Beating a dead horse (Apostle of Peace and Magic Items)

[gabrion]

I've seen this discussed before but never really taken the time to analyze the arguments.

The question at hand is a contradiction (possibly) between the Vow of Poverty and the descriptive text of the Apostle of Peace. The AoP has VoP as a prerequisite, but under weapons and armor prof. it says:

As part of their Sacred Vows, Aposltes of Peace foreswear the use of armor, though they may wear magic items that protect them (such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor).

Since this takes into account the Vow of Poverty ("as part of their sacred vows"), many people take it as overriding the restrictions on magical items (of the defensive sort). I think it leaves us with three options...

1. Apostles of Peace can wear protective magical items and still stay within their vows (thus keeping all the benefits from the VoP).
2. It doesn't matter what the text says, wearing a magical item breaks the VoP!
3. This doesn't make sense and is clearly a misprint or editing problem.

What do you think?

 

[Crothian]

I go with 2 and 3.

Sicne it doesn't make sense and is proably an editing problem, I would go with not lettign ot over ride the VoP

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Considering that the VoP is an impressive feat (but not unbalanced in my book) I would agree with the above.

The text under apostle of peace was most-likely written as the authors thought about the defensive vs offensive side of the issue, not the poverty side of the issue.

I do not allow them to use magical items - unless they wish to voluntarily break their VoP. At which point .. they have a bunch more issues to consider.

 

[gabrion]

Well I didn't giv my opinion in the OP, so I thought I might as well weigh in on the subject.

I think the first option makes the most sense. The section on weapon and armor prof. is pretty much copy and paste for class that don't gain anything, so the fact that they had to take the effort to add this little bit implies that the D+D team were fully aware of their actions.

As far as it not making sense, I think it's pretty clear in D+D that when two rules conflict but one says that it overrides the other, we should go with that option. In this case the VoP sets up rules for the character, but he AoP pretty much says that the rules of the vow work differently for them.

Just my opinion.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Okay .. so .... you asked a question, got two answers that don't agree with you - it ultimately leaves you with the fact that if its your game and your the DM ... its your call.

Although it does make me wonder why you asked the question if you had your own specific interpretation other than if you were hoping to get people to back your specific opinion. That in itself is not bad .. just an observation.

Either way, it ultiamtely boils down to your call if you are the DM ... or your DM's call if you are the player. If you're the DM, then make a call and see if it unbalances the game. If not, cool. If it does, then live with it for now but don't allow it in the future.

If you're somebodies player, then prepare a case for the way you want the rule to be interpreted and present it to the DM.

Houserule it if you have to!

 

[Crothian]

As far as it not making sense, I think it's pretty clear in D+D that when two rules conflict but one says that it overrides the other, we should go with that option.

That's actually not clear in D&D

 

[gabrion]

@nonlethal force-Well the question was actually brought up by a friend of mine and I thought I could ask for opinions here.

I didn't think that precludes me from giving an opinion on the topic. Think of this as an unprofessional poll. Right now it looks like my opinion is losing, but I still want to see what people have to say.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Didn't say it precluded you - you can ask any question you want here!

Well, maybe not any question ...

But seriously, i don't think that this is a clear-cut case of right/wrong. It is a case of reading the text, prioritizing what interpretation you think makes the most sense, and doing it.

Me, i think VoP is designed so that a character with only mundane items is balanced with a character who's got an income. To allow the AoP items above that exceeds the VoP intent in my book.

Your interpretation says that the wording is unique to this PrC and therefore is intentional leads you to believe they knew what they were writing and thus meant it.

Two opposing viewpoints. I'd say try it and see what happens.

 

[gabrion]

Two opposing viewpoints. I'd say try it and see what happens.

I'll try to do that the next time I join a game that lets me play an exalted character. In the meantime, I'll just watch this thread and see if anyone else has some insightful things to say.

 

[Particle_Man]

apart from anything else, the fact that VoP characters get impressive defensive bonuses to AC and Saves would indicate that these bonuses are there to replace the bonuses that would have been gained from protective magical items. Thus I would not allow the AoP to have those magical items. It would be overpowered.