? Book of Exalted Deeds

[Hellzon]

Hmm... This makes me wonder, could a Lawful Good Monk with the wow of non-violence keep beating the snot out of his enemies, as long as he deals subdual damage (no harder for a monk than dealing normal damage, right?), since that is "non-lethal"?

(And if I understand the discussion in JollyDoc's Story Hour correctly, said monk can still deal normal damage to most things that are immune to subdual, i.e. undead and constructs)

So, the BOED is looking more and more sweet every day. (Not that an Exalted charachter would fit in the campaign I'm playing in right now anyway )

/End of blabbering

 

[Anabstercorian]

Well, nonlethal damage is more precise than normal damage - Keep in mind that NO amount of nonlethal damage will kill you, and most people can heal from enough nonlethal to put them in to unconsciousness in a little over eight horus to full health. They aren't serious injuries - Closer to being dizzy. Think of choke holds, nerve pinches, and similar precision techniques in addition to simply beating the bejeezus out of people.

 

[Ysgarran]

There is a chapter/section on 'good' poisons in the BoED. Basically what is says is that if the poison doesn't cause pain or discomfort then it is OK to use. The section then goes on to provide a number of poisons that good aligned creatures could use.

By that definition using a 'touch' poison that didn't cause damage would be legal by the Vow of Nonviolence.

edit: minor grammar changes.

On first glance the feat does look too powerful.

I'd say that poisoning someone would break the Vow of Nonviolence, so if you had the feat you couldn't touch a person. If I felt that I needed justification there, the ability damage clause would work for me.

 

[Silveras]

And how would you explain that the Bonus Exalted Feats paragraph under "Voluntary Poverty" mentions that only a 1st-level human with Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty can gain the 1st-level feat. So, during character creation he earned two "rewards"..?

- Cyraneth

I would explain that as being a contextual example of how it is *remotely* possible for a character to begin play with the Vow of Poverty and earn all of the benefits of it (the bonus feats are not retro-active, unlike the other benefits; so you only get 100% of the benefit by starting at 1st level with it).

That being said, the DM still has to approve the selection -- and, obviously, I would not without some REALLY good hook. IF the campaign were about exalted heroes fighting despicable villains, AND a player came to me with the idea that his character was the reincarnation of a hero from the past and the current plot represented the final step on his/her journey of spiritual growth ... maybe.

I may have been presumptuous to have said *never*. Stick an "almost" in front of it.

 

[Silveras]

I really haven't quite figured out Exalted feats: Are they bonusses, and therefore, carry no opportunity cost in terms of other lost feats? Or are they things you must "take", and therefore, are actually no better than regular feats, since it's simply a tradeoff?

That is up to the DM. They require the DM's approval, and so cannot "just" be taken when you have a feat slot available. If, however, the DM is willing, there is nothing to stop you from choosing an exalted feat when you have a feat slot. The DM may make you perform some ceremonial initiation as part of "taking" it.

On the other hand, the could choose to make them rewards. In that arrangement, they are only available when the DM says so, but may be granted without using a feat slot (as is implied at least, but not stated, in the text on them in the BoED).

 

[Tellerve]

There is a chapter/section on 'good' poisons in the BoED. Basically what is says is that if the poison doesn't cause pain or discomfort then it is OK to use. The section then goes on to provide a number of poisons that good aligned creatures could use.

By that definition using a 'touch' poison that didn't cause damage would be legal by the Vow of Nonviolence.

edit: minor grammar changes.

Sweet, thanks for noting that point Ysgarran. I don't actually have the book, so I remembered the section on "good" poisons, called regants or something sorta like that. I would need to look at the vow of non-violence again to make sure that the wording was correct but you did put a big push towards me agreeing that it would be possible.

As for not allowing it off the start or "almost" never. I can understand that completely. However, I find the vow of poverty the key to playing the monk class how I've been trying to envision a asian ascetic monk. I love that he can be devoid of earthly possessions and still be out there fighting the good fight with his heavily magicked friends. Brings a warmness to my heart

Tellerve

p.s. As far as continuing to beat someone with non-lethal, you could do that and not kill them, however, I wouldn't think continuing to beat someone after they are unconsious would be something you'd do if you had the vow of non-violence. Also, if you break a vow's rules willing you loose it and that's it. So certainly you'd wanna be careful.

 

[Victim]

Forsaker + Vow of Poverty. Let the wrongness begin.

 

[Tellerve]

true, and there is a post about whether or not that would work. I'm kinda of the opinion it wouldn't as you take possession of the magical article in order to destroy it, which would be, IMO, a no no.

But then again, people will always find annoying munchkinizations of stuff. For those that don't go crazy it I think vow of poverty is very cool. In fact it makes me enjoy the idea of a monk going all the way to 20th level.

Tellerve

 

[The Little Raven]

You all seem to be forgetting one big thing about the Vow of Nonviolence... it only applies towards humanoid and monstrous humanoid creatures.

So you can beat the tar out of a dragon, undead or outsider without any adverse effects.