| 39 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
The only item that is limited by value, according to the rules, is the sixth item. The rest just have to be plain.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
In any case, I'm surprised that no one has even considered that maybe it wasn't ever meant to limit your wealth of items, but rather the number of items you carry. Only being able to carry six items, rather than the 14 that magic item slots normally allowed IS a fairly big limiting factor and would be about on par with what you get in return, as well as with the other vows and optional rules.
You get to keep the BIG SIX while giving up everything else.
You get six items. You need the BIG SIX to stay afloat in the game. Nobody noticed this correlation? Really?
If your first five items are of cheap make (wood, bone, tin, whatever), then you have indeed followed the rules of the Vow. You still can't carry anything not your own worth more than 50gp and you still can't carry more than enough money needed to support yourself (modestly).
Considering all this, and the fact that it's now about in line with all the other vows, I'm astounded I'm the first to think of this particular interpretation.
Everyone agrees: the current "common interpretation" not only sucks, it doesn't even make much sense as written.
Mine, however, neither sucks nor is senseless. For all we know, it was the developer's intent all along.
FAQ this post if you agree, or even if you simply "want" to believe it's true. Maybe we can get a developer to concur.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to believe.
It would be delicious from a flavor standpoint: a monk bedecked in rustic, unassuming garb that doesn't entirely suck compared to his friends. His worldly possessions not glowing like Christmas lights, he is free to take pride in his own accomplishments, and not boast about or become distracted by his worldly possessions, as they do not look that interesting.
That is certainly an interesting way to look at it. I kind of want that to be the case now :)
Buddy, your idead made me laugh, but still, this is not the spirit of the rule. The worth of an item is only marginally set by its material component, your rustic bracers are still worth 64,000GP and your tin amulet of mighty fists +5 is still worth 62,500GP.
The ingame value of an item is still calculated by its magical properties + its material components if it is crafted out of special materials. Beside this, magical items have to be crafted from masterwork grade stuff, so I recon that there would be no tin amulets that have not seen hours on hours of expert craftsmanship to make them worth their weight in gold.
Just my two copper penny.
Well, then I guess it is a good thing that the rules don't limit the value of the five items. It only limits your ability to hold a lot of money or wealth such as gold or gems (only what you need to survive) or carry anything of value that belongs to others. Other than that, make sure you are own less than seven items, five of which must be plain (bone, tin, whatever) and one of which can be of some value (gold, adamantine, whatever).
Whose going to buy my bracers for 64,000gp when they look like rustic junk? That's not wealth. Heck, since Charisma is a dump stat for most monks, they couldn't even convince someone of its value if they tried. And even if I did sell them, I couldn't keep the gold, so what's the point? No friend, that's not wealth. And for an adventurer, it's exactly what you need to survive.
Seems like it's following both the RAW and possible RAI to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask a VoP monk of any interpretation how much total wealth they have in gear.
Ask a regular monk how much total wealth they have in gear.
If, for equivalent levels, these totals are about the same...
Where's the poverty?
Ask a VoP monk of any interpretation how much total wealth they have in gear.
Ask a regular monk how much total wealth they have in gear.
If, for equivalent levels, these totals are about the same...
Where's the poverty?
It's in the lack of gold you carry, in the limited items you own, in the things you can no longer carry for your friends.
A normal monk could easily carry 14+ magic items, one for each slot and then some. A VoP monk doesn't have that option. He's limited to less than half. At least he's got the big six, so he will at least survive the week (which if you note follows the rules of the Vow).
"The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions—a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item."
Simple set of clothing: Monk's robes, with a rope for a belt (but said rope also gives +6 to str, dex and con)
Pair of sandals: enchanted to give all my kicks +5 enhancement and deal 1d6 cold, fire, lightning and acid damage
a bowl: that I wear on my head, enchanted to project a force effect around me equivalent to a bracers of armour +8
a sack: mine has 2 eye holes, and i wear it over my head (and the bowl) to grant me +6 int, wis and cha
a blanket: that i wear over my shoulders-it gives me +5 resistance bonus to all saves
one more item: the plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box
XD
"The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions—a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item."
Simple set of clothing: Monk's robes, with a rope for a belt (but said rope also gives +6 to str, dex and con)
Pair of sandals: enchanted to give all my kicks +5 enhancement and deal 1d6 cold, fire, lightning and acid damage
a bowl: that I wear on my head, enchanted to project a force effect around me equivalent to a bracers of armour +8
a sack: mine has 2 eye holes, and i wear it over my head (and the bowl) to grant me +6 int, wis and cha
a blanket: that i wear over my shoulders-it gives me +5 resistance bonus to all saves
one more item: the plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box
XD
Some of those are custom items, which some GMs are stingy about allowing.
But hey, if your wizard friends enchants your "simple gear" you haven't spent any "wealth" on it. If you sell it, you can't keep the gold. You never had any wealth. You never broke your vow.
If you can't trade it for anything of value that you can keep than it isn't wealth. It's your property, but not wealth.
Now, if your bracers of armor are made of platinum and studded with diamonds, that's another matter entirely (unless it's your sixth item).
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
The only item that is limited by value, according to the rules, is the sixth item. The rest just have to be plain.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
In any case, I'm surprised that no one has even considered that maybe it wasn't ever meant to limit your wealth of items, but rather the number of items you carry. Only being able to carry six items, rather than the 14 that magic item slots normally allowed IS a fairly big limiting factor and would be about on par with what you get in return, as well as with the other vows and optional rules.
You get to keep the BIG SIX while giving up everything else.
You get six items. You need the BIG SIX to stay afloat in the game. Nobody noticed this correlation? Really?
If your first five items are of cheap make (wood, bone, tin, whatever), then you have indeed followed the rules of the Vow. You still can't carry anything not your own worth more than 50gp and you still can't carry more than enough money needed to support yourself (modestly).
Considering all this, and the fact that it's now about in line with all the other vows, I'm astounded I'm the first to think of this particular interpretation.
Everyone agrees: the current "common interpretation" not only sucks, it doesn't even make much sense as written.
Mine, however, neither sucks nor is senseless. For all we know, it was the developer's intent all along.
FAQ this post if you agree, or even if you simply "want" to believe it's true. Maybe we can get a developer...
Sean came online and basically agreed that it was intended to limit wealth.
click here for one of the post. Read the entire page for more proofHere is a small snippet:
"The game expects you to have X gp worth of gear at every level. Deliberately choosing to play a character that ignores that and has essentially nothing at high levels is a very suboptimal design choice. You're allowed to do that. I think it's admirable for the people who want to play that sort of character. But it is unrealistic to say "because you've given up all these goodies, you gain other goodies that exactly make up for that choice which deliberately makes you a fragile character." And if you did build such a thing into the rules, it's basically saying, "you, the character that's made a sacrifice? It's not really a sacrifice at all, you're just as good as someone who didn't make that sacrifice. In other words, your sacrifice is meaningless because you're not really giving up anything."
yes the one item that = WBL doesn't break the spirit at all either >.>, but sean himself said use that to fix it. I'm calling it damage control at this point on seans behalf
Interesting stuff.
I don't believe his post really applies to my interpretation. How is giving up more than half your potential magical gear as well as nearly all of your mundane wealth NOT a sacrifice?
My interpretation, not only brings it in line in terms of balance, it ALSO makes some sense, as opposed to the common interpretation which falls apart under scrutiny for the reason Shadow_of_death brings up above.
However, if we adjust the interpretation to "maybe the intent was to limit the number of items, rather than the value" than it all begins to line up.
Magic items aren't wealth if you can't sell them (or in this case, keep the gold you would get from selling them). In the end, you are still poverty stricken.
Interesting stuff.I don't believe his post really applies to my interpretation. How is giving up more than half your potential magical gear as well as nearly all of your mundane wealth NOT a sacrifice?
My interpretation, not only brings it in line in terms of balance, it ALSO makes some sense, as opposed to the common interpretation which falls apart under scrutiny for the reason Shadow_of_death brings up above.
However, if we adjust the interpretation to "maybe the intent was to limit the number of items, rather than the value" than it all begins to line up.
Magic items aren't wealth if you can't sell them (or in this case, keep the gold you would get from selling them). In the end, you are still poverty stricken.
I think the original intent was too give up a whole lot, too much for my taste, but I am expecting errata or soft errata(well you guys can do it like ______) with something similar to your idea since this does not seem to be popular.
I don't like the original version because I know I have one player that will try it, and I at least want the character to have a decent chance of survival.Five of these items must be of plain and simple make, though one can be of some value (often an heirloom of great personal significance to the monk). The monk can never keep more money or wealth on his person than he needs to feed, bathe, and shelter himself for 1 week in modest accommodations.
Magic items are not plain and simple. Only item one can be of value. Your bracers may look cheap but they are valuable meaning they are of value as are the other items. The items are also more wealth, even if they are not gp, than you need to feed......for one week.
I am not advocating anyone use the vow as written, but you are trying to find a loophole from my point of view. Proposing fixes is one thing, but posting what I see as an incorrect interpretation is another. I also think Sean would have cleared this up in the other thread if that was the actual intent. He is normally pretty good about saying "looks folks this is what our intent was....".
Interesting stuff.I don't believe his post really applies to my interpretation. How is giving up more than half your potential magical gear as well as nearly all of your mundane wealth NOT a sacrifice?
My interpretation, not only brings it in line in terms of balance, it ALSO makes some sense, as opposed to the common interpretation which falls apart under scrutiny for the reason Shadow_of_death brings up above.
However, if we adjust the interpretation to "maybe the intent was to limit the number of items, rather than the value" than it all begins to line up.
Magic items aren't wealth if you can't sell them (or in this case, keep the gold you would get from selling them). In the end, you are still poverty stricken.
There are ways to get around not selling them. You give them to a party member who sells them because he does not want them, and buys something more useful, and give it to you as gift since you thought enough of him to give up a valuable item. He just has to make sure it is plain looking in nature if being unpleasant to the eye is the real requirement.
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
The only item that is limited by value, according to the rules, is the sixth item. The rest just have to be plain.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
I think you've disregarded an important part of the rules in your interpretation, namely which items you are allowed to own:
a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item.
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
The only item that is limited by value, according to the rules, is the sixth item. The rest just have to be plain.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
I think you've disregarded an important part of the rules in your interpretation, namely which items you are allowed to own:
a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item.
Hence:
Simple set of clothing: Monk's robes, with a rope for a belt (but said rope also gives +6 to str, dex and con)
Pair of sandals: enchanted to give all my kicks +5 enhancement and deal 1d6 cold, fire, lightning and acid damage
a bowl: that I wear on my head, enchanted to project a force effect around me equivalent to a bracers of armour +8
a sack: mine has 2 eye holes, and i wear it over my head (and the bowl) to grant me +6 int, wis and cha
a blanket: that i wear over my shoulders-it gives me +5 resistance bonus to all saves
one more item: the plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box
XD
Considering the amount of time, effort, skill, and raw power required to craft magical items, a magically enhanced item is not "simple" by any means.
It's sort of akin to calling a tomahawk cruise missile 'simple' because it looks like a giant bullet.
It's a simple missile. =D
Btw, you can tell I'm not being serious right? What with the bowl and bag on the head and all? XD
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
The only item that is limited by value, according to the rules, is the sixth item. The rest just have to be plain.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
I think you've disregarded an important part of the rules in your interpretation, namely which items you are allowed to own:
a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item.
Hooray for the words "nonmagical" being noticeably absent from the rules text.
Hooray a second time for bracers, amulets, cloaks, robes and rings being pieces of a simple set of adventurer's clothing. You can actually have as many simple items as you want, magical or not, as long as they are part of a simple set of clothing.
Thank you for pointing this out, I almost missed that part. This makes the vow even better.
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
The only item that is limited by value, according to the rules, is the sixth item. The rest just have to be plain.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
I think you've disregarded an important part of the rules in your interpretation, namely which items you are allowed to own:
a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item.Hooray for the words "nonmagical" being noticeably absent from the rules text.
Hooray a second time for bracers, amulets, cloaks, robes and rings being pieces of a simple set of adventurer's clothing. You can actually have as many simple items as you want, magical or not, as long as they are part of a simple set of clothing.
Thank you for pointing this out, I almost missed that part. This makes the vow even better.
Exactly right. "Simple" does not necessarily mean non-magical.
Considering the amount of time, effort, skill, and raw power required to craft magical items, a magically enhanced item is not "simple" by any means.
I beg to differ. A sandal, even a magical one, is still functionally a simple sandal. Just cause it was difficult to make doesn't mean the end result isn't a simple item. A woodcutter could spend weeks painstakingly carving a masterwork club. In the end, however, would anyone say a club isn't simple (even a masterwork one)?
Wraithstrike: Please believe that my intentions are pure. I'm not trying to find a loophole so much as an interpretation, fix, or whatever, that fits both the written rule as well as everyone's expectations. When one thinks of RAI differently, as I've proposed, the entire meaning of the words shifts for a better result.
At least 10 people agree with the idea already so I can't be too far off base.
|
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
The only item that is limited by value, according to the rules, is the sixth item. The rest just have to be plain.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
I think you've disregarded an important part of the rules in your interpretation, namely which items you are allowed to own:
a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item.Hooray for the words "nonmagical" being noticeably absent from the rules text.
Hooray a second time for bracers, amulets, cloaks, robes and rings being pieces of a simple set of adventurer's clothing. You can actually have as many simple items as you want, magical or not, as long as they are part of a simple set of clothing.
Thank you for pointing this out, I almost missed that part. This makes the vow even better.
Exactly right. "Simple" does not necessarily mean non-magical.
Wraithstrike: Please believe that my intentions are pure. I'm not trying to find a loophole so much as an interpretation, fix, or whatever, that fits both the written rule as well as everyone's expectations. When one thinks of RAI differently, as I've proposed, the entire meaning of the words shifts for a better result.
At least 10 people agree with the idea already so I can't be too far off base.
You know, more than 10 people agree with me that the sun is rotating around the earth, and yet the doctor still tells me to take yellow happy pills...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
From the text...
The monk can never keep more money or wealth on his
person than he needs to feed, bathe, and shelter himself
for 1 week in modest accommodations.
Any one of the items you list could be sold and would provide much more money than required to live in modest accommodations for one week. Sure, they're harder to liquidate than coins, but the vow doesn't say "unless it's hard to sell, then you can keep it".
|
|
At least 10 people agree with the idea already so I can't be too far off base.
To be honest, I hit FAQ to push the topic forward. :)
It would certainly work better than the original UM VoP, but it's still a flavor breaker to me, since you're pouring gold into those items that should be going to the needy. That and it still kills the perk the original BoED VoP had of enabling gearless monks. Which the UM VoP does anyway, unless you don't go with the "one valuable item = magic gear" flavor cheat, in which case it's the gearless monk himself that's killed.
I can't really get behind this, but if it makes more people that like the general concept happy...well....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
From the text...
Any one of the items you list could be sold and would provide much more money than required to live in modest accommodations for one week. Sure, they're harder to liquidate than coins, but the vow doesn't say "unless it's hard to sell, then you can keep it".The monk can never keep more money or wealth on his
person than he needs to feed, bathe, and shelter himself
for 1 week in modest accommodations.
To be entirely fair, this should also apply to that "single item of some value" if it's really expected that the monk will be pouring gold into it.
(gold that he shouldn't even have or be using on himself, at that)
...but the vow doesn't say "unless it's hard to sell, then you can keep it".
No, but it does say you are limited to six items.
What's more, the value of the items isn't even mentioned with the exception of the sixth item. The first five only need to be plain/simple. That can be interpreted any number of ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
The only item that is limited by value, according to the rules, is the sixth item. The rest just have to be plain.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
I think you've disregarded an important part of the rules in your interpretation, namely which items you are allowed to own:
a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item.Hooray for the words "nonmagical" being noticeably absent from the rules text.
Hooray a second time for bracers, amulets, cloaks, robes and rings being pieces of a simple set of adventurer's clothing. You can actually have as many simple items as you want, magical or not, as long as they are part of a simple set of clothing.
Thank you for pointing this out, I almost missed that part. This makes the vow even better.
Exactly right. "Simple" does not necessarily mean non-magical.
Considering the amount of time, effort, skill, and raw power required to craft magical items, a magically enhanced item is not "simple" by any means.I beg to differ. A sandal, even a magical one, is still functionally a simple sandal. Just cause it was difficult to make doesn't mean the end result isn't a simple item. A woodcutter could spend weeks painstakingly carving a masterwork club. In the end, however, would anyone say a club isn't simple (even a masterwork one)?...
Agree is a strong word. Hope you are right is more accurate. There is a world of difference.
As an example:I want to believe.
That is certainly an interesting way to look at it. I kind of want that to be the case now :)
I did not go back and check everyone, but you might want to reconsider that "agree" verbage.
As an example I hoped that improved natural attacks would still be allowed to work with monk attacks, but I could not agree that Paizo would allow it, and to my dismay they did not.
In that case what is not simple? A rod is nothing but a stick, and so is a wand. A magical staff is nothing, but a staff. They cost nothing before spells are added. I am sure the world simple was not put there, along with descriptions of simple items if it really has no in game affect.
To go on:
Rings are pretty simple. They are metal that is circle shaped. In short over half of the magic items in the game can be made to be simple or plain if you want to use your interpretation. It is actually easier to find a simple item than it is to find a non simple one.
PS:Don't forget Sean could have easily squashed this in the other thread if that was the case.
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
From the text...
Any one of the items you list could be sold and would provide much more money than required to live in modest accommodations for one week. Sure, they're harder to liquidate than coins, but the vow doesn't say "unless it's hard to sell, then you can keep it".The monk can never keep more money or wealth on his
person than he needs to feed, bathe, and shelter himself
for 1 week in modest accommodations.
I somehow overlooked the fact that he did not address that when I brought it up.
...but the vow doesn't say "unless it's hard to sell, then you can keep it".No, but it does say you are limited to six items.
What's more, the value of the items isn't even mentioned with the exception of the sixth item. The first five only need to be plain/simple.
But it says you can't have more wealth than is enough for 1 weeks modest food/lodging/cleanliness. If you have an item in your possession that could be sold that would violate, you violate the vow. The one item that can violate that rule is the 6th item. All others cannot have a resale value over 1 weeks food/lodging/cleanliness.
An exception is given for the 6th item... that means it's different from the others.
If I tell you I have 6 pieces of fruit, and only one of them is an apple, the other 5 cannot be apples.
6 items, one is allowed to have a high gold piece value, therefore, we know that the others are not allowed to have a high gold piece value.
one can be of some value
Logically then, the others cannot be of value.
But it says you can't have more wealth than is enough for 1 weeks modest food/lodging/cleanliness. If you have an item in your possession that could be sold that would violate, you violate the vow. The one item that can violate that rule is the 6th item. All others cannot have a resale value over 1 weeks food/lodging/cleanliness.
You are being far too stringent in your reading. I may be more open-minded than people are accustomed to, but is being close-minded to the possibility of a better interpretation really going to get you anywhere?
As I've explained above, it's not true wealth if you can't keep the gold you sell it for. The monk is still living in poverty and thus still upholding his vow.
Heck, if he sells it, an adventuring monk will surely die by the end of the week. The vow doesn't support that. It DOES support having enough to survive through the week.
I predict the official response will be a resounding 'maybe'.
Because they prefer individual DMs to decide for themselves.
If that happens, I'm not wrong! ;P
Seriously though, I'd be pretty happy if they poked their heads in to comment at all.
But it says you can't have more wealth than is enough for 1 weeks modest food/lodging/cleanliness. If you have an item in your possession that could be sold that would violate, you violate the vow. The one item that can violate that rule is the 6th item. All others cannot have a resale value over 1 weeks food/lodging/cleanliness.You are being far too stringent in your reading. I may be more open-minded than people are accustomed to, but is being close-minded to the possibility of a better interpretation really going to get you anywhere?
As I've explained above, it's not true wealth if you can't keep the gold you sell it for. The monk is still living in poverty and thus still upholding his vow.
Heck, if he sells it, an adventuring monk will surely die by the end of the week. The vow doesn't support that. It DOES support having enough to survive through the week.
I'm not being "stringent", I'm applying the text as it's written. If you want to drift the rules for your purposes, that's okay, but that's what you're doing. Heck, I might even use your interpretation if I were to run a game of my own. Agreeing with a house rule doesn't change a literal reading of the current text.
I'm not being "stringent", I'm applying the text as it's written. If you want to drift the rules for your purposes, that's okay, but that's what you're doing. Heck, I might even use your interpretation if I were to run a game of my own. Agreeing with a house rule doesn't change a literal reading of the current text.But it says you can't have more wealth than is enough for 1 weeks modest food/lodging/cleanliness. If you have an item in your possession that could be sold that would violate, you violate the vow. The one item that can violate that rule is the 6th item. All others cannot have a resale value over 1 weeks food/lodging/cleanliness.You are being far too stringent in your reading. I may be more open-minded than people are accustomed to, but is being close-minded to the possibility of a better interpretation really going to get you anywhere?
As I've explained above, it's not true wealth if you can't keep the gold you sell it for. The monk is still living in poverty and thus still upholding his vow.
Heck, if he sells it, an adventuring monk will surely die by the end of the week. The vow doesn't support that. It DOES support having enough to survive through the week.
Hence why I'm trying to get developer input. Even if they disagree with the interpretation, they might like the idea enough to implement it into errata.
Who knows?
.
..
...
....
.....
Which in this case is probably best.I predict the official response will be a resounding 'maybe'.
Because they prefer individual DMs to decide for themselves.
Aye. If we can get folks to make their own minds up, practice being comfortable with the decisions they make and develope the skills necessary for incorporating changes into their games without drama then..
..what a world, what a world!
I'm not sure maybe denies anything, it actually seems like he realized that that seems like a pretty big flaw but doesn't want to discourage it just yet.
I'm not being "stringent", I'm applying the text as it's written. If you want to drift the rules for your purposes, that's okay, but that's what you're doing. Heck, I might even use your interpretation if I were to run a game of my own. Agreeing with a house rule doesn't change a literal reading of the current text
Text as written says "some value" what do you consider "some" value? because whatever it is then anything below that amount is not some value and can therefore be owned by the monk. So what is it then? does he get a super item and several cheaper but still awesome items or does he get a moderate item and a bunch of mundane stuff? Neither one is very appealing.
I wasn't talking about the maybe. :)
Basically, you get one magic item.So RD's five magic items are not allowed.
Well he doesn't say you get only one magic item, just that you get one :P free item for VOP monks apparently xD
Aha, you are correct! Carry on, RD.
Don't I always, anyways? ;P
This was fun. I still have hopes that I can get him in here to make a comment and maybe consider errating the Vow or something.
FAQ away people! FAQ away!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure maybe denies anything, it actually seems like he realized that that seems like a pretty big flaw but doesn't want to discourage it just yet.
I'm not being "stringent", I'm applying the text as it's written. If you want to drift the rules for your purposes, that's okay, but that's what you're doing. Heck, I might even use your interpretation if I were to run a game of my own. Agreeing with a house rule doesn't change a literal reading of the current textText as written says "some value" what do you consider "some" value? because whatever it is then anything below that amount is not some value and can therefore be owned by the monk. So what is it then? does he get a super item and several cheaper but still awesome items or does he get a moderate item and a bunch of mundane stuff? Neither one is very appealing.
We're given the value, though it is still a little vague.
The monk can never keep more money or wealth on his
person than he needs to feed, bathe, and shelter himself
for 1 week in modest accommodations.
I can see several methods of calculating this.
1. Assuming 4 weeks per month, using the Cost of Living section on page 405 of the core book, we come to a value of 7 SP and 5 CP using the Poor lifestyle, or 2 GP and 5 SP using the Average lifestyle.
2. Assuming 7 days in a week, using the Goods and Services table on page 158-159, we get a total of 5 GP and 6 SP for Common quality inn's and meals or 2 GP and 1 SP for Poor quality.
3. Trail rations for 7 days costs 3 GP and 5 SP.
Using this, the total resale value of the monks worldly possessions should not exceed whichever value is chosen (excluding the 6th item, which need not have it's value checked against this vow).
Edit: Forgot to add 5 sp to each value for a bar of soap. Possession of which, does not count as one of his 5 items, nor his total wealth (assuming he only has 1 weeks worth).
But it says you can't have more wealth than is enough for 1 weeks modest food/lodging/cleanliness. If you have an item in your possession that could be sold that would violate, you violate the vow. The one item that can violate that rule is the 6th item. All others cannot have a resale value over 1 weeks food/lodging/cleanliness.You are being far too stringent in your reading. I may be more open-minded than people are accustomed to, but is being close-minded to the possibility of a better interpretation really going to get you anywhere?
As I've explained above, it's not true wealth if you can't keep the gold you sell it for. The monk is still living in poverty and thus still upholding his vow.
Heck, if he sells it, an adventuring monk will surely die by the end of the week. The vow doesn't support that. It DOES support having enough to survive through the week.
Your interpretation is not better. The game either views things such that either you have the wealth/gold on you or you don't. By your arguement the monk can have 1000000gp but since only 50gp counts he actually only has 50 gp. The rules however don't support that since by that interpretation the vow can never be broken. If the game makes it impossible to break the vow, which it doesn't, then a the challenge of playing with the vow is non-existent. Obviously if you have more gold or wealth than you can use in that week's time the vow is broken. Nothing in the rules even suggest that you can ignore the any amount of wealth you have as pertaining to that one week time period.
Aha, you are correct! Carry on, RD.Don't I always, anyways? ;P
This was fun. I still have hopes that I can get him in here to make a comment and maybe consider errating the Vow or something.
FAQ away people! FAQ away!
Words of advice:If you ever have to do that much twisting to get the rules to work then they probably don't work. Ignoring the magic items that you have, really?
On another note I will hit the FAQ because as written it is pretty bad, and I have no idea of how to make a low magic character work in a high magic game, using rules that are simple anyway.
It says they must be "plain and simple to make."
I don't think a +5 item counts as "simple to make". You need a high level spellcaster to create it.
|
Aha, you are correct! Carry on, RD.Don't I always, anyways? ;P
This was fun. I still have hopes that I can get him in here to make a comment and maybe consider errating the Vow or something.
FAQ away people! FAQ away!
Words of advice:If you ever have to do that much twisting to get the rules to work then they probably don't work. Ignoring the magic items that you have, really?
On another note I will hit the FAQ because as written it is pretty bad, and I have no idea of how to make a low magic character work in a high magic game, using rules that are simple anyway.
I agree with the first part, but not the second.
It is written very clearly, and the developers have explained the intent in multiple threads, saying you can have one magic item.
Some people will always try to find loop holes and GMs who will allow them.
Some people will always think any choice that isn't "optimal" or "exploitable" is wrongbadfun.
Some people like sitting around a table and being excited about all the options that your friends have tried out to create fun characters, while drinking a few beers and laughing.
Table three, please.
It says they must be "plain and simple to make."
I don't think a +5 item counts as "simple to make". You need a high level spellcaster to create it.
Sandals are not hard to make. Bracers are not hard to make. Neither are cloaks, robes, or belts. These are all very plain simple items.
Enchanting something is not the same thing as "making it."
Aha, you are correct! Carry on, RD.Don't I always, anyways? ;P
This was fun. I still have hopes that I can get him in here to make a comment and maybe consider errating the Vow or something.
FAQ away people! FAQ away!
Words of advice:If you ever have to do that much twisting to get the rules to work then they probably don't work. Ignoring the magic items that you have, really?
On another note I will hit the FAQ because as written it is pretty bad, and I have no idea of how to make a low magic character work in a high magic game, using rules that are simple anyway.
I agree with the first part, but not the second.
It is written very clearly, and the developers have explained the intent in multiple threads, saying you can have one magic item.
Some people will always try to find loop holes and GMs who will allow them.
Some people will always think any choice that isn't "optimal" or "exploitable" is wrongbadfun.
Some people like sitting around a table and being excited about all the options that your friends have tried out to create fun characters, while drinking a few beers and laughing.
Table three, please.
I can make the Vow work, but I would have to reedit(houserule) it for every game. It may be impossible to make it worth without houserules, which is what my opinion currently is. In that case there may be no point in errata.
I do think this is an option for advanced players only, simply because many players have trouble running a monk as is.PS: I don't think the issue is with the vow not being optimal. I think it is supposed to be subpar, but I think many people, even the experienced(good) gamers are still worried about survival.