|
Shadow of Death covered all the theme-breaking issues inherent in many of those proposed "roleplaying" solutions that are entirely dependant on a GM accepting a player's proposed houserules already.
The further "solutions" suggesting to just give up the theme or quit the character are not helpful.
The old Vow was not that great in game either, but there is a thread here where posters were working as a group on idea for a better VoW that kept the flavor, but was also safe for a player to take.
Filled with some of the same posters he's chastising for "not roleplaying" at that.
None of these. Monks don't suck, from my experience especially with powergamers. Ravingdork's analysis neatly sidesteps the "balance" that VoP was suppose to provide (again, thanks) and thus my decision.
Ah. So you see monks as somewhat overpowered, and saw the VoP feat as a means of balancing them with the other classes? And once you saw my interpretation, you realized that it wasn't going to fix it like your originally thought it would (either because it allows for six expensive items, or one REALLY expensive item)?
Is that right? If so, then that makes sense (though you are SO in the minority with that opinion).
I have seen them(3.5 VoP) fail twice. My next game with be another step down in power level though, and I am sure he will try it again. I might get a pleasant surprise, but I doubt it, not without some serious min-maxing anyway.
The original enabled play a monk with an actual vow of poverty and a reasonably functional one.
The current one, at most, only does one or the other.
Damn shame one has to minmax to make the concept work. Best of luck to him, he's going to need it. :(
To be clear my games are not over the top, but it takes more than stats which is basically all that VoP gives to make it in my games. I provide several different encounters(not always combat), and with a lack of magic items to provide options such as flight things may be harder in many situations.
None of these. Monks don't suck, from my experience especially with powergamers. Ravingdork's analysis neatly sidesteps the "balance" that VoP was suppose to provide (again, thanks) and thus my decision.What's the confusion? I'm banning VoP from my campaign based on Ravingdork's post.I am confused.Yup. Again, 'ppreciate the head's up.Thank you for this post. Vow of Poverty will get banned from my game.Wait. What? It's getting banned BECAUSE of my post? *confused*The post where we provided evidence that the vow sucks and he can't have a lot of magic items or the post where RD says you can have magic items, but was inaccurate?
Darn I worded that badly.
Is it because you did not catch the part where we show the monk will suck, and you did not like the idea of a monk with magic items or is it because the monk will suck and you don't want a player at the table that far behind the curve.
So to break this down some more if an ability can be sidestepped it is an issue.
I only ask because I don't know of too many rules that can't be sidestepped.I am still confused by the vagueness of this reply if it was not the one(post) that misinterpreted the ability.
If you have to break it down like you are talking to a 5 year old that is ok. I won't feel insulted.
PS: I don't care about you not allowing the ability. I will not allow it as written either.
|
|
I think he's saying that since the UM VoP is still possible to abuse(albiet through wordplay bordering on devilry) he's shutting it down. I thiok. ;)
To be clear my games are not over the top, but it takes more than stats which is basically all that VoP gives to make it in my games. I provide several different encounters(not always combat), and with a lack of magic items to provide options such as flight things may be harder in many situations.
Oh no, I wasn't meaning to criticize the GMing, just hte general state of monks, and that theme in particular.
And +1 on the subject of flight. Doubly so when monks finally get an awesome ability to take on flyers via the Qinggong monk. Until you realize that the ability is evil only for no sensible reason at all. >:(
Shadow of Death covered all the theme-breaking issues inherent in many of those proposed "roleplaying" solutions that are entirely dependant on a GM accepting a player's proposed houserules already.
The further "solutions" suggesting to just give up the theme or quit the character are not helpful.
The old Vow was not that great in game either, but there is a thread here where posters were working as a group on idea for a better VoW that kept the flavor, but was also safe for a player to take.Filled with some of the same posters he's chastising for "not roleplaying" at that.
Holy crap someone read my posts.... sorry just like being acknowledged sometimes.
Really though I think the best argument would be to take it the other way. This is extremely underpowered and will screw with the balance of the game, but apparently it being flavorful makes it okay. Well then what if I take a vow of mass wealth? I have to have twice my WBL each level, a new plot of land each level and carry other peoples valuables when able. This is the opposite end of the spectrum and still a good role-playing idea(this monk wants to experience wealth for all those that can't) I get 2 less ki per level for being less focused on inner strength but gain gold equal to WBL each level. overpowered? yes, will it mess with the balance of the game (hint hint) yes, just as flavorful? yes, would the proponents for the VOP allow it? my guess is no, feel free to say otherwise. :)
I think he's saying that since the UM VoP is still possible to abuse(albiet through wordplay bordering on devilry) he's shutting it down. I thiok. ;)
To be clear my games are not over the top, but it takes more than stats which is basically all that VoP gives to make it in my games. I provide several different encounters(not always combat), and with a lack of magic items to provide options such as flight things may be harder in many situations.Oh no, I wasn't meaning to criticize the GMing, just hte general state of monks, and that theme in particular.
And +1 on the subject of flight. Doubly so when monks finally get an awesome ability to take on flyers via the Qinggong monk. Until you realize that the ability is evil only for no sensible reason at all. >:(
Are you talking about "Blood Crow Strike"? I like this one, but it is evil for some reason. I have not found an evil flying spell that allows flight yet, but actual flight is what I was talking about in my last post.
|
|
Are you talking about "Blood Crow Strike"? I like this one, but it is evil for some reason. I have not found an evil flying spell that allows flight yet, but actual flight is what I was talking about in my last post.
Yep, that's the one. I was thinking more in terms of countering flight at the time. Hopefully if a an actual flying ki power is made available in Ultimate Combat it won't be evil. ;)
None of these. Monks don't suck, from my experience especially with powergamers. Ravingdork's analysis neatly sidesteps the "balance" that VoP was suppose to provide (again, thanks) and thus my decision.
Except his analysis is wrong. There are several posts already in this thread that use logic to show he was ignoring parts of the feat.
|
|
Really though I think the best argument would be to take it the other way. This is extremely underpowered and will screw with the balance of the game, but apparently it being flavorful makes it okay. Well then what if I take a vow of mass wealth? I have to have twice my WBL each level, a new plot of land each level and carry other peoples valuables when able. This is the opposite end of the spectrum and still a good role-playing idea(this monk wants to experience wealth for all those that can't) I get 2 less ki per level for being less focused on inner strength but gain gold equal to WBL each level. overpowered? yes, will it mess with the balance of the game (hint hint) yes, just as flavorful? yes, would the proponents for the VOP allow it? my guess is no, feel free to say otherwise. :)
It might be a bit unbalancing but I'm sure it could be handled through roleplaying.
Except his analysis is wrong. There are several posts already in this thread that use logic to show he was ignoring parts of the feat.
None of these. Monks don't suck, from my experience especially with powergamers. Ravingdork's analysis neatly sidesteps the "balance" that VoP was suppose to provide (again, thanks) and thus my decision.
Joela is not explaining in detail which of RD's post he is talking about and how the balance thing affected him. Something can be unbalanced in either direction, overpowered or nigh useless.
Wraithstike, I think it is the current claim your "one" item can cost more then most kingdoms. For exsample take all the big six and put them in one item {at a cost thats mind boggling" And still insanely claim you still have the vow. Even if your one item is worth more then the whole of your orders wealth.
My reaction to the first post is that that I think that I'm almost certain that simple magic items was not the original intent of the vow of poverty ability. I'm not certain that interpretation makes it overpowered though and even it were I wouldn't argue with someone just for ruling it that way in their game.
What's the confusion? I'm banning VoP from my campaign based on Ravingdork's post.I am confused.Yup. Again, 'ppreciate the head's up.Thank you for this post. Vow of Poverty will get banned from my game.Wait. What? It's getting banned BECAUSE of my post? *confused*
The confusion I have is that (considering your post as serious) upon seeing the argument that magic items could arguably qualify as simple items for the vow of poverty, that you banned it from all future games even if that player was not going to attempt what Ravingdork suggested. It seems like the reason for banning the vow is because someone might have tried to make make this argument to you as a GM.
I understand banning something if you feel the wording is overpowered, because the wording is so vague to make it unclear how it actually work, or even just because you feel like it. I'm fine with you banning it in your game, it is your prerogative to do so, but I don't understand banning it because of Ravingdork's post.
|
|
Wraithstike, I think it is the current claim your "one" item can cost more then most kingdoms. For exsample take all the big six and put them in one item {at a cost thats mind boggling" And still insanely claim you still have the vow. Even if your one item is worth more then the whole of your orders wealth.
Admittedly "Vow of Hypocrisy" doesn't have much of a heroic vibe, so one can understand the name change.
The thing about this thread that concerns me is the use of the FAQ button. Here it seems to be used as a sort of "like" or "poke the developers" button instead of actually noting something that would be answered by a FAQ. There was a recent post by James Jacobs that mentioned something like this. I think it is fine and good for people to FAQ a post because that is a question that they think should be answered, but I don't believe that it helps the system if it is used to mark things in the game that people want changed.
Wraithstike, I think it is the current claim your "one" item can cost more then most kingdoms. For exsample take all the big six and put them in one item {at a cost thats mind boggling" And still insanely claim you still have the vow. Even if your one item is worth more then the whole of your orders wealth.
By the rules you can only get items from the book. Any custom item must be GM approved. If the GM allows any item that causes trouble the monk is not the issue. They also need the gold to create/buy the item.
I think you agree, but I just wanted to point it out if that is the case for others.
The thing about this thread that concerns me is the use of the FAQ button. Here it seems to be used as a sort of "like" or "poke the developers" button instead of actually noting something that would be answered by a FAQ. There was a recent post by James Jacobs that mentioned something like this. I think it is fine and good for people to FAQ a post because that is a question that they think should be answered, but I don't believe that it helps the system if it is used to mark things in the game that people want changed.
I said I would hit the button, but I never did. I see no reason too. I think trying to push the devs to change a rule by using the FAQ is a bad precedent even if I don't like the rule.
Wraithstike, I think it is the current claim your "one" item can cost more then most kingdoms. For exsample take all the big six and put them in one item {at a cost thats mind boggling" And still insanely claim you still have the vow. Even if your one item is worth more then the whole of your orders wealth.
No, RD's original claim was that he could have all 6 items be separate, as long as they had descriptions that they were plain and simple. Like a hemp rope belt... that's enchanted by be a belt of physical perfection +6, while also wearing a piece of wood with a string tied too it (amulet of mighty fists +5) at the same time.
RD's claim (incorrectly) was that because the items had plain and simple descriptions, they got around the ban on expensive items.
|
|
Did hit the button, wish I hadn't. Was frustrated on this and other monk issues(evil-only monk powers).
Didn't even want the OP change, as it betrays the flavor of the vow as much as the original text in UM, but I was hoping for anything to get the devs to consider that maybe the upset over this subject was worth thinking about rather than writing it off and continuing to shortchange the monk.
Erik did say the developers know that people are frustrated though. I'm just praying that they really give it their all in Ultimate Combat and don't do things like what happened with Blood Crow Strike or the Vow of Poverty and maybe actually make monks easier to build around a theme and do well rather than having to build around optimized mechanics(which some people like, but I hate being forced to do it).
And maybe see about making sure there are Good options available to monks when the only aligned ones in UM are Evil. For some reason.
Heck, VoP isn't the only Vow with problems. Vow of Celibacy doesn't allow you to tend to wounds, drag people out of burning buildings, or grab falling allies. That could have easily been handled with some clearer language, but at least the only GMs that would punish a VoC monk for doing those would be the ones that are actively out to screw the players anyway.
|
Please stop lying.
There's no such thing as a gamer that doesn't optimize. It's an urban myth.Have you ever had your character take Weapon Focus for the weapon he favors? That's optimizing.
Any time you make a choice that increases your characters effectiveness, you're optimizing him. Be it taking Weapon Finesse for a Dex-based character, or making sure you have a high enough stat to cast your spells. That's optimizing.
So he is not lying. You are, unless you have never done anything to improve your character's chances for survival.
Optimisers are folks who think in terms of cookie cutter builds who won't deviate one iota from a Treantmonk guide for the sake of a character concept, who dismiss out of hand, halfling wizards, dwarf paladins because one weakness makes the character "epic fail." And considering how you bend rules until they scream, or sometimes just break them altogether. your standards of definition are suspect.Please stop lying.
There's no such thing as a gamer that doesn't optimize. It's an urban myth.Oh come on!
If you play a fighter and you choose a longsword over a dagger, if you don't put all your feats into skill feats, OR if you put any of your three highest ability scores into Str, Dex, or Con...
Guess what?
YOU'RE OPTIMIZING!
Unless you are deliberately picking ALL of the worst choices in some weird attempt to make a point on the web, you will ALWAYS optimize your character in some way, even if you don't realize it.
I simply CAN'T STAND people who claim to not be optimizers and then get all holier than thou because they are "real ROLEplayers."
*rolls eyes and spits in disgust*
I don't play with THOSE people.* This game is about having fun, not looking down upon your fellow players.
* Not that this applies to any of the people here, I'm just raving in the most general of terms.
Bull. Everyone optimizes their character because it's stupid not to. It's even antithema to your precious, above-all-else roleplaying. Why the frack does a dagger-only wielding, longsword disarming specialist exist? You are useless. Why would ENTIRELY incompetent characters go adventuring or even make themselves that damn incompetent in the first place? It places the hardcore optimizers as better role-players than the hardcore role-players.
|
|
Optimisers are folks who think in terms of cookie cutter builds who won't deviate one iota from a Treantmonk guide for the sake of a character concept, who dismiss out of hand, halfling wizards, dwarf paladins because one weakness makes the character "epic fail." And considering how you bend rules until they scream, or sometimes just break them altogether. your standards of definition are suspect.
I find your sweeping generalizations and mischaracterizations just as suspect.
So if you deviate one iota from an optimising guide, you're "entirely incompetent"? Sorry all you Dwarf Paladins,...
Yes, Captain Facetious, Dwarf Paladins with 8 Charisma and 10 Wisdom are bad Paladins, and Halfling Wizards with 9 Int in Heavy Armor with a Pike are bad Wizards, and Elf fighters with 12 Str and 12 Dex and only wield Daggers while being disarming specialists are bad Fighters.
All magical items are masterwork. Even if your "simple" garb looks in tatters, it's still masterwork. so.....
Did hit the button, wish I hadn't. Was frustrated on this and other monk issues(evil-only monk powers).
Didn't even want the OP change, as it betrays the flavor of the vow as much as the original text in UM, but I was hoping for anything to get the devs to consider that maybe the upset over this subject was worth thinking about rather than writing it off and continuing to shortchange the monk.
Erik did say the developers know that people are frustrated though. I'm just praying that they really give it their all in Ultimate Combat and don't do things like what happened with Blood Crow Strike or the Vow of Poverty and maybe actually make monks easier to build around a theme and do well rather than having to build around optimized mechanics(which some people like, but I hate being forced to do it).
And maybe see about making sure there are Good options available to monks when the only aligned ones in UM are Evil. For some reason.
Heck, VoP isn't the only Vow with problems. Vow of Celibacy doesn't allow you to tend to wounds, drag people out of burning buildings, or grab falling allies. That could have easily been handled with some clearer language, but at least the only GMs that would punish a VoC monk for doing those would be the ones that are actively out to screw the players anyway.
Vow of Celibacy sucks also. It immediately caught my eye and got put on the "will not ever take" list.
Optimisers are folks who think in terms of cookie cutter builds who won't deviate one iota from a Treantmonk guide for the sake of a character concept, who dismiss out of hand, halfling wizards, dwarf paladins because one weakness makes the character "epic fail." And considering how you bend rules until they scream, or sometimes just break them altogether. your standards of definition are suspect.
That is not optimizing. Well it is, but to be more accurate it is min-maxing(optimizing to an extreme), which is normally done without regard for character concept.
When a player twist words to mean something different that is being a munchkin.
Monks don't suck, from my experience especially with powergamers.
What sort of amazing house rules do you let these "powergamers" get away with?
Because monks OBJECTIVELY suck. They're one of the most mind-meltingly MAD classes and their main combat schticks are non-synergistic. Other classes can generally pull off whatever you want to pull off with the monk better than the monk can.
I would love to see an actual example (even one) that shows otherwise, in anything other than a MASSIVELY, system-warpingly house-ruled game.
Vow of Celibacy sucks also. It immediately caught my eye and got put on the "will not ever take" list.Did hit the button, wish I hadn't. Was frustrated on this and other monk issues(evil-only monk powers).
Didn't even want the OP change, as it betrays the flavor of the vow as much as the original text in UM, but I was hoping for anything to get the devs to consider that maybe the upset over this subject was worth thinking about rather than writing it off and continuing to shortchange the monk.
Erik did say the developers know that people are frustrated though. I'm just praying that they really give it their all in Ultimate Combat and don't do things like what happened with Blood Crow Strike or the Vow of Poverty and maybe actually make monks easier to build around a theme and do well rather than having to build around optimized mechanics(which some people like, but I hate being forced to do it).
And maybe see about making sure there are Good options available to monks when the only aligned ones in UM are Evil. For some reason.
Heck, VoP isn't the only Vow with problems. Vow of Celibacy doesn't allow you to tend to wounds, drag people out of burning buildings, or grab falling allies. That could have easily been handled with some clearer language, but at least the only GMs that would punish a VoC monk for doing those would be the ones that are actively out to screw the players anyway.
Not receiving touch spells from companions is rough too. The party cleric could never cast a Cure [blank] Wounds, Remove [Blank], Restoration or Heal on you without breaking it.
As much as I would like to see VoP re-written, or rather, all the vows improved, and separate mechanics added that allow for less dependance on equipment, I don't think this is the way to do it.
Not everything in this game needs to be defined in legalise. If you don't like a rule or whatever, just CHANGE IT. Don't twist and mis-interpret it and pretend that words don't have meaning. I want a more enjoyable interesting and balanced game, not one that is half glossary to prevent abuse. [NOTE: If you want to see how over-obsessing on words can destroy a book, look at "Twist of the wrist 2" by Wayne Rainy. I want to slam my head in a car door just thinking about it!]
PS, VoP above all else should make you POOR!!! None of this single item worth 500,000 gp BS. There is enough real-world info on such vows and folks who follow them that we can get this right without stupid loopholes or bazzaro interpretations. "I don't have a million GP, I just have a bank note that says they are holding it in my name, but it is only a simple piece of paper."
It really should have been thought out better. It's just too weak overall to make it useful in most situations. Relative balance is important. Vow of poverty doesn't have to wow the world of it's brokenness, but it shouldn't be laughed at how weak it is. Once again, we do not need hard rules for RP. This being a "RP" tool is just a poor excuse. Not to mention, the poverty part of the fluff allows 1 single insanely expensive item. How is that helping RP at all?
I wonder why these vows were not setup as archetypes instead. Monks can take multiple vows, but they only lose Still Mind. By allowing the vows to replace different class features, it helps balance out immensely.
You should take into consideration that no sane powergamer or optimizer will select this Vow as a character option. No sane person that calls himself a roleplayer will wear the 500,000 gp worth Royal Crown of King Tut just because he happened to find it.
The character might use a powerful artifact bestowed upon him by his church to stop an ancient evil from awakening and tearing apart the world. As I see it that single allowance in the description gives some room for roleplay when used by a roleplayer or as a balancing tool by the GM. I as a GM would consider giving the party optional rewards that do not directly violate the monks Vow.possibly :
- A single celestial artifact which might grow in power as the campaign advances.
- As a reward the monk is granted a special power or bonus feat, possibly in the form of divine knowledge.
- the monk is gifted with an enchanted tattoo, in my opinion thiis will keep the character concept intact, or could function as his single allowed item, possibly the monastary will grant him additional tattoos as his insights and mastery of ki continues to grow.
- Tomes and such might be ruled to bearers of knowledge rather than true material value
Optimisers are folks who think in terms of cookie cutter builds who won't deviate one iota from a Treantmonk guide for the sake of a character concept, who dismiss out of hand, halfling wizards, dwarf paladins because one weakness makes the character "epic fail." And considering how you bend rules until they scream, or sometimes just break them altogether. your standards of definition are suspect.
"Optimizer" is a far broader term than you suspect. For one thing, it is the norm for roleplayers, and is NOT a derogatory term as you seem to imply.
All magical items are masterwork. Even if your "simple" garb looks in tatters, it's still masterwork. so.....
Prove it. With the exception of weapons, armor, and shields, I can't seem to find where your statement is supported ANYWHERE in the rules. Furthermore, there is evidence to the contrary all over the place in the form of simple robes or rustic/simple looking gear that are nevertheless highly magical.
I vote we set up a "standard"
Role player: Somebody who is interested in the game beyond hack n' slash, has nothing to do with character strengths or weaknesses.
Optimizer: Someone who develops average strength characters, as opposed to someone who creates significantly weaker characters (full plate wizard with 12 int, 10 str, dex and con fighters, etc) or significantly stronger than necessary characters.
Min Maxer: Someone who develops characters at a greater than necessary power level within the rules.
Munchkin: Someone who will twist or bends the rules to make the strongest possible character.
Anything else? Can we agree on the definitions?
Optimisers are folks who think in terms of cookie cutter builds who won't deviate one iota from a Treantmonk guide for the sake of a character concept, who dismiss out of hand, halfling wizards, dwarf paladins because one weakness makes the character "epic fail." And considering how you bend rules until they scream, or sometimes just break them altogether. your standards of definition are suspect."Optimizer" is a far broader term than you suspect. For one thing, it is the norm for roleplayers, and is NOT a derogatory term as you seem to imply.
All magical items are masterwork. Even if your "simple" garb looks in tatters, it's still masterwork. so.....Prove it. With the exception of weapons, armor, and shields, I can't seem to find where your statement is supported ANYWHERE in the rules. Furthermore, there is evidence to the contrary all over the place in the form of simple robes or rustic/simple looking gear that are nevertheless highly magical.
You probably meant to say it is the norm for Pathfinder/D&D players, which by the norm do not roleplay alot compared to actual roleplayers. Besides that I also disagree a bit, a certain ammount of optimization and specialization is the norm, optimizers usually try to push past the norm to be more effective than the norm, a step further down that road you find powergamers and munchkins. I consider you to be closer to the latter group than the former, though few people would think of themselves in that way.
It is funny to see threads I would usually discount as trolling to get this many replies, kudos RD apparently you know how to strike a nerve with the gamerpopulation on this forum.
I vote we set up a "standard"
Role player: Somebody who is interested in the game beyond hack n' slash, has nothing to do with character strengths or weaknesses.Optimizer: Someone who develops average strength characters, as opposed to someone who creates significantly weaker characters (full plate wizard with 12 int, 10 str, dex and con fighters, etc) or significantly stronger than necessary characters.
Min Maxer: Someone who develops characters at a greater than necessary power level within the rules.
Munchkin: Someone who will twist or bends the rules to make the strongest possible character.
Anything else? Can we agree on the definitions?
By these standards it seems I have a mildly munchkin presence on these boards (in that most of my munchkin tendencies are in theory only), but I'm actually a min/maxer in actual play (in real life).
Optimisers are folks who think in terms of cookie cutter builds who won't deviate one iota from a Treantmonk guide for the sake of a character concept, who dismiss out of hand, halfling wizards, dwarf paladins because one weakness makes the character "epic fail." And considering how you bend rules until they scream, or sometimes just break them altogether. your standards of definition are suspect."Optimizer" is a far broader term than you suspect. For one thing, it is the norm for roleplayers, and is NOT a derogatory term as you seem to imply.
All magical items are masterwork. Even if your "simple" garb looks in tatters, it's still masterwork. so.....Prove it. With the exception of weapons, armor, and shields, I can't seem to find where your statement is supported ANYWHERE in the rules. Furthermore, there is evidence to the contrary all over the place in the form of simple robes or rustic/simple looking gear that are nevertheless highly magical.
Reread and satisfied. You are correct, even staves do not show up as being inherently masterwork. However, I would state that since most/all of the items you listed were under the *wondrous* items section--which are not simple/mundane-- and require extensive effort that goes beyond it's physical make-up to attain the enhancements that they impart, they still do not work for your interpretation of the Vow. If you want to argue with that any more, I'm not sure I have the energy to entertain it.
Personally, I have nothing against optimization at all, and I would agree with assessment that, to some extent, most people do optimize (if the definition is followed strictly). I do think that there is a difference between the broad optimization of which you speak, and the suspect optimization that casual-play-style players cry-foul against.
Also (these are my views):
Build that does it's job without any real connection between feat-choice and build-structure (perhaps crippled): Gimp-build to sub-optimal build.
Build that does it's job while suffering minimal losses overall, choosing dynamic feats that are inherent to the whole of the build. Synergetic: Optimized build
Build that disturbs the balance of play: Munchkin.
Edit: Role-players can be optimizers. Some people just want to be the best at what they do.
I vote we set up a "standard"
Role player: Somebody who is interested in the game beyond hack n' slash, has nothing to do with character strengths or weaknesses.Optimizer: Someone who develops average strength characters, as opposed to someone who creates significantly weaker characters (full plate wizard with 12 int, 10 str, dex and con fighters, etc) or significantly stronger than necessary characters.
Min Maxer: Someone who develops characters at a greater than necessary power level within the rules.
Munchkin: Someone who will twist or bends the rules to make the strongest possible character.
Anything else? Can we agree on the definitions?
RPing and optimizing can fit one player so I don't agree. The min max one is not accurate either to me. The munchkin one seems to fit though.
RPing and optimizing can fit one player so I don't agree. The min max one is not accurate either to me. The munchkin one seems to fit though.I vote we set up a "standard"
Role player: Somebody who is interested in the game beyond hack n' slash, has nothing to do with character strengths or weaknesses.Optimizer: Someone who develops average strength characters, as opposed to someone who creates significantly weaker characters (full plate wizard with 12 int, 10 str, dex and con fighters, etc) or significantly stronger than necessary characters.
Min Maxer: Someone who develops characters at a greater than necessary power level within the rules.
Munchkin: Someone who will twist or bends the rules to make the strongest possible character.
Anything else? Can we agree on the definitions?
What do you mean? my definition of Role player could be combined with any of them, anyone interested in roleplaying, as opposed to one who just plays to kill stuff, is a role player.
Monks don't suck, from my experience especially with powergamers.What sort of amazing house rules do you let these "powergamers" get away with?
Because monks OBJECTIVELY suck. They're one of the most mind-meltingly MAD classes and their main combat schticks are non-synergistic. Other classes can generally pull off whatever you want to pull off with the monk better than the monk can.
I would love to see an actual example (even one) that shows otherwise, in anything other than a MASSIVELY, system-warpingly house-ruled game.
Get yourself a guided weapon. Now you can dump into wisdom. Next take the Drunken Master and Weapon Adept archetypes which can both be taken together. Next get a handy haversack with a massive supply of whiskey or some other hard liquor stored in unbreakable containers. With the alcohol, your drunken master is now guaranteed an extra attack nearly every time he uses his flurry of blows with his drunken ki abilities. By 8th level you are getting 5 attacks per round every time you flurry using your wisdom bonus to hit and for damage. Weapon adept is gravy giving you weapon focus, weapon specialization and perfect strike all by 6th level.
I think you need to rephrase that to "Because most monks OBJECTIVELY suck, but not all."
|
Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Not a fan of the original and the new one sounds even worse. Strictly as a RP versus hack and slash, this feat gives me less reason to take it than nearly every other feat. I agree keeping a monk to some honor code is an interesting ST tactic, but wasting a feat especially one so easily and completely destroyed? Instead of encouraging RP this discourages it. Once this feat gets in the way of survival, no one will keep to the mundane rules. Any RP knows that by design, taking feats items skills that make it a lot more likely that you will die just doesn't make sense, since you want to live to be able to RP
The OP's answer may not follow the strictest rule interp but it provides the flexibility those of us who typically are more RP will enjoy.
The weapon part is correct since simple is a coded word taken from the weapons section. A club is a simple weapon even if it is magical. Plain is a somewhat coded word but really it's definition means unadorned or unassuming. being better designed does not make it prettier or adorned. A prison typically is one of the best most securely designed buildings but it has a simple structure and they are typically plain. Yet they are also one of the most expensive buildings to make. I'd argue certain items have an intrinsic adornment value namely all accessories which is synonymous with adornment. necklaces rings etc are not allowed, neither would I say are bracers. pretty much anything that requires casting, special sewing (leather armor) or requires expensive materials to make into the magical form should be avoided
It should be pointed out here that a week of survival should be averaged over a year since costs will rise and fall. Also modest accommodation did not suggest strictly rental. What if you bought a modest cottage? Costs should be averaged over the year again.
I think for story purposes you should just think about the vow of poverty in fiction, myth and historic figures from the RW. Medieval monks with that vow would typically still own a horse or horse and cart, carry a relic and when necessary wield weapons. The Chinese poverty Warriors would carry relic weapons, wear their pajamas around that were passed down through family's (more relics) and use only items discarded by others. The Aesthetics would carry books and paper and ink. The Greek poverty owners would use anything communally but did not assign ownership. This could work if the party treated the monk like a pack mule.
So i'd do it this way
weapons up to masterwork as long as they were simple (but no magical unless as the exception)
garb simple and plain even magical as long as they were not overly worked (functionally this eliminates all armor but allows robes).
sandles (no shoes or boots) magical accepted
utensils etc magical as long as they retain the basic function, like a bowl of water control is not acceptable but a bowl with a never ending supply of food would be fine.
The point is that magic items should only be made GP value greater because of the spells placed on them not because of initial design as long as those spells are allowable.
What do you mean? my definition of Role player could be combined with any of them, anyone interested in roleplaying, as opposed to one who just plays to kill stuff, is a role player.RPing and optimizing can fit one player so I don't agree. The min max one is not accurate either to me. The munchkin one seems to fit though.I vote we set up a "standard"
Role player: Somebody who is interested in the game beyond hack n' slash, has nothing to do with character strengths or weaknesses.Optimizer: Someone who develops average strength characters, as opposed to someone who creates significantly weaker characters (full plate wizard with 12 int, 10 str, dex and con fighters, etc) or significantly stronger than necessary characters.
Min Maxer: Someone who develops characters at a greater than necessary power level within the rules.
Munchkin: Someone who will twist or bends the rules to make the strongest possible character.
Anything else? Can we agree on the definitions?
I misunderstood you.
I would change the min max one to someone who dumps unneeded stats to the extreme a GM will allow in order to boost the primary stat(s).
What do you mean? my definition of Role player could be combined with any of them, anyone interested in roleplaying, as opposed to one who just plays to kill stuff, is a role player.RPing and optimizing can fit one player so I don't agree. The min max one is not accurate either to me. The munchkin one seems to fit though.I vote we set up a "standard"
Role player: Somebody who is interested in the game beyond hack n' slash, has nothing to do with character strengths or weaknesses.Optimizer: Someone who develops average strength characters, as opposed to someone who creates significantly weaker characters (full plate wizard with 12 int, 10 str, dex and con fighters, etc) or significantly stronger than necessary characters.
Min Maxer: Someone who develops characters at a greater than necessary power level within the rules.
Munchkin: Someone who will twist or bends the rules to make the strongest possible character.
Anything else? Can we agree on the definitions?
I misunderstood you.
I would change the min max one to someone who dumps unneeded stats to the extreme a GM will allow in order to boost the primary stat(s).
That is kinda what I meant, guess I need to phrase it differently. maybe separate it into :
Min-maxer: someone who dumps unneeded stats to the extreme a GM will allow in order to boost the primary stat(s)Power gamer: someone who optimizes to a much greater extent than necessary to fulfill their role.
And +1 on the subject of flight. Doubly so when monks finally get an awesome ability to take on flyers via the Qinggong monk. Until you realize that the ability is evil only for no sensible reason at all. >:(
Scorching ray is evil? (at 4th level)
ki arrow is evil? (at 4th level...though true technicaly a VoP monk probably could not be a Zen Archer without somebody handling him arrows)
Hydraulic torrent is evil? (at 6th level)
Dragon Beath is evil? (at 8th level)
Discordant Blast is evil? (at 10th level)
Spit Venom is evil? (at 10th level)
Blood Crow strike is evil....but they get 6 things before that can deal w/ fliers.
I'd consider weapon and ammo to be one item for the purposes of the vow. Only one thing would be enchanted though...
I'd consider weapon and ammo to be one item. Only one thing would be enchanted though...
If somebody in my game wanted to play a Zen archer VoP monk I would make the same ruling. But it technicaly goes against RAW.
Well, technically you can't be a Zen Archer and take Vows asn an option RAW either, since the Zen Archer replaces Still Mind with Point Blank Master already.
|
What do you mean? my definition of Role player could be combined with any of them, anyone interested in roleplaying, as opposed to one who just plays to kill stuff, is a role player.RPing and optimizing can fit one player so I don't agree. The min max one is not accurate either to me. The munchkin one seems to fit though.I vote we set up a "standard"
Role player: Somebody who is interested in the game beyond hack n' slash, has nothing to do with character strengths or weaknesses.Optimizer: Someone who develops average strength characters, as opposed to someone who creates significantly weaker characters (full plate wizard with 12 int, 10 str, dex and con fighters, etc) or significantly stronger than necessary characters.
Min Maxer: Someone who develops characters at a greater than necessary power level within the rules.
Munchkin: Someone who will twist or bends the rules to make the strongest possible character.
Anything else? Can we agree on the definitions?
I misunderstood you.
I would change the min max one to someone who dumps unneeded stats to the extreme a GM will allow in order to boost the primary stat(s).That is kinda what I meant, guess I need to phrase it differently. maybe separate it into :
Min-maxer: someone who dumps unneeded stats to the extreme a GM will allow in order to boost the primary stat(s)Power gamer: someone who optimizes to a much greater extent than necessary to fulfill their role.
How about a category for the "roleplayer" that purposely makes a crippled character (figuratively or literally) because of the 'roleplaying opportunities'? The player that will intentionally take all of the rp-only options for a character, who will shun weapons/armor/items for flavor, and will scoff at such things as tactics. Then they will denounce you as a rollplayer/munchkin/minmaxer/powergamer because you choose to create a character that is effective? I call this the RP Snob
/rant
Sorry, I just get tired of the elitist attitude of some people (not you, or any of the others quoted) because I choose to build a character and then develop a roleplaying experience around it, rather than choosing to drag down a party by playing something like a Bard with 20 wisdom and 10 (or less) for all other stats because it is a "roleplaying challenge".
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.
Level 1 commoners manage to live full lives without the benefit of powerful magical equipment. The monk might not be able to survive level-appropriate challenges, but he can certainly survive without his magical items.