Cons to break the Vow feats

[pawsplay]

Yeah, on that note...not allowing relatively cheap items, like a 1 gp wooden holy symbol, that certain classes require to function, is pretty adversarial and unnecessarily harsh. a wizard's spellbook, with the massive ink costs...yeah, sadly that just can't be allowed. A simple holy symbol though? Just because the text wasn't well written doesn't mean you should blindly follow it. I'm still wondering why a heavy crossbow is considered ok, but not a silver or cold iron dagger (to fight devils and demons, both costing far less than the xbow which is legal). So...I allowed VoP characters to carry one silver and one cold iron weapon...

Isn't a holy symbol one of the explicit examples of something you can't have?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Isn't a holy symbol one of the explicit examples of something you can't have?

Well, holy symbols are omitted in the original text, one way or another.

Spell component pouches are apparently acceptable. Likewise, any number of simple weapons. . .

I'd be asking the following: a) Does the feat give any impression (other than via omission) whatsoever that it's meant to (or that it for any reason should) exclude Clerics - and to a fair extent, Paladins?; b) Is there any good reason why this should be so, using common sense and logic?; and c) If not 'a' and/or not 'b', would it in any way improve the game to have a feat like this be exclusive in that particular way?

Vow of Poverty + Wizard, fine. Vow of Poverty + Fighter, fine. Vow of Poverty + Rogue, fine. Vow of Poverty + Cleric, not fine. . . wait, what?!

Um yeah, to me, something really doesn't scan there. To put it mildly.

Servants of the divine, upon taking a sacred vow, can suddenly no longer channel their deity's power - on top of the rest of the limitations, etc. And on the other hand, everyone else gets to keep basically all or most of their abilities. . . Riiiiight.

Someone stuffed up, big time, and it wasn't fixed, or admitted to, it seems. Unfortunately.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well to be fair, while a wizard could be used with VoP, he'd be limited to the 2 free spells known per level up, so it's an amazingly bad idea to be a VoP Wizard.

 

[pawsplay]

Clerics cannot have a holy symbol:

Save My Game: Vow of Poverty, Part 2

 

[Dandu]

The monk really needs nothing to be effective. Sure she can be more effective with all of her stuff, but she can get by without it.

*headdesk*

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Clerics cannot have a holy symbol:

Save My Game: Vow of Poverty, Part 2

That article is pretty informative for interpretting what the RAW leads to, as well as highlighting the strongest classes for VoP (I think Bard does better than Monk, but YMMV), but it isn't the same as a customer service reply or clarification. Is there anywhere on wizards.com where someone specifically asked if the writer intended no holy symbol use -- even the druid' FREE one? At least the article pokes a little fun at the absurdity of enforcing the feat strictly by RAW: "The rule is specific in what you are allowed to keep -- clothes, simple weapons (though, amusingly, there is no limit on how many weapons you can have)..."

You said before divine foci were specifically called out as forbidden, but it's the opposite case; like most things, they simply weren't put on the list of what's allowed. So it's reasonable to question if leaving them off the list was in error. Because logically...it makes no friggin' sense.

*headdesk*

"A sorcerer can just avoid choosing spells that require expensive components or a divine focus."

*headdesk*

 

[Aus_Snow]

Well to be fair, while a wizard could be used with VoP, he'd be limited to the 2 free spells known per level up, so it's an amazingly bad idea to be a VoP Wizard.

Ha! Indeed. I'd forgotten that, em. . . tiny detail. Ah, more stupidity.

All in all, yet another case of WotC digging themselves into a hole, then making it deeper, AND refusing to get themselves out, regardless of how hilariously DUMB their predicament truly is. Sounds oooooh so familiar, really.

 

[pawsplay]

Frankly, that book was so so savagely edited, it would be like asking Burroughs how he intended to characterize Tarzan's little gorilla friend in the Disney movie. The BOED has three listed authors.

There is no ambiguity. Either you change the rules, or you don't change the rules. Asking "intent" is ridiculous in a case like this, where if you started thinking it through, you would discover the feat was not based on making sense.

Also, wizards don't even get the two spells per level, since those still need to go into a spellbook. Even with Spell Mastery, you would need to have access to the spells before you took your vow.

 

[Runestar]

The FAQ also touches on this.

How do the equipment restrictions put on a character by the Vow of Poverty feat affect class-defining items? (Examples include a cleric’s holy symbol, a wizard’s familiar, a samurai’s daisho, and a paladin’s mount.)

The Vow of Poverty feat is very specific about the items that a character can own while gaining the benefits of the feat (see page 48 in Book of Exalted Deeds for details). It specifically disallows ownership of masterwork or magic weapons, and thus a samurai who chooses this feat must give up the possession of his daisho (his pair of masterwork weapons).

A holy symbol does not appear on the list of eligible items, and thus a strict reading of the feat would disallow the item.

A familiar, special mount, or animal companion isn’t a material possession, and thus a character with Vow of Poverty isn’t restricted from gaining the benefits of such creatures.

Remember that the Vow of Poverty feat, like most of the material found in Book of Exalted Deeds, is intended for mature campaigns that are capable of handling difficult role-playing issues—it’s not intended for most hack-and-slash games. A cleric who must give up his holy symbol (effectively preventing him from turning undead or casting any spell that requires a divine focus) could be a very interesting challenge for a player who’s “done it all” and wants to try something unusual.

 

[irdeggman]

That article is pretty informative for interpretting what the RAW leads to, as well as highlighting the strongest classes for VoP (I think Bard does better than Monk, but YMMV), but it isn't the same as a customer service reply or clarification. Is there anywhere on wizards.com where someone specifically asked if the writer intended no holy symbol use -- even the druid' FREE one? At least the article pokes a little fun at the absurdity of enforcing the feat strictly by RAW: "The rule is specific in what you are allowed to keep -- clothes, simple weapons (though, amusingly, there is no limit on how many weapons you can have)..."

You said before divine foci were specifically called out as forbidden, but it's the opposite case; like most things, they simply weren't put on the list of what's allowed. So it's reasonable to question if leaving them off the list was in error. Because logically...it makes no friggin' sense.



"A sorcerer can just avoid choosing spells that require expensive components or a divine focus."

*headdesk*

See the FAQ that I quoted in post #11 - it specifically talks about a strict reading of the RAW (which is all I was talking about)