Vow of Poverty and a 'party' Cure wand

[Maldor]

Someone who wants to actually role-play an interesting character instead of metagaming a munchkin. Someone like me.

it has always been my experance that players that make comments like these are of the mind set that they are good roleplayers just becuase they made a mechancaly infeary character but the cold hard truth is good roleplayers are good roleplayers and bad ones are bad one in truth i like a character to back up his roleplaying with the mechanics if your a fighter then you should swing a sword very good or else the party whos lifes depent on your ability to hold your own are going to kick the character out or just let him die.

 

[Maldor]

Don't forget that the druid's share of any treasure ends up going away - either he gives it to charity or to some other place - but the party does not get a bigger share because of it. Far too many groups with a VoP character in their mix think they can just claim his part of the booty.

it says should not necessarily mean the rest of the party gets bigger shares. Not that they don't this is really up to the rest of the group and wether the are willing to let the PC with VOP have his share of the treasure since that PC has VOP he is good and proabiliy travils with other good PC's but if not then they may not give him a share of treasure and this will not invalidate his VOP per RAW.

 

[Jack Simth]

DreamChaser:
A few things each of your listed classes gives up that I consider of note....

The Druid loses:
The ability to tailor equipment to specific situations (VoP benefits are basically fixed; the Druid can't pick up, say, a Helm of Teleportation if he knows he'll need to be traveling a lot).
The ability to use scrolls and wands of highly situational spells that will only occasionally be needed, and aren't worth preparing (e.g., Lesser Restoration).
The ability to use spells with expensive components or focuses at his own choice (unless using the XP variant for expensive components).
A good portion of the character's ability to min/max (can put the highest bonus into Wisdom... but when focusing on one aspect of a character, the character with wealth to apply will do better; the same applies to anything a character might want to focus on - AC, attack, damage, and so on).

The Sorcerer loses:
The ability to tailor equipment to specific situations (VoP benefits are basically fixed).
The ability to use scrolls and wands of highly situational spells that will only occasionally be needed (e.g., Magic Mouth or Nondetection).
The ability to pick up equipment that reduces the need for particular spells (e.g., a Helm of Teleportation so as not to need Teleport, freeing up a 5th level Spell Known for something else).
The ability to pick up one of the best PrC's a Sorcerer can take (Mage of the Arcane Order - has a monthly fee, and an expensive focus).
The ability to use spells with expensive components or focuses at his own choice (unless using the XP variant for expensive components).
A good portion of the character's ability to min/max (can put the highest bonus into Wisdom... but when focusing on one aspect of a character, the character with wealth to apply will do better; the same applies to anything a character might want to focus on - AC, attack, damage, and so on).

The Monk loses:
The ability to tailor equipment to specific situations (VoP benefits are basically fixed; the Monk can't pick up, say, Winged Boots if he knows he'll be facing a flying opponent).
A good portion of the character's ability to min/max (can put the highest bonus into Wisdom... but when focusing on one aspect of a character, the character with wealth to apply will do better; the same applies to anything a character might want to focus on - AC, attack, damage, and so on).
The ability to pick up miscalaneous abilities from items (e.g., a Cloak of Displacement to help avoid getting hit).

Now, the Monk gives up the least... but the Monk is usually the weakest of those three classes after about level 10 or 12.

 

[irdeggman]

it says should not necessarily mean the rest of the party gets bigger shares. Not that they don't this is really up to the rest of the group and wether the are willing to let the PC with VOP have his share of the treasure since that PC has VOP he is good and proabiliy travils with other good PC's but if not then they may not give him a share of treasure and this will not invalidate his VOP per RAW.

Hmm so it is an acceptable practice to play in a group that deliberatly deprives one member of his/her "share" of treasure?

I would leave that playing group rather quickly myself.

And there is actually a whole lot more to being an ascetic/VoP character than meerly self-denial:

Chapter One – The Nature of Being Good.

See the entire chapter for the underlying aspects of “good”.

Chapter Three – Variant Rules

Pg 29 Tithes and Offering

“Good characters give money from the treasure they acquire to temples, orders, and charitable organizations. Some characters are required to do so (see Voluntary Poverty, below), while others just do it because it is the right thing to do.”

Pg 30-31 “Other ramifications of poverty”

“An ascetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial. The majority of her share of party treasure (or profits from the sale thereof) should be donated to the needy, either directly (equipping rescued captives with gear taken from their fallen captors) or indirectly (making a large donation to a temple noted for its work among the poor).”


So an ascetic character "must" demand his/her share of treasure so that he/she can "help out the poor and those who need". A VoP character further more must give away an even larger portion of his/her share (pretty much all of it).

Chapter One of BoED defines the "Nature of Being Good" this is an important read for any game that allows its use. This is because the very nature of ascetic play is based on this definition (which is by its very nature an extreme one). If this is not done then the entire concept of ascetics are lost and it will poorly be implemented. This another reasont that there are numerous "warnings" on the requirement of mature player for using this book (and its companion (BoVD).

Some useful information from WotC on VoP:


Save My Game articles:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060609a

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060616a

 

[brehobit]

Please don't get in the habit of posting scans of copyrighted materials.

Is there a board policy on this? From a legal perspective, I can't see any reason why this quote doesn't fall under fair use. While fair use is a fairly tricky legal concept (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html), it would be hard to argue this posting doesn't look reasonable under points 1, 3, and 4. Of course the board owner and moderators can take a more conservative stance as a matter of principle. I just didn't realize that they had.

Just curious,
Mark

 

[brehobit]

And on topic:
There is plenty of real-world arguments that can be made wrt VoP.

If VoP is a promise between you and your god, one could certainly argue that such a promise is more important than _any_ earthy thing. That includes saving the world, etc. In most fantasy worlds the gods are not all powerful, and if the universe ends, they likely end with it. So the notion that the "real" world is somehow hugely less than the spiritual world would be difficult to create in most worlds. However, I could imagine a LG character who _believed_ that in a standard fantasy world. Still, as a personal thing, I'd find that hard to role play, and I'd even find it difficult as a DM to let someone who chose their vow over the world remain good.

I can see VoP being done in a way where ownership etc. is _played_ as something you are just incapable of doing. Something like a geas. The character took a vow, and his god enforces that vow in an active way. That could be fun actually, and it would play fairly well.

I could also see a world where you lose VoP for breaking your vow for any reason, but the character has only "maintenance of VoP power" as a reason not to break it. The first time such a character is in a situation where he must break the VoP or someone dies, I think he loses the VoP at that very instant. Letting the person die is an evil act, and so you lose all exalted feats. Breaking the vow, breaks the vow.

I'd prefer not to play a VoP character under the last set of rules. But I think that's closest to how it was written.

Mark

 

[Dread Polack]

Check what kind of feat it is, and then read the rules for that kind of feat. It is not just a feat.

My point wasn't that it was "just a feat" as opposed to a "non-feat", but that it was a vow of "poverty" as opposed to a vow of "something else".

Like I said, I've only skimmed the text. I have no doubt that you are correct in saying that it is not an ordinary feat. If it was, I doubt there would be quite so much discussion on it

Dread Polack

 

[frankthedm]

Of course the board owner and moderators can take a more conservative stance as a matter of principle. I just didn't realize that they had.

Just to note, Mod actions generally are not discussable subjects on EN world last i checked. You can email them on it though.

Also don't read so much into it. P-Cat just made a simple request. I was the one who made the edit.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I think the fluff on Vow of Poverty is useless garbage that can safely be dumped. Lawful Neutral? Chaotic Evil? Not a problem.

The mechanical point to the so-called "Vow of Poverty" has nothing to do with playing a good character. The point of it is to make a character who doesn't need to use magical items but is still somewhat viable. It's a shame that the idea happened to be used in the Book of Exalted Deeds, rather than a neutral rules mechanics book like Unearthed Arcana.

I say, do 'Vow of Poverty' as an alignmnet-neutral mechanic where the auras of magical items intereferes with the neato powers that you've developed. Cut out 90%+ of the Exalted-type restrictions.

Let the VoP characters use magical items, with the caveat that doing so shorts out their VoP powers for some interval. Put no restrictions on mundane items.

It'll likely still be pretty balanced.

 

[irdeggman]

I think the fluff on Vow of Poverty is useless garbage that can safely be dumped. Lawful Neutral? Chaotic Evil? Not a problem.

The mechanical point to the so-called "Vow of Poverty" has nothing to do with playing a good character. The point of it is to make a character who doesn't need to use magical items but is still somewhat viable. It's a shame that the idea happened to be used in the Book of Exalted Deeds, rather than a neutral rules mechanics book like Unearthed Arcana.

I say, do 'Vow of Poverty' as an alignmnet-neutral mechanic where the auras of magical items intereferes with the neato powers that you've developed. Cut out 90%+ of the Exalted-type restrictions.

Let the VoP characters use magical items, with the caveat that doing so shorts out their VoP powers for some interval. Put no restrictions on mundane items.

It'll likely still be pretty balanced.

So then that would be a complete set of house rules but the RAW (as asked about by the OP) has:

The prerequisite feat for VoP, Sacred Vow is all about being "good".

+2 "perfection" bonus to diplomacy

"You have willingly given yourself to the service of a good deity or cause, denying ourself an ordinary life to better serve your highest ideals."

Both Sacred Vow and all of the Vow feats are "Exalted" feats.

The prerequisites for "exalted feats" are (BoED pg 39):

"Only Intelligent creatures of good alignment and the highest moral standards can acquire exalted feats."

"A character who willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits from his exalted feats. She regains those benefits if she atones for her violations."

"Aura of Good: A character with at least one exalted feat radiates an aura of good with a power level equal to here character level as if she were a paladin of a good deity."