Are you asking why does it need to be balanced or how is it not balanced as is?VoP needs to be balanced in some way. It cannot be said enough.Why?
why does it need to be balanced? why would giving up all your money and objects give you super powers? Sure it made mother teresa a saint, but super powers no.
The oracle with the impaired vision isn't really blind, she's just ruled out from distance actions. BIG difference.
Yet the blind seer(oracle), is not only playable but gets a pretty nice bonus for giving up their sight, as do all the disabled options for the oracle.
True, would the deaf oracle make a better example? She's deaf but casts all spells as silent spells and over the course of her levels gains scent, a bonus to non-hearing perception checks, Tremorsense, and a reduced initiative penalty from deafness along with all the spellcasting and other oracle abilities. That's a pretty clear example of Pathfinder giving you a character with a penalty that would make for interesting roleplay and then providing the tools to mechanically overcome that penalty to a large degree while still maintaining the difficulty that would need to be roleplayed.
Power of the gods > ascetic serenity
Yet I am reminded of Iori who obtained godhood not through some magical artifact but through perfect ascetic serenity.
Now I am not asking for VoP monks to become gods, but shouldn't they get some sort of reward for their extreme dedication to their mission of perfecting their minds and bodies over the hoarding of material possessions? Something more than 5ish ki points over 20 levels?
I kinda like the Vow of Poverty.
Basically, it's like this: There are several techniques that allow you to hone your body to be able to store more ki than is normally possible. Forsaking material possessions is one of them. If you don't want to make that sacrifice, don't take the vow.
MY problem with the vows (all of them!) is that it costs the still mind class feature. I think the vows should be (and are) internally balanced. How much a given vow sucks directly correlates to how much extra ki you get. There is no reason to pay extra for the 'privilege' IMHO.
.
..
...
....
.....
A-HA! YOU ADMIT IT! :)
we not think?
Curses! Foiled again!
Damn you, swashbuckling menace!
why does it need to be balanced? why would giving up all your money and objects give you super powers? Sure it made mother teresa a saint, but super powers no.Are you asking why does it need to be balanced or how is it not balanced as is?VoP needs to be balanced in some way. It cannot be said enough.Why?
I answered this earlier, but my search fu is failing so i will give a shorter version.
As is I don't see a player making it through a game without coddling by the GM. I don't mind the VoW making you weaker, but you should be able to survive. Many of the people that are really adamant about it don't want to be coddled, and they expect to be weaker. Some do expect to not lose any power, but I see no logic in that so they may have to answer that for themselves.
Using a real life figure to represent a hi magic game like Pathfinder always fails as part of an argument.
I think it would be cool if the game included an optional subsystem that allowed the creation of a character for whom asceticism is a reasonable path to power, not a sacrifice.
Arguing that that an alternative to the default paradigm shouldn't be created because doing so would go against the default paradigm is circular logic.
I don't think anyone is arguing against an alternative to that default paradigm. There are people, however, who think that including that game-changing paradigm shouldn't be hidden away as part of the three pages on monks in Ultimate Magic. It deserves more space and its own section, and probably not in Ultimate Magic.
True, would the deaf oracle make a better example?
No, because the penalties for being deaf are miniscule compared to the penalties for being blind.
Deafened: A deafened character cannot hear. He takes a –4 penalty on initiative checks, automatically fails Perception checks based on sound, takes a –4 penalty on opposed Perception checks, and has a 20% chance of spell failure when casting spells with verbal components. Characters who remain deafened for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
Being blinded really, really sucks, a thousand times worse than being deaf (take it from a guy who basically has one good eye). There's a reason why the blind oracle isn't really blind: because blindness is a crippling option for any person who needs to dodge weapons and spells, notice approaching dangers, jump over traps, grab things as they fall, or target enemies in an emergency (i.e., adventurers). The "blind warrior" is certainly an iconic archetype; the "deaf warrior" not so much. So no, the deaf oracle isn't a valid comparison for this argument.
As is I don't see a player making it through a game without coddling by the GM.
Naw, I'd just let you die, coddling is for babies.
I don't mind the VoW making you weaker, but you should be able to survive.
maybe you shouldn't give up all your stuff then. keep it, it makes you stronger in body. VOW makes you stronger in spirit, which is not a stat tracked in this system.
Using a real life figure to represent a hi magic game like Pathfinder always fails as part of an argument.
I'm not sure about this bit, but that's mostly irrelevant.
Umm for the same reason the Pope can't cast flame strike on Lutherans?
HE CAN'T? Are you sure? I'll have to talk to my priest about that one. Not that he's talking to me any more.
You burn one bible and dance around it naked in front of the church and the whole congregation gives up on you. People! Know what I'm saying.
(Please note, I'm joking)
(Second note, the note on joking wasn't necessarily directed at you Matthew, for all I know you could have a great sense of humor and have gotten that I was joking. Based on your post I would be encouraged to think so. But you know how the internets are....) ;-)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Umm for the same reason the Pope can't cast flame strike on Lutherans?HE CAN'T? Are you sure? I'll have to talk to my priest about that one. Not that he's talking to me any more.
You burn one bible and dance around it naked in front of the church and the whole congregation gives up on you. People! Know what I'm saying.
(Please note, I'm joking)
(Second note, the note on joking wasn't necessarily directed at you Matthew, for all I know you could have a great sense of humor and have gotten that I was joking. Based on your post I would be encouraged to think so. But you know how the internets are....) ;-)
I've a pretty good sense of humor, so it's all good.
(aside: I joke I have a truce with my pagan friends "You don't try to turn me into a toad, I won't burn you at the stake.")
I was just pointing out the (greater) absurdity of using a real life person as proof that their fantasy character shouldn't get 'powers'. :-)
The RP issues with deaf vs clouded vision favor the blind however. A communication heavy game (especially that played online) is very much thrown off by a deaf oracle, as my group found out. (Granted, this player has had trouble with normal, non-blind characters, so there might be an uncontrolled variable or two)
I personally really think that the way the type went down was awesome, particularly combined with the qin-jiang. Giving more ki is great, because it leads to that adaption in playstyle rather than accommodation that was mentioned earlier. Instead of relying on your tricked out magic items, you rely on your inner powers. You just need to be able to consistently rely on those inner powers, and I think 2/1 is going to provide that successfully over 1/2.
As is I don't see a player making it through a game without coddling by the GM.Naw, I'd just let you die, coddling is for babies.
I don't mind the VoW making you weaker, but you should be able to survive.maybe you shouldn't give up all your stuff then. keep it, it makes you stronger in body. VOW makes you stronger in spirit, which is not a stat tracked in this system.
Using a real life figure to represent a hi magic game like Pathfinder always fails as part of an argument.I'm not sure about this bit, but that's mostly irrelevant.
So you are basically saying those who take VoW should just accept the fact their character will most likely die and just deal with it?
edit:If you were just joking emoticons helps. It is hard to tell tone of voice online and the things one person will say as a joke will be said by another seriously.
I respectfully disagree. My mom is blind -and- deaf (she has retinitis pigmentosa, gloucoma, and very profound hearing loss - she's completely blind in one eye, has a 10% visual field in the other eye, and, until she recently got a cochlear implant, used what visual field she did have to read lips). She says that being deaf is far worse because it isolates her from most social environments. It's also dangerous because hearing is a 360 degree sense - thus allowing someone to sense a truck coming up from behind one, for example. But, primarily, it's the isolating nature of being deaf which is the hardest for her.
Real life backs up what my gaming experience showed to be true as well. Nice.
I respectfully disagree. My mom is blind -and- deaf (she has retinitis pigmentosa, gloucoma, and very profound hearing loss - she's completely blind in one eye, has a 10% visual field in the other eye, and, until she recently got a cochlear implant, used what visual field she did have to read lips). She says that being deaf is far worse because it isolates her from most social environments.
Your mother is also not an adventurer. She doesn't need to dodge weapons and spells, notice approaching dangers, jump over traps, grab things as they fall, or target enemies in an emergency, all of which rely more on sight than sound. People, monsters, and traps aren't trying to kill your mother several times per day. (At least, I hope they're not.) Sight is critical for staying alive in a dangerous situation. A deaf character doesn't have a 50% miss chance, isn't forced to move at half speed or risk tripping over tiny obstructions, and so on.
I'm going to add my opinion that sight is everything. I have had some experiences with hearing loss, but I was still able to function at near full ability in non-social situations. Riding my mountain bike, working (hell, I need ear protection half the time anyway), even driving were little affected. I couldn't even think of doing most of those things without very clear vision, much less blind.
As for the example of the blind warrior, I would have to agree that they usually have supernatural ways of essentially seeing, and are about as hampered by their blindness as a bat- which is to say, not really at all. True, they are usually defeated due to their blindness, but function devastatingly well, right up until they encounter the sword that had been left in the bamboo.
But all of this is not really addressing the real issue.
Folks want a way of playing characters who are not heavily dependent on standard magic items. VoP (in any form) isn't a very good answer to that in the first place, but it is the only one currently on the table.
I dunno that it applies to an adventuring setting, but in regards to real life I can tell you that being deaf is far worse than being blind. I speak from experience as I suffer from severe hearing loss and have been forced to wear hearing aids since I was 8. That being said, one should not underestimate the crippling effects of either condition.
So you are basically saying those who take VoW should just accept the fact their character will most likely die and just deal with it?
edit:If you were just joking emoticons helps. It is hard to tell tone of voice online and the things one person will say as a joke will be said by another seriously.
I was joking with Matthew. Yes, you should just accept the fact the character will most likely die, suck it up and play the character. I've never had a problem with picking something that makes you weaker for role-play, I reward it with xp as a DM. The problem lies with only picking things to be stronger, regardless of the role-play.
I was joking with Matthew. Yes, you should just accept the fact the character will most likely die, suck it up and play the character. I've never had a problem with picking something that makes you weaker for role-play, I reward it with xp as a DM. The problem lies with only picking things to be stronger, regardless of the role-play.So you are basically saying those who take VoW should just accept the fact their character will most likely die and just deal with it?
edit:If you were just joking emoticons helps. It is hard to tell tone of voice online and the things one person will say as a joke will be said by another seriously.
I would not say "should". That is a valid playstyle to take what I consider a suicidal character knowing it won't make it, but wanting to play your concept and letting it have a decent(maybe slightly less than decent) chance at survival is valid also.
I don't think it will get errata'd though, and each GM will have to find his own way to make it work. Strangely enough I don't think I want to to be changed. Of course that may just be me being selfish since I think I could deal with it.
I don't view adventuring as primarily about dodging weapons and spells, etc.
[hijacking on] - Totally off-topic, but I think it rocks that a developer of the games does see adventuring as being mainly that. He's talking about combat! I knew that was the focus of this game! - [hijacking off]
I would not say "should". That is a valid playstyle to take what I consider a suicidal character knowing it won't make it, but wanting to play your concept and letting it have a decent(maybe slightly less than decent) chance at survival is valid also.
I am still saying should. I see your point, it is valid. But I'm kinda sick of people complaining about well everything. If you don't like it the way Paizo wrote it, play it different, that's what I do.
I don't think it will get errata'd though, and each GM will have to find his own way to make it work. Strangely enough I don't think I want to to be changed. Of course that may just be me being selfish since I think I could deal with it.
+1 Yes, this is very much how I feel. I can deal, so can you, it's not that significant of an issue. It's not like the opposite happened and too much power was given, that's where troubles lie. I would rather the books need a little boost to play in my game, than I have to cut out entire books to keep the game from exploding. (I'm looking at you PH2)
I don't view adventuring as primarily about dodging weapons and spells, etc.[hijacking on] - Totally off-topic, but I think it rocks that a developer of the games does see adventuring as being mainly that. He's talking about combat! I knew that was the focus of this game! - [hijacking off]
*shrug*
One, I didn't say adventuring was mainly that, I merely said adventures deal with that sort of thing.
Two, whether or not adventuring is mainly that, it comes up pretty often, and the blind character has a low survivability rate.
I don't view adventuring as primarily about dodging weapons and spells, etc.[hijacking on] - Totally off-topic, but I think it rocks that a developer of the games does see adventuring as being mainly that. He's talking about combat! I knew that was the focus of this game! - [hijacking off]*shrug*
One, I didn't say adventuring was mainly that, I merely said adventures deal with that sort of thing.
Two, whether or not adventuring is mainly that, it comes up pretty often, and the blind character has a low survivability rate.
Fair enough, it was not my intent to misrepresent you. I was just happy and excited to see you acknowledge that adventurers regularly engage in combat scenarios.
Ya know I have played an ran games with a player who in real life it totally deaf. I'll tell you right now he would be able to adventure with very, very, very few drawbacks. He had no real issue keeping up with what was going on around the table. And played his PC as deaf as well, he took minuses on watch and that was about it.
On the other hand, speaking as someone who is legally blind and went two weeks with my eyes wrapped in bandages, being blind would be a severe handicap to say the lest. You move slower, know where nothing is out of reach, have a hard time even pinpointing people from sound alone.
Adventuring Blind is asking to die.
I would not say "should". That is a valid playstyle to take what I consider a suicidal character knowing it won't make it, but wanting to play your concept and letting it have a decent(maybe slightly less than decent) chance at survival is valid also.I am still saying should. I see your point, it is valid. But I'm kinda sick of people complaining about well everything. If you don't like it the way Paizo wrote it, play it different, that's what I do.
I don't think it will get errata'd though, and each GM will have to find his own way to make it work. Strangely enough I don't think I want to to be changed. Of course that may just be me being selfish since I think I could deal with it.+1 Yes, this is very much how I feel. I can deal, so can you, it's not that significant of an issue. It's not like the opposite happened and too much power was given, that's where troubles lie. I would rather the books need a little boost to play in my game, than I have to cut out entire books to keep the game from exploding. (I'm looking at you PH2)
Adventuring Blind is asking to die.
You can't be saying things I agree with unless you go find a replacement. :)
In short, +1|
|
You already had the option of playing a monk with a vow of poverty. This just makes it different.
Really? A PF version was printed before? Where I would like to see it.
Or are you talking about the BoED version?
Then we better go back to the 3.5 classes and feats and spells and other options.
No thanks. My group and I have moved from 3.5 to PF.
I like that fact that the option to not have to play the arms race between classes is an official stance.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You already had the option of playing a monk with a vow of poverty. This just makes it different.Really? A PF version was printed before? Where I would like to see it.
Or are you talking about the BoED version?
Then we better go back to the 3.5 classes and feats and spells and other options.
No thanks. My group and I have moved from 3.5 to PF.
I like that fact that the option to not have to play the arms race between classes is an official stance.
I think he was referring to playing a monk who took a VoP, and didn't get anything for it.
"why are you here?" the queen asked as her room full of guards leveled the pointy ends of their spears to the man in leather
"what?"
"WHY are YOU HERE?" she asked with an undeniable tone of irritation
"WHAT???"
"kill him" she said, walking away
Because there's no other member of the party in the throne room with the deaf guy to interpret for him? You have made a silly example.
Compared to:
"Orcs ahead, get ready!" called the wizard.
"Kill the humans!" howled the orc.
"Defend the blind bard!" cried the fighter.
"SNEAK ATTACK!" stabbed the orc rogue.
"I am slain," cried the blind bard, "and I wasn't even flat-footed!"
It's really, really easy to compensate for a deaf character in a social situation (it's not like all characters are required to hear and speak to the queen). It's really, really hard to compensate for a blind character's blindness in a combat situation.
** spoiler omitted **
Hehe
How often do you have a session where there's no diplomacy?
How often do you have a session where there's no combat?
I think a typical campaign is skewed toward combat.
I also think that a person who chooses to play a deaf character, or a mute character, or a vow of silence character, or a taciturn character, or a pacifist character, or a loner character, is going out of their way to disengage from a significant part of the fun of a roleplaying game.
And if the GM says "there will be a lot of social encounters in this game," and a player says "I'm going to make a deaf/mute/uncommunicative/doesn't speak the local language" character," even though the player knows that means he won't be able to participate in much of what's going on in the campaign, he's being stupid.
And if a player says, "I'm going to make a deaf/mute/uncommunicative/doesn't speak the local language" character," and the GM and deliberately puts the PCs in a lot of social encounters where talking to NPCs is critical, even though the GM knows that player's character concept won't be able to engage with that at all, then the GM is a jerk.
Gaming is a partnership. The GM works with the character concepts and the players work with the campaign concepts. Repeatedly putting a deaf PC in a situation where that deafness is crippling is just as much of a jerk GM act as throwing tons and tons of fire-immune monsters as soon as the wizard or sorcerer gets access to fireball is a jerk GM act.
Your argument is basically, "well, a deaf character can be totally screwed if the GM takes advantage of the deafness." True, people can be jerks.
My argument is "blindness ALWAYS sucks to some extent, even if the GM is catering to you."
"why are you here?" the queen asked as her room full of guards leveled the pointy ends of their spears to the man in leather
"what?"
"WHY are YOU HERE?" she asked with an undeniable tone of irritation
"WHAT???"
"kill him" she said, walking awayBecause there's no other member of the party in the throne room with the deaf guy to interpret for him? You have made a silly example.
Compared to:
"Orcs ahead, get ready!" called the wizard.
"Kill the humans!" howled the orc.
"Defend the blind bard!" cried the fighter.
"SNEAK ATTACK!" stabbed the orc rogue.
"I am slain," cried the blind bard, "and I wasn't even flat-footed!"It's really, really easy to compensate for a deaf character in a social situation (it's not like all characters are required to hear and speak to the queen). It's really, really hard to compensate for a blind character's blindness in a combat situation.
To be fair if the bard wasn't blind this would go
"Orcs ahead, get ready!" called the wizard.
"Kill the humans!" howled the orc.
"Defend the bard!" cried the fighter.
"REGULAR ATTACK!" stabbed the orc rogue.
"I am slain," cried the bard, "and I wasn't even flat-footed!"
And if he was deaf:
"orcs ahead, get ready!" called the wizard.
"kill the humans!" howled the orc.
"Someone go get the bards attention!" cried the wizard
"I'd rather use that time to draw my sword!" yells the fighter
"Forget him then" says the wizard.
"SNEAK ATTACK!" stabbed the orc rogue.
"I am slain" cried the bard.
All the same, he is still a bard after all,
anyway either blind or deaf a character is out of the fight the first round unless you hug the fighter the whole adventure.
To be fair if the bard wasn't blind this would go
"Orcs ahead, get ready!" called the wizard.
"Kill the humans!" howled the orc.
"Defend the bard!" cried the fighter.
"REGULAR ATTACK!" stabbed the orc rogue.
"I am slain," cried the bard, "and I wasn't even flat-footed!"And if he was deaf:
"orcs ahead, get ready!" called the wizard.
"kill the humans!" howled the orc.
"Someone go get the bards attention!" cried the wizard
"I'd rather use that time to draw my sword!" yells the fighter
"Forget him then" says the wizard.
"SNEAK ATTACK!" stabbed the orc rogue.
"I am slain" cried the bard.All the same, he is still a bard after all,
anyway either blind or deaf a character is out of the fight the first round unless you hug the fighter the whole adventure.
LOL!
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 this ability, though I might add a modifier that higher level spells require more ki points.
