Vow of Poverty

[Elric]

Do you think a character with the Vow of Poverty Feat could use someones clothes, say a uniform or something, to wear them as part of a disgiuse?

If so could he wear a weapon even if he never weilded it?

Yes, according to common sense. Common sense, though usually right, is not necessarily common. This forum is often a place where it is argued that "the rules" trump common sense. I don't agree.

If someone really doesn't like Vow of Poverty, he could add “You are now an inanimate object” to the description. This is easy to interpret and makes your character into a nice, holy statue with no more rules issues for this forum.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Yes, according to common sense. Common sense, though usually right, is not necessarily common. This forum is often a place where it is argued that "the rules" trump common sense. I don't agree.

If someone really doesn't like Vow of Poverty, he could add “You are now an inanimate object” to the description. This is easy to interpret and makes your character into a nice, holy statue with no more rules issues for this forum.

Common sense is actually wrong a surprising amount of the time, particularly in a world of fantasy as abstract as D&D. As per your second paragraph, I believe you have it reversed. You are suggesting that additions be made to the text to simplify Vow of Poverty when in fact, no additions are needed. Additions are necessary to make the feat more robust, which is fine as long as they are fully realised as additions to the rules. Its when a "this can obviously work even though the rules say it cannot because common sense it does" attitude is adopted that there becomes room for arguments with players whose common sense tells them otherwise than the DM's.

So I argue that you can allow this outside of the rules, since it is not overpowered, but it needs to be seen as a departure from the written rules, rather than the ridiculous straw man you set up for me (although I'll admit it was kind of funny ).

You have stated that you believe that common sense trumps the rules, which is not how I would run things if I want a working system. I would instead use the less extreme view that the rules are the rules, and common sense allows us to make house rules and variants as we see fit (like allowing the use of a disguise for Vow of Poverty).

 

[Elric]

Common sense trumps "the rules", by which I mean an overly rigid adherence to a literal reading of the rules. In general, I view over-dependence on "the rules as written" as a sign that a person really does not know how to make the game work in a flexible setting.

Everyone should know how the rules function in a basic sense. How to resolve a grapple, for example, is a question that I still probably don’t understand as well as I should. I certainly wouldn’t try to interpret the grapple rules as I am not that familiar with them. This is something that I would try to change, though. When I use the grapple rules according to the most literal interpretation I can find, I am doing so because I don’t understand the rules well enough to know what interpretations work well and make sense.

You are right that common sense in general doesn’t work well for a fantasy game. What I’m referring to is more of “meta common sense”, that is, common sense about the way that the game’s rules interact with each other. The “I cast a fireball. Does it cool the surrounding air?” question is clearly something you don't want to answer with common sense.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Common sense trumps "the rules", by which I mean an overly rigid adherence to a literal reading of the rules. In general, I view over-dependence on "the rules as written" as a sign that a person really does not know how to make the game work in a flexible setting.

Everyone should know how the rules function in a basic sense. How to resolve a grapple, for example, is a question that I still probably don’t understand as well as I should. I certainly wouldn’t try to interpret the grapple rules as I am not that familiar with them. This is something that I would try to change, though. When I use the grapple rules according to the most literal interpretation I can find, I am doing so because I don’t understand the rules well enough to know what interpretations work well and make sense.

You are right that common sense in general doesn’t work well for a fantasy game. What I’m referring to is more of “meta common sense”, that is, common sense about the way that the game’s rules interact with each other. The “I cast a fireball. Does it cool the surrounding air?” question is clearly something you don't want to answer with common sense.

I completely agree with your post above, and that is why its so important to first make it clear exactly how the rules function in a basic and rigid sense, and then create flexible house-ruled versions that just make sense for the game when you become more comfortable with the rules.

The key is that the basic understanding of the rules is an important first step.

If someone answered this thread, "The rules as stated don't allow a Vow of Poverty character to do this, but after weighing the issue, I don't find it to be a balance problem if you do, and it fits with the flavour of the rule" then I would certainly agree.

If someone says, "The Vow of Poverty feat allows you to do that" then they are simply wrong.

 

[andargor]

You don't have mages with VoP. They're not allowed to own:

Their spellbook.
The ink that goes into their spellbook.

*bzzzt* Wrong!

My epic Wizard/Elemental Savant/Archmage/Arcane Lord got slapped with VoP (and EVoP from WizO_Nathanel over at Wizard's) by his deity by force. Seems he has "greater plans" for my character.

First impact: I had to flush three feats to replace them with Sacred Vow, VoP, and EVoP. The DM graciously allowed (read: house rule) some fiddling with feats and ignoring some prerequisites (e.g. Eschew materials -> Ignore Material Components, flush Eschew Materials). Second impact: the spellbook... In combination with UA Flaws, I took a couple more Spell Mastery feats, which still gives me a number of known spells far less than a Sorcerer of the same level, but I can live with that...

Divine intervention... *sigh*

Andargor

EDIT: The party leader suffered the same fate as me. He's a cleric, but the deity allowed him to wear decent clothes and keep his holy symbol (for DF spells).

 

[Hypersmurf]

*bzzzt* Wrong!

Oh! 'Wrong' as in 'Wrong, you do have mages with VoP', not 'Wrong, they can own their spellbook'.

Gotcha.

-Hyp.

 

[kyberus]

Well... the text section on the Vow of poverty does not mention not being able to use items. Furthermore, though the feat text states thus. It makes no provision for WHAT excactly, is a material possession.
Therefor, what can and cannot be used is not specified.
Due to this lack of specificity, any ruling is a house rule, towards or away from strickness.

Legally speaking, atleast.

Interpreting this to the full extent in one direction, the VoP exalted may never eat, because he or she must first POSSESS food, which is material. Therefor, in the literal interpretation of the rules, no VoP until sustenance unless you don't need foor. Neither could she or he use a doorknob (they'd need to beat it into the ground)
On the other hand, at he other extreme, material possessions could be concidered to be only things which they actually own. But then, what prevents them from (litterally speaking) merely acquiring "personal debts" amoung others, and having their things used on their behalf.

The SPIRIT of the law, and a specific and timely ruling on what exactly a material possession is, are important. In essence, we are all relying, to some degree or another, on common sense to define "material possession", and whether or not it must be (as the line explicitly states) merely A material possession to be invalid, or their material possession to be unusable. The rules state none of this.

Pff... law is a wierd thing.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well... the text section on the Vow of poverty does not mention not being able to use items. Furthermore, though the feat text states thus. It makes no provision for WHAT excactly, is a material possession.
Therefor, what can and cannot be used is not specified.
Due to this lack of specificity, any ruling is a house rule, towards or away from strickness.

Legally speaking, atleast.

Interpreting this to the full extent in one direction, the VoP exalted may never eat, because he or she must first POSSESS food, which is material. Therefor, in the literal interpretation of the rules, no VoP until sustenance unless you don't need foor. Neither could she or he use a doorknob (they'd need to beat it into the ground)
On the other hand, at he other extreme, material possessions could be concidered to be only things which they actually own. But then, what prevents them from (litterally speaking) merely acquiring "personal debts" amoung others, and having their things used on their behalf.

The SPIRIT of the law, and a specific and timely ruling on what exactly a material possession is, are important. In essence, we are all relying, to some degree or another, on common sense to define "material possession", and whether or not it must be (as the line explicitly states) merely A material possession to be invalid, or their material possession to be unusable. The rules state none of this.

Pff... law is a wierd thing.

No, you can eat because food is listed as an exception to the rule.

 

[kyberus]

oh, really sorry, a bit tired and I was just going off of notes I copied into a text file (yes, I know its illegal, I'm sorry, but a friend from the same group already has BoED, not like I was going to buy an extra)

 

[Rystil Arden]

oh, really sorry, a bit tired and I was just going off of notes I copied into a text file (yes, I know its illegal, I'm sorry, but a friend from the same group already has BoED, not like I was going to buy an extra)

Its sketchy, but even I'd be OK with having a few notes on a text file if your group had made the purchase, and my friends always get on me for law-abiding ways.