell about mechanical options that are brokenly powerful. That's called constructive criticism, and it's how people are able to learn from their mistakes.
"Don't like, don't use?" That's inane. The reason I dislike it is because I think the design philosophy that would inspire something like this is fundamentally flawed, and I want those flaws aired, so they can be avoided in the future, if not fixed in the present. If I find rotten produce at the grocery store, I'm not going to settle for not buying it--I'm going to tell people that it's rotten.
And I absolutely think 100% balance is not too much to ask for as the goal. I know that it won't be achieved, because nobody's perfect. But striving to maximize balance is a good goal.
The design philosophy for Vow of Poverty flawed? You mean introducting a Vow of Poverty that actually requires you to be impoverished? That is poor design to you?
Like I said, I'd bet money that those complaining about Vow of Poverty are angry it isn't like the old Vow of Poverty from the Book of Exalted Deeds.
I looked at Vow of Poverty and I thought it was properly designed for what a Vow of Poverty is supposed to be. Is it going to see use in standard campaigns where you want to make an effective monk? Nope.
Might it see use from someone that enjoys playing a concept like that, perhaps. It is a flavor concept and there to give you an option to roleplay.
But it isn't the usual "wink, wink" option it was in the Book of Exalted Deeds. Book of Exalted Deeds was one of the worst designed vows in the book in terms of flavor. It wasn't disadvantageous at all.
So don't try to sell me this is some kind of problem with "design philosophy". And try to lump it in with complaining about overpowered spells.
If you look at Vow of Poverty. It is perfectly designed. It gives you a benefit. It actually requires you to be impoverished. What is wrong with the design? That it isn't going to be played very often.
It shouldn't be played very often. It shouldn't have been the "every monk should take this" option it was in the Book of Exalted Deeds.
Your impoverished. You've given up material possessions. HELLOOOOO!! HELLLLLOOOO! Being poor should not make you more powerful. It in fact should not even make you equivalent in power in a heavily magical world that relies on magic items to be effective.
Vow of Poverty should be nothing more than it is. A flavor option tossed in for someone that might want try a very difficult character concept for no other reason than the joy of roleplaying. It is well-designed for that option.
It's unbelievable that you expect Vow of Poverty, a vow that requires you to be impoverished, to be playable as a standard character option. What are you going to ask for next? That Vow of Peace of give the peaceful monk some kind of huge damage boost to make up for the damage lost by not throwing the first punch or fighting defensively the first two rounds?
A vow should fit what it is required to do, not be concerned about being a highly viable option that everyone should play.
Because the archetype the monk is based on in the first place is an ascetic warrior, who,by forsaking the material, gains spiritual strength and control over his own body such that he is a formidable force in combat. Because, by printing such a mechanic, they wrote a check for a viable gearless ascetic that simply could not be cashed.
I agree with you in one respect: if the designers believe that allowing a monk to be gearless while maintaining the effectiveness of a full-WBL character, or near to it, is contrary to principles of the game, than they should have declined to print VoP at all, rather than deliberately making it bad.
I knew it. You want the old Vow of Poverty from the Book of Exalted Deeds.
Ridiculous assertion. Don't print it because it's bad.
They printed it as an option that someone might want to play. You can seem to get that through your head can you. Some people like to play concepts that aren't that effective in combat for the pure role-playing enjoyment. That is an option tossed in the game for someone like that.
I've done this before myself. Played a cleric that was completely peaceful. He only healed people and never engaged in battle. He always tried to stop every fight and healed everyone be they good or bad. He was fun to roleplay.
I'm definitely the type of player that would take something like Vow of Poverty and roleplay it. I'm sure there are others like me that might enjoy this concept or at the very least might try it for the challenge.
You're trying to complain about it hoping to get your old Vow of Poverty back even to some degree. Nothing more than the complaining of a power gamer that had one of his options taken away.
I continue to be amused that the proof that VoP isn't that bad is to subvert it every way possible.
Ok I don't have magic items but all my gold goes to the wizard who makes a billion potions and constantly casts spells on me and gives me the potions and I have a super powerful artifact that radiates magic and I have lots of spells cast permanently on myself with all my gold and I've never given away a single coin to the poor but aren't I pure in my poverty?
I've already demonstrated -with detailed mechanical breakdown- that you can have a playable vow of poverty monk that gets only 2 spells cast on him a day - along with carrying a monk's robe from level 8 onwards and a +5 equivalent amulet from level 18 onwards.
I think that is a very reasonable approach to the vow that stays true to its spirit. At the same time the monk maintains competitive AC, attack and saves.
I don't see the problem with this new VoP to be honest. I'll admit that I don't play monks though, never felt that they fit in 3.5 (I admit that Pathfinders basic world they fit nicely, but old habits and all). Hated the old VoP beyond any option presented in any book by WotC.
So I read the new VoP wondering what the fuss about it was, and honestly I have to agree with everyone that has pointed out (including the designers) that you shouldn't be recieveing huge beneifits for it. Something that I think needs to be pointed out though is the "Gaining spiritual strength by forgoing the material" arguements. Isn't that the whole point of the Monk class? This class itself gains enough benifits to repersent that whole concept; add in some of the new archtype and bame you have Pei Mei and every ancient master from film.
My other thought on it is that the Monk is a martial class. Making it a semi-magical class with the new options is nice, but in the grander scheme of things this class is going to be getting a another set of options in Ultimate Combat.
That's my two cents on it, not much in the grand scheme, but everyone plays the game differently and everyone has different desires.
Maddigan, no one here wants VoP to be some amazing option that "everyone should play." We just want to play a flavorful option in a standard game, which you yourself admit is not possible. Wanting to be able to play a VoP monk in a standard Pazio Adventure Path is not powergaming. Please stop calling it so.
And if you just wanted VoP for a roleplaying purposes, and didn't care about actual combat, what does UM really give you that you didn't already have before? Seriously, are you saying you couldn't roleplay that VoP monk before, but now that you have 3 extra ki for taking an "official oath," it is absolutely perfect?
Lorekeeper: I made some comments on your build before, but it seems to have gotten swallowed up. I'm not sure where it is anymore.
First of all, let me say that I think your build does more with VoP than I thought it could do. But honestly, that has more to do with the fact that the qinggong monk is a powerup for monks in general, rather than the VoP doing anything. Your VoP monk example is still quite a bit weaker than a normal monk, and it is giving up a ton of versatility. I think there is still plenty of room for improvement for VoP.
Secondly, in terms of your build itself, I think you go a little bit too far in your assumptions at times. Let's look at the level 6 assumptions for example.
1. You assume greater magic weapon is on you. How are you imagining this happening? In the best case scenario, a Wizard is using 1 or more of his highest level spells on you, every single day (not a small impact on party resources). But what if you don't have a Wizard in the party? Sorcerers only know a single 3rd level spell at level 6. It's probably not GMW. Clerics, Oracles, Paladins, and Inquisitors don't have access yet, and classes like Witches and Bards don't get it ever. If you don't have a wizard, and are going the consumable route, then you are looking at spending anywhere from 300-1000g a day on scrolls, or a 11,000g investment for a wand. That's a lot of gold at level 6- especially for someone in supposed poverty.
2. Barkskin, while extremely nice, also has a few issues. At 6th level, Barkskin is giving you 1hour/ki spent. If you are assuming it is up, are you keeping it always active? Even 8 hours of activity is going to blow through most of your ki, leaving you without much else. Or are you only going to use barkskin when you know there is going to be a fight? In that case, you run into the situation where it's probably not going to be up 50% of the time. So either you are fighting with lower AC a lot of the time, or you are losing action economy by using barkskin the first round in many combats. Which way does that go?
Of course both of these issues lesson as the monk get's higher levels, but then different issues arise with the build and theme...
Lorekeeper: I made some comments on your build before, but it seems to have gotten swallowed up. I'm not sure where it is anymore.
First of all, let me say that I think your build does more with VoP than I thought it could do. But honestly, that has more to do with the fact that the qinggong monk is a powerup for monks in general, rather than the VoP doing anything. Your VoP monk example is still quite a bit weaker than a normal monk, and it is giving up a ton of versatility. I think there is still plenty of room for improvement for VoP.
Oh certainly. The VoP is not efficient for high-powered characters. The demonstration is purely one of viability. To show that it can be done without irretrievably skewing the game.
Secondly, in terms of your build itself, I think you go a little bit too far in your assumptions at times. Let's look at the level 6 assumptions for example.
1. You assume greater magic weapon is on you. How are you imagining this happening? In the best case scenario, a Wizard is using 1 or more of his highest level spells on you, every single day (not a small impact on party resources). But what if you don't have a Wizard in the party? Sorcerers only know a single 3rd level spell at level 6. It's probably not GMW. Clerics, Oracles, Paladins, and Inquisitors don't have access yet, and classes like Witches and Bards don't get it ever. If you don't have a wizard, and are going the consumable route, then you are looking at spending anywhere from 300-1000g a day on scrolls, or a 11,000g investment for a wand. That's a lot of gold at level 6- especially for someone in supposed poverty.
Agreed, consumables are not the way to handle it and would void the premise the vow. As the demonstration describes, it relies instead on a friendly caster to cast mage armor and greater magic weapon daily - this has some impact on party resources, of course, but is far from an unreasonable expenditure in resources. However, at level 6 it is sufficient to have the level 1 magic weapon, as greater magic weapon doesn't grant higher bonuses yet.
Keep in mind that having the monk on the VoP means that the loot is split 3-ways instead of 4-ways. That means that by level 10 each other party member (assuming a full party of 4 PCs) gains more than 20000gp more than they would normally have had. This easily allows the kind wizard to afford a pearl of power level 1 and 3 (which thereby "pays" for the two spells that the monk consumes from the wizard each day) and still have 10000gp left over for personal use - while the other party members smile all the way to the bank.
2. Barkskin, while extremely nice, also has a few issues. At 6th level, Barkskin is giving you 1hour/ki spent. If you are assuming it is up, are you keeping it always active? Even 8 hours of activity is going to blow through most of your ki, leaving you without much else. Or are you only going to use barkskin when you know there is going to be a fight? In that case, you run into the situation where it's probably not going to be up 50% of the time. So either you are fighting with lower AC a lot of the time, or you are losing action economy by using barkskin the first round in many combats. Which way does that go?
Oh certainly, my demonstration does not actually expect the monk to act at his normalized best for 24 hours a day. From level 12 onward an extended mage armor and greater magic weapon would do the trick of course - but as a rule the big buffs would be used when appropriate.
Barkskin is a relatively long-lived buff, so a lot of the time the monk will power-up the natural armor in advance. In surprise combat without the buff, it will depend on the monk's willingness to act to the situation. Given his superior speed he can move into an optimal position and still have time to activate barkskin (the alternative would be a single attack after moving, assuming enemies aren't directly upon you).
Though the monk could rely purely on his +4 dodge bonus ki each round in a crisis situation.
just want to say the original vow of poverty was much more lame than this one, it is clearly not intended to be an optimal choice in this incarnation and not very suitable for optimized gameplay. It might still be a good option for npc monks or cohorts and actually have a good ingame reason not to get a share of the encounter treasure. Just saying I will probably use it with or without minor adjustments.
Though I have to say paizo didnt have to advertise the dragon shaman or vow of poverty specifically before the book got released, especially since they are sucha minor part in the book, it raised expectations of a remade 3.5 version which they are obviously not, it might have been better avoiding to use those names at all rather than (unintentionally I assume) 'misleading' people.
Because the archetype the monk is based on in the first place is an ascetic warrior, who,by forsaking the material, gains spiritual strength and control over his own body such that he is a formidable force in combat. Because, by printing such a mechanic, they wrote a check for a viable gearless ascetic that simply could not be cashed.
I agree with you in one respect: if the designers believe that allowing a monk to be gearless while maintaining the effectiveness of a full-WBL character, or near to it, is contrary to principles of the game, than they should have declined to print VoP at all, rather than deliberately making it bad.
I knew it. You want the old Vow of Poverty from the Book of Exalted Deeds.
Ridiculous assertion. Don't print it because it's bad.
They printed it as an option that someone might want to play. You can seem to get that through your head can you. Some people like to play concepts that aren't that effective in combat for the pure role-playing enjoyment. That is an option tossed in the game for someone like that.
I've done this before myself. Played a cleric that was completely peaceful. He only healed people and never engaged in battle. He always tried to stop every fight and healed everyone be they good or bad. He was fun to roleplay.
I'm definitely the type of player that would take something like Vow of Poverty and roleplay it. I'm sure there are others like me that might enjoy this concept or at the very least might try it for the challenge.
You're trying to complain about it hoping to get your old Vow of Poverty back even to some degree. Nothing more than the complaining of a power gamer that had one of his options taken away.
If you want your Vow of Poverty to be cripplingly disadvantageous as a matter of roleplay, then you don't need the Ultimate Magic vow, or any other mechanic. You can play any character and refuse to use your Wealth By Level, and accomplish exactly the goal you suggest. If you want to play a character whose rejection of external, material crutches grants them power and inner strength--an archetype with rich precedent in various lore--the game does not provide an option sufficient to that. I cannot properly roleplay that character, because he cannot do mechanically what he should do conceptually.
Consider an alternate example without the baggage of Vow of Poverty--the archetype of the blind warrior, who is as good or better a swordsman than anyone else by virtue of sheer skill, and increased senses to compensate for his lack of sight. You don't need a feat or an archetype to make yourself blind and suffer the full disadvantages of that. So I would hope that a series of feats or an archetype, or a prestige class, or similar mechanic reflecting the archetype would significantly compensate for the disadvantage of blindness in combat. That's what making those mechanics implies in the first place.
+1I continue to be amused that the proof that VoP isn't that bad is to subvert it every way possible.
Ok I don't have magic items but all my gold goes to the wizard who makes a billion potions and constantly casts spells on me and gives me the potions and I have a super powerful artifact that radiates magic and I have lots of spells cast permanently on myself with all my gold and I've never given away a single coin to the poor but aren't I pure in my poverty?
+2.
And ProfessorCirno I do agree, Masterpieces is a disappointment. Cool idea, bad execution. Not that I'm surprised. Hey it's the bard. Well we got some new cool bard spells. Even though I don't get why they couldn't have turned Virtuoso Performance into a feat. In fact not much bard feats to talk about. As for bard spells, 5th-Level Bard Spells still suck and no new high level buff. Haste + IC + Good hope is still the most powerful buff combo a bard can offer, at level 7 and still at level 14. But I guess the bard got more fun stuff than the cleric. Virtuoso Performance being one such thing and Songhealer being the other. Well Dirge Bard was a bit of fun as well if you're a DM or if your party likes undeads.
Overall, UM gave us the Magus, the rest is just flavor stuff and sloppy work, too much situational stuff, broken stuff and not fixing stuff that needs fixing.
Oracles didn't get any new curses, Clerics didn't get any useful high level healing spells and 7th spell level still suck (exception Cold Ice Strike which is broken. Half damage would be enough). Much awaited Cloistered Cleric suck and looks anything but sexy.
Two feats that boost concentration checks, so now the gap between casters and non casters increase even more. Paladins got even more powerful, as they needed it.
First book I won't buy as a book, only as a pfd. Quick Channel, Virtuoso Performance and the Magus made me feel the PDF was worth it's money.
BTW, Bulmahn murdered my monk character in yesterday's Weekly Grind session, so monk fans no longer have a "man on the inside," as it were.
It was beautiful while it lasted...
What level was he/she when he/she got "murdered"?
Me, I'm not too upset about the POV. I never did like monks and neither PFCRB, APG or UM has fixed their main problems. The problem of not being able to beat DR and MAD. I do think the Qinggong Monk is a good Archetype and probably the monk I would play if Paizo could fix the main monk problems...they are:
To me the biggest problem is Monks not hurting stuff at higher levels due to stuff having DR. A simple fix would be to give them Ki powers that let them by pass DR for one fight and/or let them has access to Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike as bonus feats. Heck I would just let them have access to Greater Penetrating Strike without having to pick Penetrating Strike.
I haven't played the Qinggong Monk but it look like the best incarnation of the monk so far. I guess it will suffer even more from MAD since it needs a really high wisdom, but I still think it's probably the best monk out there in Paizo land.
/BARDS UBER ALLES!
|
|
BTW, Bulmahn murdered my monk character in yesterday's Weekly Grind session, so monk fans no longer have a "man on the inside," as it were.
It was beautiful while it lasted...
What level was he/she when he/she got "murdered"?
Me, I'm not too upset about the POV. I never did like monks and neither PFCRB, APG or UM has fixed their main problems. The problem of not being able to beat DR and MAD. I do think the Qinggong Monk is a good Archetype and probably the monk I would play if Paizo could fix the main monk problems...they are:
Monks not hitting stuff at higher levels (flurry of misses).
Monks not hurting stuff at higher levels due to them having DR.
Monks having the worst MAD in the game. To me the biggest problem is Monks not hurting stuff at higher levels due to stuff having DR. A simple fix would be to give them Ki powers that let them by pass DR for one fight and/or let them has access to Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike as bonus feats. Heck I would just let them have access to Greater Penetrating Strike without having to pick Penetrating Strike.
I haven't played the Qinggong Monk but it look like the best incarnation of the monk so far. I guess it will suffer even more from MAD since it needs a really high wisdom, but I still think it's probably the best monk out there in Paizo land.
/BARDS UBER ALLES!
Brass Knuckles solve the DR problem.
And yes, Qinggong Monk is the best version of the Monk so far.
Brass Knuckles solve the DR problem.
Nice more people out there like the Qinggong Monk.
And yes, Qinggong Monk is the best version of the Monk so far.*raised brow*
Oh, in Pathfinder. Agreed.
Yes in Pathfinder.
editI'm not sure what other monk you find appealing.
The 3.5 monk sucked and the 3.0 sucked even more if I remember correctly.
|
|
Brass Knuckles solve the DR problem.
Depends on the DM/how you read the rules. (Our DM said Silver Knuckles needs to be magic as well to by pass DR silver and magic, even if our monk had Ki pool magic.) Brass Knuckles only fits hands, so no toes, elbows, knee, etc. You don't always have the opportunity/time to swap from silver to cold iron. Nice more people out there like the Qinggong Monk.
My interpretation is always Monk-friendly, handicapped people need all the help they can get.
Brass Knuckles not fitting toes/elbows/knees doesn't change anything. It's a weapon, you flurry with it, using your Monk unarmed damage value.
+3 Brass Knuckles count as both cold iron and silver, so the problem is gone.
My interpretation is always Monk-friendly, handicapped people need all the help they can get.
Sounds good :-)
+3 Brass Knuckles count as both cold iron and silver, so the problem is gone.
Problem is gone when you can aford two +3 Knuckles. But yes, Knuckles have greatly helped the monk.
|
|
Like Irori.I knew Irori, I worked with Irori, and you, sir, Mr. 20-Point Point Buy, are no Irori....
Why is the concept deserving of mockery?
The theme is supported in the flavor and encouraged by the very presence of Irori, whose whole schtick is self-perfection. What we have is a lack of mechanics that support a martial character following that path without having to buy and lean on the work of casters.
And thanks for twisting the knife. I'm trying to make a gearless monk work at the standard 15 point buy that can keep up in a standard Pathfinder AP. Not something "uber". Not something twinked out and min-maxed to hell and back. Just something that can keep up with the party and not feel like a hanger-on who gets to be more of a spectator than a participant in the story.
These factors are already represented by experience and abilities, Which are IMO not the thing you want to give to a person via vows. Or breaking/abandoning the vow would decrease the abilities or permanent remove the levels?
I would avoid adding bonus experience like the plague, because that's only inviting extra complexity and possible resentment at the table about uneven treatment. Abilitiy score bonuses are much cleaner and those along with vow-specific abilities are much easier to remove if the vow is broken.
As for breaking the vows, personally I think the penalty should be severe. They lose everything they got from the vow. If the vow involved anything that built up over time, they lose it all and have to start over from scratch if it's possible to get back into good grace. And if it is possible for a vow-breaker to retake the vow, it should require nothing less than what a fallen paladin would have to go through to take it again.
Brass Knuckles solve the DR problem.And yes, Qinggong Monk is the best version of the Monk so far.
Though it breaks the bare-hander theme for those that want it. I know I'd allow a player to reflavor it as rings around the wrists(a la Kung Fu Hustle) at least, and hope the favor gets returned karmically by my GMs.
And yes on Qinggong monks. I'm praying they get more support in Ultimate Combat. Making the one "hadoken" option evil made me sad.
|
|
Like Irori.I knew Irori, I worked with Irori, and you, sir, Mr. 20-Point Point Buy, are no Irori....
I'm parsing this as 'you must have god stats before you can become a god'. Which is the only way I can see a VoP monk surviving long enough to become a god.
...
These factors are already represented by experience and abilities, Which are IMO not the thing you want to give to a person via vows. Or breaking/abandoning the vow would decrease the abilities or permanent remove the levels?I would avoid adding bonus experience like the plague, because that's only inviting extra complexity and possible resentment at the table about uneven treatment. Abilitiy score bonuses are much cleaner and those along with vow-specific abilities are much easier to remove if the vow is broken.
As for breaking the vows, personally I think the penalty should be severe. They lose everything they got from the vow. If the vow involved anything that built up over time, they lose it all and have to start over from scratch if it's possible to get back into good grace. And if it is possible for a vow-breaker to retake the vow, it should require nothing less than what a fallen paladin would have to go through to take it again.
...
Right, experience is bad, but I wonder how much would have to be the ability boost to partially make up for what the items can do. Piercing DR, boosting damage and attack and/or boosting AC and not even mentioning the other utility thingies you can get. Abilities unfortunately don't make up for that in many ways, so they'd have to be a part of uch larger complex of bonuses.
Why is the concept deserving of mockery?Like Irori.I knew Irori, I worked with Irori, and you, sir, Mr. 20-Point Point Buy, are no Irori....
I'm not mocking you, I'm pointing back at an old joke.
My point is: if it were easy for a gearless monk to become a god, we'd have more than one god in the Paizo campaign world who managed to do it.
Irori wasn't a standard array character.
He wasn't a 15-point-buy character.
He wasn't a 20-point-buy character.
He's the extremely lucky character who rolls really, really well, perhaps 3 or more 18s, with no "dump stats." He is the one-in-a-billion exception.
He is not the standard that all gearless monks should expect to play like.
Respectfully Sean, I play this system because (generally) allows me to build the hero I like to play.
Not the dude regretting he's not born special.
PCs are born special. They're just not automatically super-duper-special.
Even Niels Bohr is no Einstein, but that's not to say that Bohr wasn't a brilliant man.
Or, to use a comic book analogy: not everyone gets to be Superman. Sometimes, you're "just" Batman, Spider-Man, or Captain America.
|
My interpretation is always Monk-friendly, handicapped people need all the help they can get.
Sounds good :-)
Problem is gone when you can aford two +3 Knuckles. But yes, Knuckles have greatly helped the monk.
+3 Brass Knuckles count as both cold iron and silver, so the problem is gone.
Why would you want two brass knuckles? Flurry of blows does not work with TWF, so one is sufficient. And no, you don't need multiple weapons to use FoB with them.
PCs are born special. They're just not automatically super-duper-special.
Even Niels Bohr is no Einstein, but that's not to say that Bohr wasn't a brilliant man.
Or, to use a comic book analogy: not everyone gets to be Superman. Sometimes, you're "just" Batman, Spider-Man, or Captain America.
See, I completely agree on this. BTW, one of the things I like so much of the game is the fact that level 1 PCs are special, but not THAT much.
Nevertheless, I should be able to play (a future) batman or superman - I should be able to choose.
I think you can still choose to do that. If the DM allows 5d6 rolls for example. I'm not sure whether it should be allowed to enter play along standard characters in organised play for example.