All you do is guess and in combat the players are not the only ones able to shout directions, some monsters are even highly skilled in mimicking voices. Not to mention that in general roar and rumble the directions can quickly go to hell. You still take that 50 % miss chance even if you manage to stumble on the right square, where the enemy is. I've traded a +4 sword for three feats (Blind-Fight,Improved and Greater) and not investing to perception every level for most of the time (not everyone wants to do that) just to stay somewhat on par. I also don't get that -2 to AC and -4 on STR and DEX checks and so on. How does this trade look to you?
Your right id much rather have the sword, the belt, the cloak, the boots the ability to fly, a perception boosting item, or hell get something that can see for me.
And who doesn't max perception?
Ill post this again because in the pathfinder world it is true, it is far far worse to be poor then to be blind, deaf, and mute. This doesnt seem weird to anyone?
Um no...a poor person is not somebody who takes a vow of poverty.
1) If you give a poor person a 100 gp he will use it...maybe very unwisely but he will use it.
2) a poor person does not go monster hunting rescue the princess etc...why they don't have right stuff.
3) a poor person is poor due to either circunstances beyond his control or due to his incompetence.
While on the other hand a VoP person...
1) Won't take that 100gp...
2) goes after thing...without the neccessary equipment.
3) lives in porverty by choice...not to gain super powers but to find enlightenment or to take the burden of suffering of the people in poverty.
Poor in no ways = a vow of poverty. Unless you are saying poor people should gain super powers?
This thread reminds of this....
http://www.geneticanomaly.com/RPG-Motivational/slides/disadvantages.html
Just a joke...i can understand why people might want to boost the power of the Vow...really...
But personaly I rather have a weak power put out by game designers than a overpowered one...as I have a easier time houseruling it up...than I would house ruling it down.
Ill post this again because in the pathfinder world it is true, it is far far worse to be poor then to be blind, deaf, and mute. This doesnt seem weird to anyone?Um no...a poor person is not somebody who takes a vow of poverty.
1) If you give a poor person a 100 gp he will use it...maybe very unwisely but he will use it.
2) a poor person does not go monster hunting rescue the princess etc...why they don't have right stuff.
3) a poor person is poor due to either circunstances beyond his control or due to his incompetence.
While on the other hand a VoP person...
1) Won't take that 100gp...
2) goes after thing...without the neccessary equipment.
3) lives in porverty by choice...not to gain super powers but to find enlightenment or to take the burden of suffering of the people in poverty.
Poor in no ways = a vow of poverty. Unless you are saying poor people should gain super powers?
Kinda misses the point, but yeah I guess it is fair to make the distinction.
Loooove the link btw
To put it another way: ask ANYONE if they would rather be a totally blind millionaire, or totally impoverished but with perfect vision. I'm sure almost everyone would choose poverty over blindness.
But if I'm a blind millionaire, there's a remote chance that I'll become the next Daredevil. If I'm poor with perfect 20-20 vision then I'm just myself.
I'll take that gamble, sir!
;)
And who doesn't max perception?Timidly raises hand...
Is true. I don't always max my perception.
I always end up in a rocks fall you die scenario when I fail a perception check. My group rolls up new characters a lot....
|
The benefit UMVoP is little better than not gaining a benefit at all. I really don't see the point in having it when I could already eschew all wealth and be about as underpowered anyways.
I still much prefer 3e's VoP--it was certainly overpowered on a druid, or in a campaign with tightly regulated treasure, but on a monk in a regular game it really wasn't anything special. You got competitive bonuses, but had no flexibility whatsoever.
Someone suggested granting 2 ki points per level, plus wisdom to attacks and saves, but that's quite overpowered at lower levels, and still not enough later on. Unfortunately I don't think there's a simple fix--any version of VoP meant to allow functional ascetic heroes at all levels probably needs to grant tiered bonuses, which means it'll resemble the old version anyways. So I think I'll just be recommending some variation the BoED VoP if it comes up in any of my games.
|
I always end up in a rocks fall you die scenario when I fail a perception check. My group rolls up new characters a lot....
And who doesn't max perception?Timidly raises hand...
Is true. I don't always max my perception.
lol...not quite that bad in our group....missed surprise round or missed treasure is all...
All you do is guess and in combat the players are not the only ones able to shout directions, some monsters are even highly skilled in mimicking voices. Not to mention that in general roar and rumble the directions can quickly go to hell. You still take that 50 % miss chance even if you manage to stumble on the right square, where the enemy is. I've traded a +4 sword for three feats (Blind-Fight,Improved and Greater) and not investing to perception every level for most of the time (not everyone wants to do that) just to stay somewhat on par. I also don't get that -2 to AC and -4 on STR and DEX checks and so on. How does this trade look to you?Your right id much rather have the sword, the belt, the cloak, the boots the ability to fly, a perception boosting item, or hell get something that can see for me.
And who doesn't max perception?
Me for example.
And please don't confuse regular poverty / vow of poverty and blindnes / magical blindness.
If there was a vow of blindness, you certainly wouldn't be allowed visual replacements as well.
If I can get rid of blindness the way you describe then guess what? You obtain a scroll of atonement (or pay a cleric to cast it for you) and *ding* have all magic bling you can put your hands on. Ald that all cost you a +2 bonus vs. enchantment or some 6 ki-points. Yes, you can keep your other vows and not give it a damn.
Since you've tried to do that... what chances would you give yourself against a moderately trained guy? And what if swords were involved, rather than close combat? And what if you were fighting a cougar, or a raging bull (as close as we can get to monsters that are rather a standard fare of the game)?One thing quite clear is that the question of whether it is better/worse to be blind/deaf is going to depend on the person being asked.
Different people have different opinions. I can go from my bedroom to my bathroom with my eyes closed (I can even fight with my eyes closed - in part because I've been trained in touch hands - Taijijuan sensitivity training). I can't have much of a conversation if I can't actually hear the person talking to me (I've tried to do so in bars with the band/music blaring).
Again, it goes back to different people having different opinions.Zmar, I've never fought a cougar or a raging bull. How could I tell what my chances are?
As for fighting someone who is trained, someone trained in touch hands takes no penalty. In fact, using touch hands would be an advantage over using eyesight (because it is harder to feint against touch hands). It makes no difference whether swords/etc. are used. The only place the person using vision would have an advantage is in the "first round" (so to speak) - before contact is made. Well, the other place vision would have an advantage is that touch hands is a trained skill.
It was more of a "make a guess" question. You at least have some image of what it's like to be in a fight without eyes, ulike most of us probably. I was asking about swords abecause sword fight increases the distance and usually tries to avoid getting involved in close contact with an enemy that would gain some advantage from that. And the animals? would there be any training that would prepare you to face something that employs unusual tactics? A great cat will try to sneak upon you and then leap/grapple/snap your neck with it's jaws? Can you imagine any training that would help against that? A bull like creature will just try to gore you and run right over you. Over a half ton of meat running at 20+ km/h your way and without clear image of what's around you and from where the danger is comming can you imagine ways how to avoid this? I honestly fail to imagine ways that would help you to face even such mundane foes without suffering a serious disadvantage due to the lack of sight, much less supernatural foes like dragons with their huge physiques (reach, how do you find less armoured spot to strike efectively), mobility and magics.
On that logic, how about I toss you off the observatory on top of the Empire State Building on the remote chance you might develop flight powers?
To put it another way: ask ANYONE if they would rather be a totally blind millionaire, or totally impoverished but with perfect vision. I'm sure almost everyone would choose poverty over blindness.
But if I'm a blind millionaire, there's a remote chance that I'll become the next Daredevil. If I'm poor with perfect 20-20 vision then I'm just myself.
I'll take that gamble, sir!
;)
because yours kills him if it fails, if his fails he is still rich as hell. So not really the same thing.
|
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. The fact that the game assumes by default that a character must accumulate gear to thrive is irrelevant, because the entire point of the new subsystem would be to present an alternative to the default assumptions of the game.
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.
Good GOD yes. If the BoED could at least shoot close to the mark, I know the Paizo crew would be capable of the same.
And I'll post this again because in the Golarion world it is true. It is possible for a mortal to obtain godhood through perfect ascetic serenity without the aid of magical artifacts (Iori), but it is impossible for a mortal to be strengthened enough via extreme devotion to ascetic serenity to be able to meaningfully contribute to a CR appropriate challenge without the aid of magical gear (a VoP monk). This doesn't seem weird to anyone?
That's another thing that's really frustrating. The flavor is right there in the Pathfinder setting. But the mechanics to make it reasonably possible to follow the path of Irori don't exist. I'm not talking about becoming a god either. I'm just talking about making a character capable of participating in a standard Adventure Path.
I still much prefer 3e's VoP--it was certainly overpowered on a druid, or in a campaign with tightly regulated treasure, but on a monk in a regular game it really wasn't anything special. You got competitive bonuses, but had no flexibility whatsoever.
This can't be stressed enough. The BoED VoP did not turn monks into gods among men on the battlefield.
|
|
This just sounds like a derivative of "casters > non-casters".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.Power of the gods > ascetic serenity
This is another reason for some folks to want a feasible gearless character to work: So that they aren't entirely dependant upon the work of magic-users to make a difference in the game world.
Let the martial classes be fantastic too.
This interpretation fills me with joy. Which makes me believe this is NOT what they intended.
Time will tell.
I could care less what they intended. If I ever DM a VoP monk, the aforementioned interpretation would be my house rule. However, I am leaning towards having VoP go the way of find the path (into ban land).
...Six items? Five of which must be very plain and of simple make and one of which that can be of some value?
Well, my bracers of armor +8 are rather rustic I must say. My amulet of mighty fists +5 is practically made of tin. My monk's robe and cloak of resistance +5 are but tatters. I got my plastic ring of protection +5 out of a Cracker Jack box.
But this here masterwork sai of "some value?" That was given to me by my master before I began this here quest to find his killer.
The only item that is limited by value, according to the rules, is the sixth item. The rest just have to be plain.
I. HAVE. NOT. BROKEN. A. SINGLE. RULE.
In any case, I'm surprised that no one has even considered that maybe it wasn't ever meant to limit your wealth of items, but rather the number of items you carry. Only being able to carry six items, rather than the 14 that magic item slots normally allowed IS a fairly big limiting factor and would be about on par with what you get in return, as well as with the other vows and optional rules.
You get to keep the BIG SIX while giving up everything else.
You get six items. You need the BIG SIX to stay afloat in the game. Nobody noticed this correlation? Really?
If your first five items are of cheap make (wood, bone, tin, whatever), then you have indeed followed the rules of the Vow. You still can't carry anything not your own worth more than 50gp and you still can't carry more than enough money needed to support yourself (modestly).
Considering all this, and the fact that it's now about in line with all the other vows, I'm astounded I'm the first to think of this particular interpretation.
Everyone agrees: the current "common interpretation" not only sucks, it doesn't even make much sense as written.
Mine, however, neither sucks nor is senseless. For all we know, it was the developer's intent all along.
FAQ this post if you agree, or even if you simply "want" to believe it's true. Maybe we
The problem is, short of a non-combat game that exists solely of roleplay soliloquies, the RAW is simply not viable. Therefore the developers can proselytize until they are blue in the face, but I'm still going to house rule it in a practical manner. The other option is eliminating it entirely, and this is the option I'm leaning towards at this point. As it is, it's effectively a meritless roleplay tax which has no place in my campaign.
The problem is, short of a non-combat game that exists solely of roleplay soliloquies, the RAW is simply not viable. Therefore the developers can proselytize until they are blue in the face, but I'm still going to house rule it in a practical manner. The other option is eliminating it entirely, and this is the option I'm leaning towards at this point. As it is, it's effectively a meritless roleplay tax which has no place in my campaign.
Prior to UM, the option of a vow of poverty existed in PF as a 'meritless roleplay tax'. You could just give up your expensive stuff. No problem.
UM comes along, and tosses 1-10 more ki at a monk player who does so, and your lower lip starts to tremble at the unfairness of it all.
You then suggest that the only 'practical' way to rule the option is to have a vow of poverty that does not force a character to give up any money. A vow of poverty that allows one to wear items expensive enough to purchase castles with their sale, to say nothing of food and clothing for the poor.
That makes sense.
The problem is, short of a non-combat game that exists solely of roleplay soliloquies, the RAW is simply not viable. Therefore the developers can proselytize until they are blue in the face, but I'm still going to house rule it in a practical manner. The other option is eliminating it entirely, and this is the option I'm leaning towards at this point. As it is, it's effectively a meritless roleplay tax which has no place in my campaign.Prior to UM, the option of a vow of poverty existed in PF as a 'meritless roleplay tax'. You could just give up your expensive stuff. No problem.
UM comes along, and tosses 1-10 more ki at a monk player who does so, and your lower lip starts to tremble at the unfairness of it all.
You then suggest that the only 'practical' way to rule the option is to have a vow of poverty that does not force a character to give up any money. A vow of poverty that allows one to wear items expensive enough to purchase castles with their sale, to say nothing of food and clothing for the poor.
That makes sense.
Well, as Cirno has pointed out many times, in many different threads, every single build or argument contesting that a VoP monk can be viable in combat has hinged on the fact that the monk had a single uber item worth thousands of gold and had thousands more in the form of consumables and permanent spells cast on him.
For me, and a lot of other people, we simple don't see that big of a difference between these two concepts:
-A character that eats simple food, wears simple clothes, stays in simple lodgings, but has 1 item worth 500,000g.
-A character that eats simple food, wears simple clothes, stays in simple lodgings, but has 6 items totaling in 500,000g.
For me, and a lot of other people, we simple don't see that big of a difference between these two concepts:
-A character that eats simple food, wears simple clothes, stays in simple lodgings, but has 1 item worth 500,000g.
-A character that eats simple food, wears simple clothes, stays in simple lodgings, but has 6 items totaling in 500,000g.
I agree. Which is why any VoP monks in my game will eat simple food, wear simple clothes, stay in simple lodgings, and have no valuable material possessions.
I agree. Which is why any VoP monks in my game will eat simple food, wear simple clothes, stay in simple lodgings, and have no valuable material possessions.
That's what I want as well. But I also want a VoP monk to be viable in a normal game- not amazing, just able to contribute. As written (especially if we remove the one uber item), I don't think that this is the case. Does adding a handful of ki really make any difference? Not really. Hence people's problem with it, and hence this thread.
[
Prior to UM, the option of a vow of poverty existed in PF as a 'meritless roleplay tax'. You could just give up your expensive stuff. No problem.
Yes anyone could have this epiphany and then suffer the consequences (to wit getting killed so fast it makes their head spin). However there was not an RAW actively attempting to foster such. I don't pull any punches as a DM and short of a pure roleplay campaign with no combat at all, a VoP monk is absolutely unviable. Hence, I have sent them to ban land to keep "find the path" company. . .
... If your question is, "given my martial arts training, does being blind impact my chances of survival in fighting a giant cat?" , the answer is "no". When fighting a giant cat, the only difference between me and a giant can of tuna is that I'd be slightly easier to open - and that's true whether or not I can see.
Given the ability to run to safety (I mean detecting where such place could be found) and detecting the cat before it sneaks much closer or find a sturdy stick to use as a club would be of slight help, no? I think such things are rather hard to do in an unknown area as the adventurers rarely have the ability to engage the enemy on their home turf.
Given the ability to run to safety (I mean detecting where such place could be found) and detecting the cat before it sneaks much closer or find a sturdy stick to use as a club would be of slight help, no? I think such things are rather hard to do in an unknown area as the adventurers rarely have the ability to engage the enemy on their home turf.... If your question is, "given my martial arts training, does being blind impact my chances of survival in fighting a giant cat?" , the answer is "no". When fighting a giant cat, the only difference between me and a giant can of tuna is that I'd be slightly easier to open - and that's true whether or not I can see.
Being able to engage in social diplomacy and convince other people to go with you to fight the giant can would make things easier, no?
And, again, being deaf would make such diplomacy challenging, I should think.
My high school had a Hearing impaired student program. While it is tough you can over come that by learning to read lips. As I have had conversation with deaf students with them reading my lips...true it take skill to over come...but I think it is easier to over come being deaf in a social situration than it is to overcome blindness in battle.
While your Touch MA is rather interesting and would like to know about it...I see it being only very useful in limited situration. I see it completely being useless vs ranged attacks of any certain..or multiple melee attackers. I don't see a feesible way for a blind person to deal with thos situration.
Being able to engage in social diplomacy and convince other people to go with you to fight the giant can would make things easier, no?
And, again, being deaf would make such diplomacy challenging, I should think.
Yes, and if only PCs had some way of acting out their request, perhaps as a pantomime. Or putting their intentions down in a written form, maybe by scratching lines in the dirt to show a cat-monster approaching a group of little houses. Or inventing a set of squiggles that you could draw on dirt or paper that mean "ME NEED HELP FIGHTING LION. YOU NO HELP, HE EAT YOU."
I always assumed that -most- people in a typical campaign world are illiterate (PCs being one of the few exceptions).
Even if literacy is only for the nobles and the educated, that still means you can talk to one person in a thousand who can read. Perhaps a priest or a wizard.
And if you can't, people have been making drawings to convey information without a written language for thousands of years.
Deafness doesn't make social interactions nearly as hard as blindness does with most combat situations. People are used to dealing with others with bad hearing and sight more than you think. A lot of people may die earlier, but there are still elderly people in every community and their hearing and sight deteoriated by age don't get any compensations. And We're not even considering accidents. And deaf people can still talk. Sounding funny doesn't stand in the way to relaying information and heavy gesturing is quite common in some cultures. I don't think that you are completely out of social interactions.
Deafness doesn't make social interactions nearly as hard as blindness does with most combat situations. People are used to dealing with others with bad hearing and sight more than you think. A lot of people may die earlier, but there are still elderly people in every community and their hearing and sight deteoriated by age don't get any compensations. And We're not even considering accidents. And deaf people can still talk. Sounding funny doesn't stand in the way to relaying information and heavy gesturing is quite common in some cultures. I don't think that you are completely out of social interactions.Zmar, deafness and "bad hearing" are not the same thing - anymore than having to wear reading glasses and being blind are the same thing.
As for people who are blind/deaf dying earlier, keep in mind that, in the US, they are supported with things like SSD. In many cultures, blind people and deaf people _do_ die much earlier.
I meant that most people are used to dealing with people that are effectively deaf/blind and don't shun them entirely AND can deal with them. Even if just via improvisation. Elderly people were mentioned as an example of a group of people that even a backwater villager can regularly encounter. I didn't mean them as an example of people dying earlier.
One person in a thousand.
A person is being threatened by a giant cat - most likely not anywhere near civilization, rather in (or near) a small village. I'm assuming that giant cats don't like to hang around large cities.
A typical small village has a working force (adults between the ages of 16 and 60) of a couple hundred. That gives the person about a 20% chance, assuming he has the time to search the entire village, of finding someone who can read.
20% doesn't sound all that great to me.
Dude, you're really moving the goal posts on this one. First you said:
Then I suggested pantomime or writing, and you ignored the pantomime part and said:
To which I have the "nobles and educated" line, and mentioned drawings again. And you ignored the drawing parts again, and said the stuff at the top about being "not anywhere near civilization," and the info about the work force of the village. If the village has one cleric, they should have a literate person. Even if they don't have a cleric, you can still make drawings. But you've ignored the option of drawings every step of the way because you don't want to give an inch on your premise that being a deaf adventurer deaf is a zillion times worse than being a blind adventurer because deafness kills social interactions.
I've wasted enough of my evenings and weekends arguing this point with you. I'm done.
Removed a post. Please post nicely.
With the new Unleashed Monk needing ki points to fuel most of his class abilities, but having so little to do it with, Vows are suddenly being talked about again.
Thus, I must ask, is there anything preventing an unleashed monk from taking Vow of Poverty to get a whole bunch of ki points and simply having his one good item fill the purpose of many magical items (similarly to how a robe of the archmage does)?
It's still not ideal I know, but monks never really needed much to begin with--excepting ki points of course. :D
Even the Vow of Poverty from 3.X was underpowered, the current one is just terrible...
I would keep the magic items myself, but have not read the unleashed Monk.
Can they move and get more than a single attack yet?
I don't see why you couldn't take the vow with it. It's going to be hard to make a special item as a vow monk, though, given you can't accumulate wealth to get an item improved, etc. If your DM is on board with giving you a special scaling item to take the edge off, maybe it would be worth it.
Would have to be a pretty strong concept to play it... I don't see it being mechanically advantageous. I mean, isn't level 20 WBL something like 880,000 gold?
You can buy a lot of portable holes with that.
Or, you know... more useful stuff... like... shuriken and the like.
Well with the Automatic Bonus Progression from the Unchained book Pg 156. It almost works like the Vow of poverty from 3.X without breaking any vows
I was wondering where the Classic Rule Bending Raving Dork had gone to.
Yeah yeah, that's all old hat. See my latest post.
Even the Vow of Poverty from 3.X was underpowered, the current one is just terrible...
I would keep the magic items myself, but have not read the unleashed Monk.
Can they move and get more than a single attack yet?
Yes, but only if you take certain class options. There are two that I can think of off the top of my head. One of those two abilities has an ungodly ki point cost associated with it though.
Even the Vow of Poverty from 3.X was underpowered, the current one is just terrible...
I would keep the magic items myself, but have not read the unleashed Monk.
Can they move and get more than a single attack yet?
By 5th level, Flying Kick gives you Flurry-Pounce basically.
Well with the Automatic Bonus Progression from the Unchained book Pg 156. It almost works like the Vow of poverty from 3.X without breaking any vows
My thoughts exactly. If you're using ABP then the biggest reason not to take Vow of Poverty is that it replaces Still Mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By definition, all magic items are made from masterwork items, no matter what the final appearance. None of the items you referring to then, are of simple make, even if they are plain in appearance.
The only things that have to be masterwork are weapons, armor, and shields. No other magic item crafting feat requires a masterwork item.
There is no such thing as a masterwork ring, or masterwork parchment.