Vow of Poverty Loophole?

[Rampant]

What??! What RAW?

The Apostle ability bans you from using armor, but doesn't ban magic items.

The VoP bans magic items.

Together you can use neither.

VoP isn't modified by the apostle ability.

Where is this loop hole you people speak of?

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I'm not sure how VoP overrules AoP when AoP comes after VoP and VoP is subservient to AoP.

I think I agree with you.
While a DM could easily overrule this, I do agree that in general rules tend to go from general to specific, and each time you apply a new layer to something with additional text of rules, it tends to overule the previous.
By my reading of the RAW, Apostle of Peace text overules the Vow of Poverty text. It's crazy powerful, but it's how I'd read any other application of the rules.

I personally would ban a player from doing this.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

The example provided in the Apostle of Peace section specifically says the character can use such things as a Ring of Protection or Bracers of Armor. Since one of the requirements for becoming an Apostle is Vow of Poverty, the only possible conclusion to this is that the Apostle's vows overwrite parts of VoP.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Never has there been a feat that has inspired people to work against the intent roleplaying purpose (in this case, of being a holy ascetic) more than Vow of Poverty.

I'm still trying to figure out what in the Hell being an ascetic has to do with being Good.

 

[Rampant]

It's a more common theme among asian mythologies about the wisdom of holy ascetics, but I think it factored into the Don Quixote story as well.

Hmmmmm ok it looks like what we have here is a WotC mistake.

Besides which it still doesn't open the loophole. If it said it allowed you to wear such items in spite of other vows it would count. This is essentially a vow to not wear physical armor, that does allow you wear defensive magics other than armor.

However it does not mention any other vows you might have, it is a self contained ability. Furthermore doesn't actually give you the ability to wear those items, it simply says that it doesn't take such items off the table the way it takes armor, it's not granting anything. It's not more specific because it's not applied to the area you think it is.

Finally why would anyone care? unless the defensive item is of massively inappropriate level the VoP benefits would be better, wouldn't stack even if picking up the item doesn't negate the benefits.

 

[Visigani]

Besides which it still doesn't open the loophole. If it said it allowed you to wear such items in spite of other vows it would count. This is essentially a vow to not wear physical armor, that does allow you wear defensive magics other than armor.

However it does not mention any other vows you might have...

Apparently you missed "As part of their sacred vows..". They couldn't be referring to the feat "Sacred Vow"... or any of the Vows that have "Sacred Vow" as a requirement... could they? NAH! That'd just be silly!

 

[Rampant]

Since they used lower case 's' and didn't specify, no it doesn't count.

Furthermore it still doesn't address the issue of this being an ability that taketh away not an ability that giveth.

Finally I ask yet again, why? most if not all defensive items don't stack with VoP benefits anyway. I mean between the defensive boosts, the offensive increases, and the ability increases, about the only items that still apply are the inherent bonus books, skill boosters, feat items and spell storage. All of which would violate the 'can't own expensive stuff' part of the vow even if carrying and using them weren't prohibited.

There's two aspects to that vow remember.

 

[kitcik]

You have to have VoP to be an Apostle.

An Apostle "may wear magic items that protect them (such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor)."

Therefore, this overrules the VoP restriction. Otherwise, it would be pointless to include in the Apostle description. Maybe not RAI, but definitely RAW.

It does not place any restrictions on such items or on gaining other benefits from them.

For instance, Boots of Speed affect you by a Haste spell. Haste provides a +1 Dodge bonus to AC and therefore is a "magic item that protects them." However, it also grants other benefits.

Bingo.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

That is why you would want it.

 

[Rampant]

Nope.

The ability doesn't say it overrides VoP, doesn't use capital S or any other indicators that it's actually referring to the feats, and there fore the rules of the feat still apply.

Furthermore even if you could wear such items, you still can't own them.

 

[kitcik]

Nope.

The ability doesn't say it overrides VoP, doesn't use capital S or any other indicators that it's actually referring to the feats, and there fore the rules of the feat still apply.

Furthermore even if you could wear such items, you still can't own them.

That may be RAI (assuming WOTC made another booboo), but you are flat wrong on RAW. Absolutely, black-and-white, flat wrong.

VoP is a pre-req for AoP. AoP is specifically allowed to wear these items. The specific rules of AoP overrule the general rules which apply to VoP. So it is written, like it or not.

Even following logic, what possible reason would there be to say AoP can wear these items if they can't without losing the AoP PrC? That's a nonsensical rules interpretation.