In the end, however, would anyone say a club isn't simple (even a masterwork one)?
Me. I also would say that a +5 mighty cleaving, ki focus, dragonbane, club of wounding is NOT a simple item, even if it just looks like a stick (and yes, I picked powers with no obvious visual signs).
Simple, to me, means "a commoner could make it." Commoners make sandles. They make robes, bowls, sacks, blankets, etc. But they don't make sandles that are +5 to dodging anything, including the intent of rules.
|
In the end, however, would anyone say a club isn't simple (even a masterwork one)?
Simple is not in regards to its function, but of its manufacture. An elven curved blade could be simply made and unremarkable (normal) or it could be ornate and made with the finest steel (masterwork), just as a club could be something you found on the ground (normal) or it could be crafted from fine hardwood that is much stronger than normal (masterwork). In the end, no amount of wording will rid the game completely of rule wording semantics that move things FAR beyond intent.
Level 1 Commoners aren't adventuring all week.
The monk does not need to, either.
What a monk needs to "feed, bathe, and shelter" herself for one week does not scale with the level of challenges she chooses to face willingly.
|
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
/rantSorry, 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".
I find this funny because in my experience it's exactly the opposite.
The people who pick options for their characters based on RP decisions are what I call "Normal Gamers". I would say the majority of the people I play with are that way in fact. They don't 'deliberately' pick bad options, they just don't do in depth analysis of the relative merits of all the options.
So they make a sorcerer who takes Weapon Proficiency (longsword), and Weapon Focus (longsword) because they want a character who is like Gandolf, or they do a hundred other weird things. They aren't being snobs about it, they are just doing what they think makes their characters more like the way their see their character in their head.
They are not being "Role Playing Snobs", they are just normal people who are making choices based on their characters. I'm sure there are some Role Playing Snobs out there but from what I've seen there are far more elitist power gamers who complain about other people making ineffective characters than "Role Playing Snobs".
|
|
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
/rantSorry, 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".
I find this funny because in my experience it's exactly the opposite.
The people who pick options for their characters based on RP decisions are what I call "Normal Gamers". I would say the majority of the people I play with are that way in fact. They don't 'deliberately' pick bad options, they just don't do in depth analysis of the relative merits of all the options.
So they make a sorcerer who takes Weapon Proficiency (longsword), and Weapon Focus (longsword) because they want a character who is like Gandolf, or they do a hundred other weird things. They aren't being snobs about it, they are just doing what they think makes their characters more like the way their see their character in their head.
They are not being "Role Playing Snobs", they are just normal people who are making choices based on their characters. I'm sure there are some Role Playing Snobs out there but from what I've seen there are far more elitist power gamers who complain about other people making ineffective characters than "Role Playing Snobs".
+1 to this!
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
/rantSorry, 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".
I find this funny because in my experience it's exactly the opposite.
The people who pick options for their characters based on RP decisions are what I call "Normal Gamers". I would say the majority of the people I play with are that way in fact. They don't 'deliberately' pick bad options, they just don't do in depth analysis of the relative merits of all the options.
So they make a sorcerer who takes Weapon Proficiency (longsword), and Weapon Focus (longsword) because they want a character who is like Gandolf, or they do a hundred other weird things. They aren't being snobs about it, they are just doing what they think makes their characters more like the way their see their character in their head.
They are not being "Role Playing Snobs", they are just normal people who are making choices based on their characters. I'm sure there are some Role Playing Snobs out there but from what I've seen there are far more elitist power gamers who complain about other people making ineffective characters than "Role Playing Snobs".
+1 to this.
I looked at Vow of Poverty.
I think it is weak, but I think that the design is a step in the right direction. They don't give you something that replaces all of your wealth. Extra ki is cool. If I ran it in my game, I'd make it a lot more extra ki though. 4 points more at 8th level isn't really enough to make up for having no (or one) magic item.
Ravingdork's suggestion here, is of course absurd. Sporting 'plain' looking items worth a king's fortune is nonsense and utterly against the spirit, if not the outright wording, of the rules. It needs no errata to be fixed, it just needs one to make a bare minimum of a reasonable attempt to decipher the intent rather than performing linguistic gymnastics all over them, or possibly medication.
I looked at Vow of Poverty.
I think it is weak, but I think that the design is a step in the right direction. They don't give you something that replaces all of your wealth. Extra ki is cool. If I ran it in my game, I'd make it a lot more extra ki though. 4 points more at 8th level isn't really enough to make up for having no (or one) magic item.
Ravingdork's suggestion here, is of course absurd. Sporting 'plain' looking items worth a king's fortune is nonsense and utterly against the spirit, if not the outright wording, of the rules. It needs no errata to be fixed, it just needs one to make a bare minimum of a reasonable attempt to decipher the intent rather than performing linguistic gymnastics all over them, or possibly medication.
If you hadn't noticed your already aloud one item worth a kings fortune even without this interpretation. The vow breaks its own concept, and sucks mechanically. Where's the benefit?
If you hadn't noticed your already aloud one item worth a kings fortune even without this interpretation. The vow breaks its own concept, and sucks mechanically. Where's the benefit?I looked at Vow of Poverty.
I think it is weak, but I think that the design is a step in the right direction. They don't give you something that replaces all of your wealth. Extra ki is cool. If I ran it in my game, I'd make it a lot more extra ki though. 4 points more at 8th level isn't really enough to make up for having no (or one) magic item.
Ravingdork's suggestion here, is of course absurd. Sporting 'plain' looking items worth a king's fortune is nonsense and utterly against the spirit, if not the outright wording, of the rules. It needs no errata to be fixed, it just needs one to make a bare minimum of a reasonable attempt to decipher the intent rather than performing linguistic gymnastics all over them, or possibly medication.
Agreed. That's a big reason why I wasn't at all afraid to present my interpretation. It's no more cheesy than the one presented in RAW and actually MORE balanced.
|
|
If you hadn't noticed your already aloud one item worth a kings fortune even without this interpretation. The vow breaks its own concept, and sucks mechanically. Where's the benefit?
Hmm... I missed where it says the one item must be worth a kings ransom. I presumed it would be a normal item. I suspect this is what the developers had in mind also.
The vow doesn't break the concept, take away your preconceived notions about how it should be optimized and the vow is consistent.
If you hadn't noticed your already aloud one item worth a kings fortune even without this interpretation. The vow breaks its own concept, and sucks mechanically. Where's the benefit?Agreed. That's a big reason why I wasn't at all afraid to present my interpretation. It's no more cheesy than the one presented in RAW and actually MORE balanced.
Fear isn't what should have prevented you from presenting 'your' version. Common sense should have. Any reading of the developers' thoughts on the matter should have. Any conception of what a vow of poverty is should have. But fear? No.
Allowed, Shadow of Death, and I did notice. Perhaps you noticed the 'or one' in parentheses? That is me referencing that point. I disagree with it, personally, and would have gone wholesale no items, and more ki, perhaps 1x or even 2x level. The fact that the vow allows a breaking of the rules (although they try to mitigate it by calling it a precious family heirloom full of sentimental value) makes no difference though, and certainly doesn't justify Ravingdork's version. I didn't say it was good, I said it was on the right track. Giving a different sort of benefit to replace the ones you miss from items (or any of the other restrictions) seems like a good idea. It is much better than just trying to toss all of those benefits to the character innately like the BoED version did.
Comparing it to the savage barbarian for instance, which is an unarmored barbarian that gains bonuses to AC...I prefer the vow route, where the benefit is very different, and doesn't attempt to mitigate or eliminate the penalty you've assumed with the choice.
|
Hmm... I missed where it says the one item must be worth a kings ransom. I presumed it would be a normal item. I suspect this is what the developers had in mind also.The vow doesn't break the concept, take away your preconceived notions about how it should be optimized and the vow is consistent.
It has been loosely clarified that 'some value' means you can pour massive amounts of gold into that single item.
My interpretation is no more cheesy than the one presented in RAW and actually MORE balanced.
Your interpretation may not be cheese in the overpowered sense of the word, but it's certainly cheese in the sense that it makes absolutely no roleplaying sense.
Here's what the VoP monk's allowed to have.
1. A simple set of clothing.
2. A pair of sandals or shoes.
3. A bowl.
4. A sack.
5. A blanket.
6. Any item.
Is it just me, or does that list look nothing like the list of important magical items? Personally, I've never encountered a Bowl of Natural Armor or a Blanket of Resistance.
Of course, maybe when they wrote this Vow, they figured that monks could simply get their Wizard friends to enchant their simple items with powerful enchantments. Of course, the monk has absolutely no way to pay the Wizard for this service, so I think we can discount that.
Also, it specifically says that five of the items "must be of plain and simple make, though the sixth may be of some value." The "though" indicates quite clearly that the first five items are not allowed to be of some value*. This means that even coercing Wizards to enchant your bowls and blankets is not allowed.
Certainly this Vow sucks. Your interpretation would add some gameplay usefulness to it. But it's clear to anyone who's thinking with anything but wishes that that's not how the Vow works.
*For an example, I could say "the first five enemies I faced were weak, though the sixth was quite difficult." Now literally, I did not say that the first five were easy, only that they were weak. They could have been powerful spellcasters with 7 STR. However, by using "though" the way I did in the sentence, it indicates that when I said "weak" I was indicating they they were not difficult, because I am opposing the first five with my description of the sixth.
Here's what the VoP monk's allowed to have.
1. A simple set of clothing.
2. A pair of sandals or shoes.
3. A bowl.
4. A sack.
5. A blanket.
6. Any item.
You're the first person I've seen claim those items to be absolute. Even without my interpretation, I never saw that list as being a definite, but more of an example. You can have any five items you wanted, provided they adhere to the guidelines in Vow of Poverty's text.
You're the first person I've seen claim those items to be absolute. Even without my interpretation, I never saw that list as being a definite, but more of an example. You can have any five items you wanted, provided they adhere to the guidelines in Vow of Poverty's text.Here's what the VoP monk's allowed to have.
1. A simple set of clothing.
2. A pair of sandals or shoes.
3. A bowl.
4. A sack.
5. A blanket.
6. Any item.
I don't think he is saying the list is absolute. He is saying the nonmagical/non-masterwork/low value version of those items was the intent.
I guess I better add to this. He is saying you can have other items, but they must be mundane, except for the one allowed magic item.
I'm sorry, I just can't see a Vow, something that someone takes to either punish themselves, share the experience with the people who are tormented by an affliction such as poverty, or to uphold some high sense of spirituality.
One does not take a Vow to forsake all need for material, simply to get all of their bonuses for free, and to guarantee that they automatically happen when you level.
I think the largest culprit of giving people these delusions of grandeur is the Book of Exalted Deeds Vows, which were seriously out there.
"I promise to this day forward never touch anything that would be of significant value and use to me, and avoid all material gain, provided I get every bonus I need for free." Sounds like a terrible cop out.
Just accept it, Poverty Sucks. Enough said. This is not the Book of Exalted Deeds.
I'm sorry, I just can't see a Vow, something that someone takes to either punish themselves, share the experience with the people who are tormented by an affliction such as poverty, or to uphold some high sense of spirituality.
One does not take a Vow to forsake all need for material, simply to get all of their bonuses for free, and to guarantee that they automatically happen when you level.
I think the largest culprit of giving people these delusions of grandeur is the Book of Exalted Deeds Vows, which were seriously out there.
"I promise to this day forward never touch anything that would be of significant value and use to me, and avoid all material gain, provided I get every bonus I need for free." Sounds like a terrible cop out.
Just accept it, Poverty Sucks. Enough said. This is not the Book of Exalted Deeds.
The issue is that you should be able to RP being poor without mechanically sucking. The feat was not made so you could suck as a character in combat. It is just a side affect of a magic item heavy game and you being deprived of the items.
While the party is eating at an upscale restaurant you are eating 1 silver/copper meals. You don't mind though because all the wealth you could be obtaining is going to the needy.If you complete a quest you have to donate the legendary staff of Quin-Mou* to a charity so they can raise money to keep the orphanage open. You may be saddened to see the paladin with his holy avenger, but you are doing a good deed.
Being weaker is one thing. Having a character that just can't keep up is something else altogether.
*Not a real item.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I thought the key drawback to the 3.x VoP was that anyone could take it, so it screamed 'druid bait'.
Personally I think a LE VoP monk would be an interesting villian. Funding criminal syndicates, setting up orphanages to pread his beliefs etc. Everyone looks at him and goes 'awwwwwww' that he's so generous, w/o checking to see who he was giving to.
Alternative solution: The party Wizard and party Cleric keep giving replacement "simple" pieces that the Monk does not know are magical.
edit: *cough* BLUFF *cough*
I think you win the thread with this, sir.
Just accept it, Poverty Sucks. Enough said.That's the Euro-centric view, yes.
Now go read Hindu folklore, where ascetic powers allow mortals to threaten the sovereignty of the gods themselves. In those stories, thanks to the presence of magic, the spiritual power of the ascetics can regularly overcome any need for material possessions without resulting in any sort of handicap.
But do the non-ascetic heroes in Hindu folklore walk around with 60,000 gp worth of magic items, and is the ascetic hero able to be as mighty as those blinged-out Hindus?
But do the non-ascetic heroes in Hindu folklore walk around with 60,000 gp worth of magic items, and is the ascetic hero able to be as mighty as those blinged-out Hindus?Just accept it, Poverty Sucks. Enough said.That's the Euro-centric view, yes.
Now go read Hindu folklore, where ascetic powers allow mortals to threaten the sovereignty of the gods themselves. In those stories, thanks to the presence of magic, the spiritual power of the ascetics can regularly overcome any need for material possessions without resulting in any sort of handicap.
Isn't this precisely the point?
Isn't this precisely the point?But do the non-ascetic heroes in Hindu folklore walk around with 60,000 gp worth of magic items, and is the ascetic hero able to be as mighty as those blinged-out Hindus?Just accept it, Poverty Sucks. Enough said.That's the Euro-centric view, yes.
Now go read Hindu folklore, where ascetic powers allow mortals to threaten the sovereignty of the gods themselves. In those stories, thanks to the presence of magic, the spiritual power of the ascetics can regularly overcome any need for material possessions without resulting in any sort of handicap.
My point is it's all well and good to say "in Hindu folklore, ascetic monks gain incredible powers without handicap" if Hindu folklore doesn't also have a tradition of heroes with tons of magic items--those ascetic heroes aren't giving up anything "valuable" (in a D&D-WPL sense) compared to other heroes in the stories. If Virinchi, (Hindu ascetic hero martial artist) is described as just as powerful as Charanjit (Hindu warrior hero with magic armor and weapons) then you may have a point. But if Hindu folklore doesn't have a precedent for its heroes using a lot of magic items, then saying "these ascetic Hindu heroes are badasses without magic items" doesn't mean a lot in the context of the folklore (because nobody uses a lot of magic items).
Good thing we aren't playing Hindu Folklore the RPG.
VoP needs to be balanced in some way. It cannot be said enough.
My point is it's all well and good to say "in Hindu folklore, ascetic monks gain incredible powers without handicap" if Hindu folklore doesn't also have a tradition of heroes with tons of magic items--those ascetic heroes aren't giving up anything "valuable" (in a D&D-WPL sense) compared to other heroes in the stories. If Virinchi, (Hindu ascetic hero martial artist) is described as just as powerful as Charanjit (Hindu warrior hero with magic armor and weapons) then you may have a point. But if Hindu folklore doesn't have a precedent for its heroes using a lot of magic items, then saying "these ascetic Hindu heroes are badasses without magic items" doesn't mean a lot in the context of the folklore (because nobody uses a lot of magic items).
I see your point. But on the flip side, there is an incalculable number of instances in folklore, fantasy literature, and even real life where characters aren't dependent on copious amounts of magic items. Sure, magic items are "common" enough in fantasy- but in how many instances are these characters decked out from head to toe in magical headbands, belts, cloaks, armor, rings, boots, etc? The thing is, I can still play these low magic character concepts in Pathfinder without too much issue.
Let's look at vikings for example. Vikings never had magical gear- but I can play a viking type character with a bunch of magical gear in Pathfinder without sacrificing my concept. And I can still be relevant at 20th level. That's a great strength of Pathfinder. However, if I want to play the VoP Monk, I'm really screwed. I'm pretty much a bystander at higher levels. And in that light, VoP is really no good.
I do also agree that poverty sucks. But I don't think that taking a sacred vow to give up material possessions in order to focus on strengthening your body, mind, and soul should make you suck in a fantasy game.
I see your point. But on the flip side, there is an incalculable number of instances in folklore, fantasy literature, and even real life where characters aren't dependent on copious amounts of magic items. Sure, magic items are "common" enough in fantasy- but in how many instances are these characters decked out from head to toe in magical headbands, belts, cloaks, armor, rings, boots, etc? The thing is, I can still play these low magic character concepts in Pathfinder without too much issue.
To paraphrase Ryan Dancey, "The D&D game is very good at emulating a D&D campaign setting." D&D (and Pathfinder) assume you have a lot of gear. Sometimes even tens or hundreds of thousands of gp worth of gear.
D&D isn't Hindu folklore. It isn't Nordic folklore. It isn't European folklore. Heck, it isn't even Tolkien or Conan. It's D&D. It's its own thing.
Let's look at vikings for example. Vikings never had magical gear- but I can play a viking type character with a bunch of magical gear in Pathfinder without sacrificing my concept. And I can still be relevant at 20th level. That's a great strength of Pathfinder. However, if I want to play the VoP Monk, I'm really screwed.
You're actually arguing opposite things here. "Even though Vikings in lore didn't have tons of magical gear, I can play a Viking with magical gear (like D&D expects you to) just fine. So I should be able to play a VOP monk with no gear (even though D&D expects you to have gear) just fine."
I do also agree that poverty sucks. But I don't think that taking a sacred vow to give up material possessions in order to focus on strengthening your body, mind, and soul should make you suck in a fantasy game.
To be fair, the VOP monk is better off than any other class who eschews magic items... you just want him to be even better off--perhaps as good as a character that doesn't give up all his magic items.
Good thing we aren't playing Hindu Folklore the RPG.
VoP needs to be balanced in some way. It cannot be said enough.
Does it really need to be balanced? Looking at it in isolation I agree that it's pretty crap from an optimisation point of view if you are only allowed 1 magic item. But it is just one of many alternate play options for the monk. Perhaps it's just fine the way it is and is a choice for those more interested in the fluff angle. It's not as if it's your only monk build choice.
To be fair, the VOP monk is better off than any other class who eschews magic items... you just want him to be even better off--perhaps as good as a character that doesn't give up all his magic items.
My cleric, wizard, sorcerer, oracle, alchemist, witch, magus, druid, and bard beg to differ.
There's also nothing to prevent you from adding a lot of abilities to that one magic item. Sure it costs more, but that's what VoP is all about.
VoP needs to be balanced in some way. It cannot be said enough.Ah, but it can. It really, really can. And it has.
Has it been fixed yet? If not, than you're wrong.
The best way to balance VoP is not to take it. Serious the only other appearance I know of VoP is in the book of Exalted deeds which is
1. D&D 3.0 edition (and thus non-canon even in 3.5).
2. A Feat
3. Requires a Vow made to the powers of the outer plans and is thus fluff wise not the same as VoP here.
Given all the above I see no reason why a GM who would let you bring in stuff from two editions back, from a book that is generally seen as a bit overpowered, will veto the feat just because of UM's VoP.
Serious stop whining that Paizo has nerfed your toys and go look at the monk options they do have.
If you absolutely MUST play a VoP monk, note that the vow says nothing about permanent magical effects. Also it say's you get one item, including for example a multiply enchanted item using the Arcane bond class feature which you can now acquire via feats in UM. I mean really does it matter if you only get one item for your monk if that item is the one ring or something similar.
Serious stop whining that Paizo has nerfed your toys and go look at the monk options they do have.
Come off your high horse.
We are not whining about "our toys getting nerfed." We are legitimately complaining about the release of unplayable mechanics. It's not a trend we want to see in the future, and so a lot of people are voicing their opinions that IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Why buy the books if they are full of useless, unplayable (or nearly unplayable) content?
Serious stop whining that Paizo has nerfed your toys and go look at the monk options they do have.Come off your high horse.
We are not whining about "our toys getting nerfed." We are legitimately complaining about the release of unplayable mechanics. It's not a trend we want to see in the future, and so a lot of people are voicing their opinions that IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Why buy the books if they are full of useless, unplayable (or nearly unplayable) content?
How would you write the VoP so it would work?
Anyone?
Serious stop whining that Paizo has nerfed your toys and go look at the monk options they do have.Come off your high horse.
We are not whining about "our toys getting nerfed." We are legitimately complaining about the release of unplayable mechanics. It's not a trend we want to see in the future, and so a lot of people are voicing their opinions that IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Why buy the books if they are full of useless, unplayable (or nearly unplayable) content?
I would say this back at you, Come off your high horse.
VoP is hardly unplayable, especially when you haven't played it. I played monks that gave up magic items without gaining any benefit, I was weaker than others, but I still contributed and got my roleplay. You have never even given it a chance. You are all talk.
How is this unplayable? If you want to take VoP you have to work to get around it. It seems to me that your complaint simply is that their is not enough to spend the additional Ki points on to make this worth taking. The Quigon monk doesn't quit power up like an exalt. Let's see what's in ultimate combat. If the monk can cast greater magic vestment / magic fang using Ki points, that will go a long way to buffing VoP.
.
I would say this back at you, Come off your high horse.
VoP is hardly unplayable, especially when you haven't played it. I played monks that gave up magic items without gaining any benefit, I was weaker than others, but I still contributed and got my roleplay. You have never even given it a chance. You are all talk.
I played one before the vow came out and he is the most remembered character in the history of my group, he was also destined to die despite the whole group sacrificing everything they had to keep him alive, he died at level three, again despite all other characters pouring their resources into him.
I might bring him back as something more playable at a later date but as it is being the iconic monk just isn't viable. This vow does nothing but force this harsh reality on newer players and restricts an actually good vow from coming out that actually does work.
How would you write the VoP so it would work?
Anyone?
Craft Tattoo
Cost spell level * caster level * 750.
This Tattoo functions as a potion with the following exception. Unlike a potion a Tattoo is not consumed when used. Instead the user spend one Ki point to trigger its effect as a move equivalent action. A monks vow of poverty does not restrict the number of Tattoo's a monk may have.
How would you write the VoP so it would work?
Anyone?
Craft Tattoo
Cost spell level * caster level * 750.
This Tattoo functions as a potion with the following exception. Unlike a potion a Tattoo is not consumed when used. Instead the user spend one Ki point to trigger its effect as a move equivalent action. A monks vow of poverty does not restrict the number of Tattoo's a monk may have.
seems like a complete work around of the vow
How would you write the VoP so it would work?
Anyone?
Craft Tattoo
Cost spell level * caster level * 750.
This Tattoo functions as a potion with the following exception. Unlike a potion a Tattoo is not consumed when used. Instead the user spend one Ki point to trigger its effect as a move equivalent action. A monks vow of poverty does not restrict the number of Tattoo's a monk may have.
I really like your tattoo idea. It makes a tripping monk idea more viable as they could get an Enlarge Person tattoo for tripping huge opponents. Maybe you should think about a career in games design... ;)
To be fair, the VOP monk is better off than any other class who eschews magic items... you just want him to be even better off--perhaps as good as a character that doesn't give up all his magic items.
Is it really that terrible to want an iconic character concept to be good enough for normal play?
After all, even if we let the VoP monk be effective in combat, he still is making sacrifices outside of it.
Here are some outside of combat examples where a VoP Monk would still sacrifice (these are all examples from games I've been in):
-The group shared joint ownership of a bar (they didn't make much money, but it brought them information, some fun encounters, and pride at serving the people the best booze in town)
-Some players purchased and trained some horses to take part in a horse race.
-A player purchased his own manor house to live in.
-The group decided to be merchants for a while in order to pick up some extra money.
-A player spent money on gifts attempting to court a girl.
These kinds of situations (and hundreds of others) that happen all the time in my campaigns, and are exactly the kind of thing that a VoP monk can't actively partake in, or needs to work hard to get around. Giving up the joy at being able to spend gold on fun and frivolous things should be the major sacrifice a VoP monk makes. Not sucking so much he needs to be babysat throughout every battle.
How would you write the VoP so it would work?
Anyone?
Craft Tattoo
Cost spell level * caster level * 750.
This Tattoo functions as a potion with the following exception. Unlike a potion a Tattoo is not consumed when used. Instead the user spend one Ki point to trigger its effect as a move equivalent action. A monks vow of poverty does not restrict the number of Tattoo's a monk may have.
Wow even not for a monk w/ VoP I like this craft tattoo. I always liked magic tattoos...and if they show up in PF I hope they use this idea.
Only thing Is I would put a limit on it.
And this does not break the poverty as it is really hard to sell a tattoo off your skin. Try it...
|
|
Has it been fixed yet? If not, than you're wrong.VoP needs to be balanced in some way. It cannot be said enough.Ah, but it can. It really, really can. And it has.
I see this as the options presented in the BoED...a book designated as a mature book...
VoP is a mature option...if all you are worried about is the next bonus on your attack then this option is not for you...move on from it...
So in that case, yes it can be said enough, and has...and said person is not wrong...
Oh and on another point...the feature itself presents the items that "can" be used for 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.
I think a VOP monk should be given new uses for combat maneuvers maybe even some that work on lowered cmd's. Such as using that blanket he gets as a grapple maneuver that entangles a target. sure they can spend a round breaking it with a check, but you knot it back together and use it again, or each piece on two smaller creatures. (incentive to own massive blankets I know, but monks like to share with others right?) things like that.
he should have just learned to get buy with the mundane not simply forgone the magnificent.
All the vows could have had interesting effects (note i didn't say powerful effects) like this, as opposed to just giving Ki points.
And magic tattoos I think belong in an archtype or prestige like it was in 3.5
Has it been fixed yet? If not, than you're wrong.VoP needs to be balanced in some way. It cannot be said enough.Ah, but it can. It really, really can. And it has.I see this as the options presented in the BoED...a book designated as a mature book...
VoP is a mature option...if all you are worried about is the next bonus on your attack then this option is not for you...move on from it...
So in that case, yes it can be said enough, and has...and said person is not wrong...
Oh and on another point...the feature itself presents the items that "can" be used for 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.
Bull. Saying that somebody arguing that the VoP needs fixing is not mature and only worries about their next attack bonus is an insulting, and wrong, blanket statement. Ravingdork, though wrong with the interpretation, has the right of it. This vow is the sort of design thought process many of us don't want to see moving forward, yet the only justification we've received for this design is that poverty sucks so in a fantasy game being poor should also suck and that if we were roleplayers we'd take this option because the only people concerned about their characters' survival are optimizers, and if we truly wanted to roleplay than who cares about balance and not dying?