So can a vow of poverty monk decides to spend his share of the party funds renting magic equipment (not borrowing renting)?
No.
Why not he isn't borrowing the items and he doesn't own them?
How does a Vow of Poverty monk even get a share of the party loot? (Other than the very few gp required to live, of course.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.Why not he isn't borrowing the items and he doesn't own them?
Because that totally defeats the purpose of a vow of poverty.
How does a Vow of Poverty monk even get a share of the party loot? (Other than the very few gp required to live, of course.)
Because he is allowed to own money just not carry it, so as long as the party hold the loot for him he is sorted.
How does a Vow of Poverty monk even get a share of the party loot? (Other than the very few gp required to live, of course.)Because he is allowed to own money just not carry it, so as long as the party hold the loot for him he is sorted.Quoting from the vow
"He cannot borrow or carry wealth or items worth more than 50 gp that belong to others."
" 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."
So no, a monk isn't allowed to borrow the possessions of others if they have cost more than 50 gold.
I see so that limits him to collective owned stuff, stuff no one in the party owns individually, stuff that is not the possession of others and yet not his possession either.
It limits him completely. A Vow of Poverty monk owns a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and one magic item (probably an Amulet of Mighty Fists). That's it. You cannot own/borrow/rent anything else. You can't even have more than about 6 gold, since that is about what it costs to eat common meals and stay at a common inn for a week (really it's 56 silver). That is the point of the vow. If you are not penalized, you do get the Ki. It's that simple.
I see so that limits him to collective owned stuff, stuff no one in the party owns individually, stuff that is not the possession of others and yet not his possession either.
I would still say no. If the Monk considers himself part of the collective that owns the items, then he is breaking the rule of how many possessions he can have (as owning 1/4 of an item is still owning). If he does not consider himself part of the collective, then he is breaking the vow about borrowing (even though it belongs to several people).
Vow of Poverty is intended to keep you from having more than one valuable item, and is for this reason a crippling choice. You might persuade a GM that a forced reading allows you to make use of more items, but at that point the Vow has become meaningless, and you are basically getting something for nothing. Either way it is a badly designed option, and should probably be avoided.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see so that limits him to collective owned stuff, stuff no one in the party owns individually, stuff that is not the possession of others and yet not his possession either.
This thread is a great illustration of why the game has a GM. After all, otherwise there would be nobody to disinvite players for pulling self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously.
I see so that limits him to collective owned stuff, stuff no one in the party owns individually, stuff that is not the possession of others and yet not his possession either.This thread is a great illustration of why the game has a GM. After all, otherwise there would be nobody to disinvite players for pulling self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously.
Well that was pretty uncalled for, games have gm's because they need gm's you know to run the npc's create a scenario etc, if you believe gm's are primarily there to dis-invite players you don't like that is pretty sad.
I see so that limits him to collective owned stuff, stuff no one in the party owns individually, stuff that is not the possession of others and yet not his possession either.This thread is a great illustration of why the game has a GM. After all, otherwise there would be nobody to disinvite players for pulling self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously.
Getting clarification on what his character can and can't carry is self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense? And a reason to disinvite a player? Wow...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, as a matter of fact, saying "My monk has a vow of poverty but still walks around wearing a full complement of magical equipment because it is communally owned which bypasses the exact wording of the restriction on borrowing" is self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense.
I honestly don't see how you could view the rich impoverished monk as anything else.
Conceptually I don't see the problem.
The monk owns nothing, lives plainly has no unnecessary comforts he is not rich, the only things of any value he has access to the tools of his trade (equipment) but these tools he uses to help others not to enrich himself.
As for mechanically well the amount of ki isn't worth the price of no-equipment, my monk can't keep up with the rest of the party and my lawful good monk continually putting the party at risk trying to rescue him from his own pride is getting old fast. Honestly making renting really expensive should more than balance the power of the vow.
If you want to get around the VoP go with Permanency and various magic spells, just don't forget to save a few thousand gold for the Atonement spell.
I prefer Greater Magic Fang, Arcane Sight, Tongues, Resistance and See Invisibility.
Nice that works thanks.
With danger of sounding judgmental, if you don't want to play the Vow of Poverty, why did you take it?
Perhaps it looked better when he took it?
Long story short the campaign lasted longer than expected and the problems got worse as he leveled up. I might just give up on monks and go with something a little more reliable, maybe a oracle barb or fighter hellknight.
Haha, I always like your direct way of calling hair-splitting lawyer nonsense what it is. ;)Yes, as a matter of fact, saying "My monk has a vow of poverty but still walks around wearing a full complement of magical equipment because it is communally owned which bypasses the exact wording of the restriction on borrowing" is self-serving hair-splitting lawyer nonsense.
I honestly don't see how you could view the rich impoverished monk as anything else.
Concur 100%. This is not a "I don't understand the rules" issue. It's very clearly a "I want to break the rules and I want your permission" issue. These are the players I often have to take aside and tell them that no amount of semantic work-arounds is getting by in my campaign.
A VoP Monk is serious business. Even magic tattoos and permanant spells are iffy, but I might allow them. I say iffy because yes, it costs more than 50gp to cast a permanant spell (in spell components) and the monk is benefitting from the effects, but it's to make themselves more effective at what they do, and not some attempt at greed, vanity, pride, or things of that nature. Same with magic tattoos. If they can sell me a story that having these spells or tattoos makes them more effective in a party for the benefit of others or a more complete and perfect being attuned to their gods, then I'll often allow it.
Then again, because I get so crazy strict on what the monk can/cannot have, I allow them to use the Book of Exhaulted Deeds VoP, not the watered down version in Pathfinder. If they're truly going barebones, and play it well, they should have a reward for it.
If they're trying to do anything to skirt around their Vow, then that speaks to attempts to break the Vow. Therefore, in spirit, they break it. Monks, being Lawful, are not allowed to do this by nature and by RAW.
Oh come on lawful is the alignment of technicalities, lawful means you obey the letter of the laws because the laws are sovereign. To quote I judge I met "Court are places of law not justice." If you are true lawful then you would obey the letter of the law over the spirit of the law because you do not have the authority to judge the spirit of the law as that is a task for those with the right to rule.
Lawful to me means you try your damnedest to stay within the boundaries of the law as you see it, and stick to your principles as much as possible.
The letter of the law and the spirit of the law often differ, like here with arguments of RAW vs RAI.
Sorry, but a player trying to bend or break the rules and skirt around their chosen Vow might as well have not taken that Vow in the first place, since they're not serious about it.
That's about as unlawful as I can imagine. Breaking both the rule you swore to and your own principles in upholding it.
To quote wizards lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency. It is about conforming to rules what ever those rules may be if those rules are the laws of the land then legalities will be very much a part of the character. To conform to the rules you have to know them. As for the ends justifies the means typically lawful are in-favor of the society first rather than the individual so if the means are legal and they justify the ends then should be obeyed. A lawful good monk could ruthlessly cut down peasant fleeing a quarantine because one his is obeying the law and two stopping peasants spreading the disease is a good act that could save thousands.
Looks like someone has max ranks and a Skill Focus in Acrobatics (Mental).
Regardless of our differing interpretations of Lawful, the point is there is a person trying to skirt around their Vow of Poverty rules through technicalities and semantics. I smell a skeezy defense lawyer or a used car salesman. The monk should not "own" or "claim" a party share of loot or treasure, even if it's not physically carried by him. A true VoP monk would not allow that.
They might allow a "tithe" to be donated in his name to a church or charity, or to the needy, however.
Regardless of what people say, the "spirit" or "intent" of the Vow is vastly important to the DM's allowing whatever it is to take place and still allowing the Monk to remain both Lawful and true to his/her Vow.
Anyone adventuring with him would understand that he works for his dinner, earns the right to buffs and potion uses through his party protection/scouting/whatever his chosen role is.
They might allow a "tithe" to be donated in his name to a church or charity, or to the needy, however.
And since the monk with the vow of poverty is by definition impoverished, he qualifies as the needy and therefore is justified in putting the tithe directly into his pocket! This is a valid argument so his Lawful alignment actually requires him to do this.
A VoP Monk is serious business. Even magic tattoos and permanant spells are iffy, but I might allow them.
Yeah, to me not "iffy" at all, they are OUT- unless you got one before you took your Vow.
Long story short the campaign lasted longer than expected and the problems got worse as he leveled up. I might just give up on monks and go with something a little more reliable, maybe a oracle barb or fighter hellknight.
I'm always surprised when someone that reads these boards has to find out in play that monks suck (except for dips, Zen Archers, and Sensei support builds). It's practically the number one topic of conversation here. Monks suck and Rogues suck, too (though not quite as much). There are other classes and archetypes that can literally do everything those two classes do but better. Play one of them.
Long story short the campaign lasted longer than expected and the problems got worse as he leveled up. I might just give up on monks and go with something a little more reliable, maybe a oracle barb or fighter hellknight.I'm always surprised when someone that reads these boards has to find out in play that monks suck (except for dips, Zen Archers, and Sensei support builds). It's practically the number one topic of conversation here. Monks suck and Rogues suck, too (though not quite as much). There are other classes and archetypes that can literally do everything those two classes do but better. Play one of them.
No class sucks if you play it right or optimize it to what your playstyle is. I've played a monk to 20 and loved it, played a different class to 20 and hated it. It's all about the effort you put into it and how much of a "munchkin" vs. a "roleplayer" that you are.
They might allow a "tithe" to be donated in his name to a church or charity, or to the needy, however.And since the monk with the vow of poverty is by definition impoverished, he qualifies as the needy and therefore is justified in putting the tithe directly into his pocket! This is a valid argument so his Lawful alignment actually requires him to do this.
It's actually just a twisting of the semantics to get around justifying his cut of party loot again. What I meant was to give the tithe to the needy (OTHER THAN THE MONK), and if you hadn't cut out all the context of my post, you'd see that by my reckoning, the monk does not see himself as impoverished or needy, and he would never accept his own tithe or that of others.
Thereby rendering this argument invalid.
Yeah, to me not "iffy" at all, they are OUT- unless you got one before you took your Vow.
A VoP Monk is serious business. Even magic tattoos and permanant spells are iffy, but I might allow them.
Yep. A tattoo is, for all intents and purposes, a possession. It is basically a piece of artwork, has value, and something you carry with you (The fact that it's "ON" you is simply semantics). And the reason why I use BoED VoP, I believe it requires you to take it at level 1, therefore you should not have earned any money to afford magical tattoos or permanent spells.
Spells of permanance are way more iffy, even for my very strict use of VoP. You could argue that a permanant spell is basically a magic item, you could argue that it's something that you carry with you that has value (since it took material components to cast it, etc...)
Which, again, is why I make my players argue their case for intent and use for the magic tattoos and permanant spells.
Long story short the campaign lasted longer than expected and the problems got worse as he leveled up. I might just give up on monks and go with something a little more reliable, maybe a oracle barb or fighter hellknight.I'm always surprised when someone that reads these boards has to find out in play that monks suck (except for dips, Zen Archers, and Sensei support builds). It's practically the number one topic of conversation here. Monks suck and Rogues suck, too (though not quite as much). There are other classes and archetypes that can literally do everything those two classes do but better. Play one of them.
What class other than rogue can spot a trap without taking an action?
"Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM." Of course, this depends on your DM and your groups play style. If your DM allows everyone a Perc roll to spot a trap, no matter the circumstances, then a rogue is sorta outdone.
Mind you, that is why those two classes are a little sucky- they don't fill a niche as well as other classes do. Despite the huge debate over whether or not Paladin, Ranger & Bbn are better than Fighter, a well made ftr (esp with archetypes) can fill the tank role in a party very well.
The rogue still can fill the skill monkey role, but the ranger can do 90% of it with a full BAB and a d10 for HP, etc. Heck, the Monk does't make a bad skill monkey (it just sucks at being a tank- except of course with some archetypes.) And that's the problem with a monk- the class really doesn't suck, it's just that it doesnt fill any role that well. If you try and make it a heavy tank, it will fail.
And of course there's the bard. It does sorta suck, but it can fill the skill monkey role, esp with archetypes. It just doesnt have much offensive power all by itself.
and if you hadn't cut out all the context of my post,
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize cutting context wasn't fair game in a thread about how monks with a vow of poverty can spend money to walk around covered in expensive magical loot.
Trap Spotter (Ex)
Archaeologist Bards can do that. So can some other obscure archetypes like White-Haired Witches, but Archaeologists are the big one, since they get so many other rogue abilities like trapfinding (a modified version), trap sense, uncanny dodge, and evasion that it may as well be a rogue archetype that traded out a few talents and sneak attack for six-level spellcasting and the ability to self-inspire courage as a luck bonus.
I'm always surprised when someone that reads these boards has to find out in play that monks suck (except for dips, Zen Archers, and Sensei support builds). It's practically the number one topic of conversation here. Monks suck and Rogues suck, too (though not quite as much). There are other classes and archetypes that can literally do everything those two classes do but better. Play one of them.
Monks don't suck. People who judge everything based on a theorycrafted maximum effective number of DPR suck.
I would rather not play a class that "does everything better" even if it were true. It's just like any game, the most effective strategy is often the most boring.
Regardless of what "The Scrub Article" seems to think, doing nothing but guarding and poking when playing a fighting game is boring. It defeats the purpose of playing the game and invalidates 90% of it. Same principle applies here.
By your logic since everyone says the Wizard or Druid is the best class those should be the only options since "they do it better, so everyone should play one of them".
Games are for fun, otherwise we wouldn't play them.
Monks don't suck. People who judge everything based on a theorycrafted maximum effective number of DPR suck.
I would rather not play a class that "does everything better" even if it were true. It's just like any game, the most effective strategy is often the most boring.
Regardless of what "The Scrub Article" seems to think, doing nothing but guarding and poking when playing a fighting game is boring. It defeats the purpose of playing the game and invalidates 90% of it. Same principle applies here.
By your logic since everyone says the Wizard or Druid is the best class those should be the only options since "they do it better, so everyone should play one of them".
Games are for fun, otherwise we wouldn't play them.
That's a really bizarre attitude. No, every class that isn't a Monk or Rogue has a place. Monks suck because they do not work as advertised. Rogues suck because they are completely obsoleted by other class archetypes. Every other class has something to contribute and are perfectly viable.
And to the guy a couple of posts up, I'd never even consider putting Bards into the same category as Monk and Rogue. For one, Bard archetypes are part of the reason that Rogue sucks. Besides, they make the best support builds (which are my favorite), and can take archetypes like Dawnflower Dervish to be plenty powerful on their own if that's your thing.
Oh come on lawful is the alignment of technicalities, lawful means you obey the letter of the laws because the laws are sovereign. To quote I judge I met "Court are places of law not justice." If you are true lawful then you would obey the letter of the law over the spirit of the law because you do not have the authority to judge the spirit of the law as that is a task for those with the right to rule.
Lawful with low wisdom, then yes... But a monk should never have low wisdom, wisdom allows one to not be blinded by the letter of the law and see the spirit of the law. This is why it is applied to a sense motive check ;)
You've been caught red handed sir. Just roll with it and perhaps we could help you find a monk build you will enjoy playing within the confines of the rules both as written and intended. :)
With danger of sounding judgmental, if you don't want to play the Vow of Poverty, why did you take it?Because it gives him a massive ki pool
Because it seemed like a cool idea at the time and I did play for 7 levels and 6 months, the character concept was that the monk was sending all the money he earned back to his family. We have now got to the point that my monk makes an acrobatic check on the first turn to jump up somewhere high so he can have a good view of the fight and shout encouragement down. The gm even keeps sending the pc gifts from his family (equipment) in a not so subtle hint that a pc who can't hit his opponents on anything lower than a 15 (on his first attack of a flurry) isn't contributing much.
Because it seemed like a cool idea at the time and I did play for 7 levels and 6 months, the character concept was that the monk was sending all the money he earned back to his family. We have now got to the point that my monk makes an acrobatic check on the first turn to jump up somewhere high so he can have a good view of the fight and shout encouragement down. The gm even keeps sending the pc gifts from his family (equipment) in a not so subtle hint that a pc who can't hit his opponents on anything lower than a 15 (on his first attack of a flurry) isn't contributing much.With danger of sounding judgmental, if you don't want to play the Vow of Poverty, why did you take it?Because it gives him a massive ki pool
Dude, if the GM is cool with it, go for it. Or look at houseruling with the beefed up Exalted Deeds vow of poverty. That'll get you hitting harder. If it's not organized play, you can interprete a rule however the GM will let you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What ever happened to the spirit of the game
Just asking
Because it seemed like a cool idea at the time and I did play for 7 levels and 6 months, the character concept was that the monk was sending all the money he earned back to his family. We have now got to the point that my monk makes an acrobatic check on the first turn to jump up somewhere high so he can have a good view of the fight and shout encouragement down. The gm even keeps sending the pc gifts from his family (equipment) in a not so subtle hint that a pc who can't hit his opponents on anything lower than a 15 (on his first attack of a flurry) isn't contributing much.With danger of sounding judgmental, if you don't want to play the Vow of Poverty, why did you take it?Because it gives him a massive ki pool
sounds like the GM is giving you a way to RP giving up the vow of poverty. Take it since you're not happy with it.