Is Vow of Poverty broken?

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

Greetings, my first post on the boards. I have read most of this thread, but I am at work shirking resposibility, so I cant read all of it

Anyway, I am going to speak of VoP from my own perspective of a Level 18 elven Monk

My character was powerful, the stacking bonus of a monks wisdom to AC, meant if you take the stat bonus on wisdom first, dex second, then cone then strength, you become quite power, nice high AC (highest AC I have ever seen in any of our groups was 45) immune to a large number of affects, high hit chance, very decent stunning fist ability

The down side was no potions, no gear, the inability to tailor magic items to what I wanted, so no ghost touch etc, meanin incorporeal beings were a pain.

Having said that, my character was great to play, versatile, and in some situations, god-like, in others, a waste fo flesh

I had a high number of attacks, with a high probobility to hit and she worked even better when surrounded. She wore loose fitting robes, and carried only a simlpe broom to assist in paying her own way in life (The broom was only by DM consent, as it went more with the monk vision, but against the VoP rules) She carried no gold, insisting that her share was given to charity (Should have seen one party memebrs face the first time this came up, thinking the loot only had to be split 4 ways instread of 5 because of VoP )

As a monk, she niether ate, drank or breathed, and only required 4 hours reverie per night, as a party member, she was invaluable.

To the person thinking of getting a monk drunk and sticking a tattoo on them good luck with that, monks are immune to poisons, and alcohol is a poison, thats why it has the effect it does on the human body. Add to that the fact you dont need to eat or drink, means your not "Accidentally" ever going to get drunk/drugged.

In regard to the Forsaker, the argument has been made that only destroying evil items would be suitable for the character, but a forsaker regards ALL magic as evil, so regardless, if you allow him VoP only if he destroys evil magic items, then any magic Item to a forsaker is open season

Personally, as I stated above, my monk never laid fingers on any item, there were good aligned characetrs in the party who ensured her wishes/beliefs were respected and carried out. I saw no reason to actually burden myself with trinkets and heavy gold.

I did feel in some respects my monk was overpowered, but it mainly came in the form of versatility, certain areas she lacked, but an ill equipped party (no ghost touch) wouldnt have faired any better, and her number of attacks usually made up for shortcomings. I find the idea of a VoP Druid intriguing, and shall be hiting the books tonight to look over this Sorceror/VoP/Dragon Disciple to see how it fairs

VoP can be overpowered, and I think it does relly on a player who knows not ot oiverstpe boundaries, and is prepared to retire a character if the GM feels your overstepping the boundaries or imbalancing the party

On a side note, how the hell do you get an AC of 60-70 asuming a max levle of 20, bnest I have seen is 57 (10 Base, Dwarven Platemail +5 (13) Dex 16+ (3) Large Shield +5 (7) Sword +4 defender (+4) Improved Weapon Expertise (+10) and ring of defence +5 x2 to give 10+13+3+7+4+10+5+5 = 57)

Feegle Out

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Glad to see you like vop as much as I do.

It sure is fun when the dm has common sense by allowing a broom (although its really just a quarterstaff as I see it… but with flavor). Its probably a simple weapon anyway so it wasent really a need to house rule.

My dm has allowed two re designs of the clubs. The first was a boken, and the other was a gauntlet made of wood and leather. Ah the versatility of the 1d6 wooden weapon. So many ways to make it cooler then fat stick and thin stick (club and staff)


Most high ac builds rely an something wonky (like mechanis darkleaf armor) or just plan strang things that would make a normally character unplayable. shape change however is a exception i think.

Yeah, my character tends to act as if most magic items, are cursed but he is chaotic, so he doesent impose this on the other characters (a lawful character might but in no way a given) He have been taking a third of the gold so far and giving it to those who he sees in need. he dosent donate to charity as this is an institution and he feels that he can do a better finding who needs charity and who dosent.

The problem is he usaly forgets to take the magic items so the rest of the party is almost dubble their wealth level. My character is is very strong, but from now on i think im going to try to remember to grab a third of the eq as well. I think i am going to ask the characters also too see if they have anything they want to get rid of or that they dont need ( we are at a point in the game where their is allot of poor people because they were kicked out of this one country because they are anti magic.)

I like making vop more about the evils that money can have and the corruption that it instills in others. I also added to the back story that he used a magic device and it killed a little kid by acadent. Very fun background stuff.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Welcome to the boards, Nac Mac Feegle!

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

Thanx for the welcome

I had a discussion about this last night with the guy who was GM when I ran my VoP Monk. In particular, I mentioned the Subject of the very expensive flower someone brought up. If you were to get some belly button fluff, and stick it on eBay, almost gauranteed someone will buy it. Anything can have value if someone is willing to buy it.

Take a druid form a desert campain, the high level spell might require a flower found in that climate, not the one mentioned earlier, now the druid travels to temperate climes, and find a field of these flowers, and make a necklace from them, to him thay have no value except aesthetics (sp?) but to anyone else hes wearing a necklace worth 500,000 gold

Its at this point that the rule of law falls down, who is to say what is valuable, what is not.

To me a Vow of Poverty means you live of the land, and other peopels generosity, you take no part in the comforts afforded by wealth. You take what nature throws at you. If offered a bed for a night in a masion, you accept with good grace, for it has been given to you free of obligation, if all you can find for the night is a stable, then you accept that, you truely take what the world gives you, probably more in tune wiht natures whim in some respects than a druid.

You find a diamond on the floor of a mine, you pick it up, not so you can sell it and benefit, but because someone else can benefit. As long as you take no rewards of wealth, you are maintaining the vow. Picking a flower and putting it in your hair is fully acceptable. It was on the ground, and now its in your hair, so what, you are not living a life of luxury just because you put a flower in your hair, and you still dont possess the flower, and just because some idiot would pay 50,000g for it, still doesst make it a valuable possession, infact once its picked form the gournd, its dying, unless kept fresh, it may well be useless as a spell component, so now its worthless. To the VoP its still a pretty flower and worth hanging onto.

There are lots of considerations when using VoP, the most important is common sense. Water in a desert campaign is more valuable than gold, but your not going to deny a VoP character fomr carrying one days worth of water are you?

I think VoP is a great idea, lets you mess around wiht the other players, the kind that always put greed first, you take your share (in gold and magic items) and give ti to good chruches, it literally kills them inside.

As for remebering to take your stuff, you have some choices, we used to d20 roll an item between all those who could use it, so items I could use, I would roll on, and they would go into my pool of items for charity, if a PC wanted to "Donate" the gold value of what I would get for the item at a shop (half Price) to my cause, I would let him take the item, this stopped them getting all the magic items, and only giving me a cut of the final loot, which as you say, make them quite powerful.

In my youth I used to play a lot of evil character, usually NE, but I have found more fun recently playing the good guy, in a way the good guy forces you to maximise your potential more than evil, becaue an evil character takes shortcuts, and trys to use force to get his way, and if your good character cant stand up to them, they get away with murder, and its also good to try and show those who havent grown up yet, that its not always about "ph4t l3wt".

One last thing, for all those saying that a cleric cannot carry his holy symbol, but could carry a simple weapon, if the holy symbol is his focus for divine power over undead etc, isnt his holy symbol actually a weapon? It is a weapon of good over evil, you employ your gods power through this weapon to strike down evil, or to help those in need.

If your going to rule that a wooden holy symbol compromises VoP, then your campaign isnt ready for VoP.

Feegle Out

 

[Particle_Man]

One last thing, for all those saying that a cleric cannot carry his holy symbol, but could carry a simple weapon, if the holy symbol is his focus for divine power over undead etc, isnt his holy symbol actually a weapon? It is a weapon of good over evil, you employ your gods power through this weapon to strike down evil, or to help those in need.

If your going to rule that a wooden holy symbol compromises VoP, then your campaign isnt ready for VoP.

It does not count as a weapon. "Weapon" (and "simple weapon") describes a set of items, listed as such, in the phb and other gamebooks. None of those game books lists holy symbols as simple weapons.

As for your second comment, you are entitled to your own opinion, but my campaign runs just fine w/o allowing holy symbols for VoP characters, and no one seems to mind. Personally, I think it is a sign of mature gaming, and the writer of the FAQ agrees with me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Public service, dude...I'm trying to find a BoED FAQ and I can't find one...got a link?

Ah...nevermind- I found it.

BoED on VoP p17 of 2005 3.5Ed FAQ
A holy symbol does not appear on the list of eligible items, and thus a strict reading of the feat would disallow the items...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.

Interestingly enough, the next entry in the FAQ contemplates the combination of a Kensai taking VoP, and the writer does an interesting tap dance about how broken the combo could be...

And the entry after that expressly allows the tattooed monk's tattoos as a "class feature"... as if turning undead or casting key clerical spells were not.

I've seen this kind of tap dancing in depositions and testimony. WOTC is aware of the problem with the wording of VoP...but won't correct it.

I've said it before: IMHO, the stricture against a holy symbol is nonsensical and antithetical to the purposes of the intent of the VoP. Its contrary to the inspirational sources of the VoP, and it removes the ability of the cleric to perform core, essential clerical duties...and I mean that not just in the game mechanical way (turning) but also in the heirarchical, day-to-day duties of a priest or holy man (the power and duty to offer absolutions and blessings, to consecrate holy ground, or sanctify the vows of others). A priest who cannot do these things is no priest.

 

[Dimwhit]

Public service, dude...I'm trying to find a BoED FAQ and I can't find one...got a link?

It's in the general FAQ. It reads, "A holy symbol does not appear on the list of eligible items, and thus a strict reading of the feat would disallow the item."

Of course, a strict reading of the feat disallows (as mentioned before) a flower in the hair...

 

[Aus_Snow]

Then his god won't be there to help him then will he?

They don't have to follow a deity to take Sacred Vow (or Vow of Poverty, therefore).

From Sacred Vow: "You have willingly given yourself to the service of a good deity or cause, (...)" - maybe their cause will be there to help them out. Er, or something. Vow of Poverty has no explicit requirements either way.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

"writer of the FAQ agrees with me."

um.. the same guy who write the polymorph section in the faq? He inset a very good sage in my opinion (which is fallible), so his view on holy symbols and that exculding them is making for a more mature game dosent hol any water for me. A mature gamer can see through the vale and understand where inspiration from vop comes from. A mature gamer is one that can deal with, and understand the spirit of the text rather then the absurdities of reading JUST the raw. (raw is ok, but sometimes doesn’t work with boed as well as other books or topics)

It’s important to understand what the raw is saying, but equally important to understand what the text means as well. Understanding game balance also comes into play. Cannot understand how any dm with any sense about them could say a druid can carry a crossbow with as many bolts as they want but can’t pick up a holly off a plant. Its non magical and is a focus, it has no value tied to wealth

Value is a hard thing to judge. what’s worthless to one person is valuable to another. If something coasts no money to posses or find, how in the world can a dm justify that its breaks vop? Is breathing air breaking vop? It doesn’t say you can posses air particles to use them right? so i guess vop character suffocates when they take the vow in order to uphold it? Yet how can a dm with a straight face can say a leaf, something with no gold value, is thematically breaking your vow to not own equipment because its not listed in the things a vop character can own? Can the one own the dirt on their feat? Can they own their memories? Can they not own bodies? What about their soul? How About their dignity? What about a holly leaf or a peace of carved wood found and made in a forest?

spells, souls and bodies and memories can be taken and owned by someone else in d&d, thus making them possessions. All in all though, The very idea of possessions is kind of absurd and is not in anyway proven to exist or not exist. How can one judge what can be owned or not? is a druid owning a holly leaf? Or his the leaf owning the druid? One could say holy symbols are owned by the gods, not the followers that are barrowing them.

Is it the mature or immature dm that would slam a vop charicter because of his misguilded notion of possession and value, and say having dirt on ones self is ownership and breaks vop? What about a dm that says something with no value in terms of gold, and can be found in any forest, is a violation of an oath to own no monitary things of value and never to own or use things that are magical.

Anyway I tend to think like an Indian Amarican. You cant posses another living thing … in this case holly.

I draw the strict circle with vop and I do think it should be followed harshly but with cheap or fee holy symbols within the things a vop character can use. This is because any importants in terms of role-playing vop is lost without holy symbols (lets forget about their actual purpus in d&d for one moment.)

I think I will say this again, although let the fires consume me, using raw with vop is a mistake. It takes more then understanding what the words in a vacuum mean to understand what vop is and how it should be played. They must be judged by intent and spirit as well, and cross referenced by an understanding of game balance.

Good dms know that the rules don’t exist in a vacuum. They cant, and generally create problems if later down the road if one assumes this is true.

The boed is a mature book becuse so much role playing is put into the balance of the game, and for someone who only sees the raw in boed isent looking at the bigger picture and is missing part of main point that it is mature book and the rules of how to understand how to use a supplemtn is slightly diffrent with boed, then lets say, one of the compleat books

It takes body and mind to be a person, why would d&d be any different?

I think it is the sage who is the one that is not mature in this case.

Hello sage, you may be a great guy, but your not a very good sage in my opinion. polymorph and alter self? What were you thinking? (Referring to the new faq)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Um, I think what M-L is saying is:

RAW is a starting point for rules analysis, but not an excuse to eschew critical analysis in favor of following the rules slavishly. If a rule clearly doesn't make sense, change it.

IMHO, I think I've shown why Clerics, Paladins and other divine spellcasters should not be denied their Holy Symbols because of a VoP, drawing on comparisons of the real world inspirations for such classes and how those people function and are expected to act, the duties they must perform, and their D&D analogues.