BOED Vow of Poverty: Keep it or Trash it?

[Arnwyn]

I'm a DM and I allow it (though no one has taken it and haven't shown much interest in it

I'd be pretty strict with it, but I don't see an overall problem with it IMC (yes, the abilities can't be taken away, but they are not flexible at all. And it can be lost with the loss of 'exalted' status).

I think playing a character with a Vow of Poverty is fine and dandy but how quick would people be to choose that Vow if there weren't all the nifty advantages that it gives? I refuse to believe that most people would take it for "Role Playing Opportunities" if it didn't give all the neat abilities.

Duh. Playing a poverty stricken character in a campaign that involves adventure and constant danger without some form of compensation would be quite silly. (And I'm going to go with my wild assumption that most campaigns are fraught with danger.)

As a DM, I'm all about 'roleplaying opportunities'... but even I wouldn't spend a feat on poverty without having my character's survivability increase. Feats are all about character improvement... I'd be surprised if anyone thought any differently (though, granted, the question can be "how much character improvement" - and VoP does fall into the shakey area of granting mechanical benefits for something that could be considered as a roleplaying drawback). It'd work IMC, but I wouldn't have any problems if a DM banned it from a game I was playing in, either.

 

[kolikeos]

what is the vow of poverty?

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I allow it. It makes for nice monks and druids, but beyond that it isn't that useful. Stick to the restrictions the feat imposes and it's pretty balanced against characters with equivalent wealth for their level.

 

[Crothian]

I voted for the "DM-Hate" choice. I think playing a character with a Vow of Poverty is fine and dandy but how quick would people be to choose that Vow if there weren't all the nifty advantages that it gives? I refuse to believe that most people would take it for "Role Playing Opportunities" if it didn't give all the neat abilities.

That's were you get in trouble with this, it doesn't matter what most people would do. All that matters is what your players would do. I know mine would not abuse it, my players give away magic items all the time, they don't min max heck a let them pick their own ability scores. I've played with them for years and I know and trust them, that's why I allow it for them. So, don't orry what you think most players will do it, all that matters is what your players will do with it.

 

[drothgery]

Huh. I just noticed the poll doesn't have an choice for liking it as both DM and player.

And it's lacking the ever-present "It depends on the game" option.

 

[Thanee]

Uhm, how about some "normal" options to vote?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

As a DM I have no problems with the VoP, as long as the player takes it for background reasons, not for some power gaming exercise.

As a player I prefer the diversity that magic items give normally, and there are too few Exalted feats out there, which is kinda annoying, if you want to play a VoP character beyond 10th level. I guess, I would only really consider the VoP for an exalted druid, where it fits very well background-wise (and also has the greatest synergies as a side benefit). Monk, too, but I don't like monks.

Bye
Thanee

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm psyched about it. Because my campiagn doesn't give out many magic items, I compensate with 'inherent' powers that are basically magic items that I don't have to give out as treasure. ('cuz when you're fighting wolves, it doesn't make much sense that they would be wearing cloaks of charisma. ) So it works nicely in tandem with my treasure house-rules.

 

[Taneel BrightBlade]

what is the vow of poverty?

My sentiments exactly

 

[GlassJaw]

I hate VoP. I just don't like a role-playing concept granting a ton of magical abilities. *shrugs*

Some other people may have had better results with VoP characters but I played in a game with a VoP and found it very annoying and distracting.