Response from wotc: Kensi signature weapons break VoPoverty

[Darrin Drader]

Disagree all you want, and run it in your game the way you want, but if you don't like my interpretation of the rule, I would invite you to check the names on the cover of the book.

 

[drnuncheon]

From a roleplay angle, it makes perfect sense for a weapon to break the vow of poverty - the Vow is all about not being attached to physical items, while the signature weapon ability is, well...all about being attached to a physical item.

The monk enhancing himself breaking the vow can't really be rationalized in this way - I'm thinking it's a purely game balance decision there. Vow of Poverty gives you big benefits because you can't get them from equipment, but you're doing an end-run around that restriction by putting those benefits on yourself directly. Within the letter of the law but violating the spirit, IMO.

J

 

[Pax]

Disagree all you want, and run it in your game the way you want, but if you don't like my interpretation of the rule, I would invite you to check the names on the cover of the book.

Okay, I have looked at the covers of both Complete Warrior and the Player's Handbook. And yours isn't one of them. So, your point is ... what, exactly? :\

...

I'll tell you what - if you were to pull a rules-lawyering-ly stupid hair-splitting, asinine stunt like that at my table, not only would I shut you down faster than the speed of thought - a second offense would get you disinvited to return the next week. Or possibly, ever again.

Just because the monks unarmed attacks are treated as manufactured weapons for some spells, does NOT mean that they become a magic item for the purposes of the Vow of Poverty. It's just that simple.

In fact, the Vow of Poverty gives a nearly identical, overlapping benefit ITSELF: Exalted Strike:

Exalted Strike: At 4th level, an ascetic gains a +1 enhancement bonus on all his attack and damage rolls. In effect, any weapon the character wields becomes a magic weapon, and can overcome the damage reduction of a creature as though it were a magic weapon. [...]

By your logic, the moment an ascetic of 4th or higher level swings his allowed simple (read: manufactured) weapon at an enemy, the weapon counts as a magci weapon.

Magic weapons are, obviously, magic items. Thus, if you ever attack, with ANY weapon, after you reach 4th level ... you void your vow of poverty.

And since you are credited with co-authoring THAT particular book ... that should, by your FURTHER (spurious) logic, be an inarguable conclusion based purely on the text for Vow of Poverty alone.

Except, of course, that violates the entire INTENT of the Vow. Which means your logic must, of course, be in some way flawed. Deeply.

...

So, would you like some SALT to go with that crow?

 

[Piratecat]

So, would you like some SALT to go with that crow?

What *I* would like is for you to go take a deep breath, a jog around the block, and then remind yourself that you're way over the line in terms of rudeness.

You don't agree with another member on a rules question? That's fine. But please express it politely or don't post, even when someone's tone angers you. I know you can present a cogent argument without the vitriol, so please try to do that instead of losing your temper.

Thanks. Email me if there's a problem with these guidelines.

 

[Pax]

What *I* would like is for you to go take a deep breath, a jog around the block, and then remind yourself that you're way over the line in terms of rudeness.

You don't agree with another member on a rules question? That's fine. But please express it politely or don't post, even when someone's tone angers you. I know you can present a cogent argument without the vitriol, so please try to do that instead of losing your temper.

Thanks. Email me if there's a problem with these guidelines.

When someone cops an attitude of "check the names on the cover of the book", then, I believe they honestly deserve whatever comes their way. Especially when theirs isn't on the covers of all the books in question.

In all honestly, I did refrain from using as much vitriol as I might've liked to.

 

[Piratecat]

Someone else angering you by making an ill-advised statement doesn't give you carte blanche to violate the rules here. No, not even when you're really annoyed or it's really tempting.

I'm also not sure what Whisperfoot was referring to; he has access to all of R&D, but I don't think he's credited on those books. Frankly, it doesn't especially matter, because I'd like this digression not to sidetrack the thread.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, if the monk's unarmed attack is considered both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon, and the kensai's signature weapon is a class ability, then a monk with the Vow of Poverty would be breaking his vow by imbuing his body as a kensai's signature weapon.

So... you'd allow a unarmed VoP Kensai if his signature weapon was his fists, using Improved Unarmed Strike with no monk levels (so they're not considered manufactured weapons for purposes of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons)?

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

My opinion is that a Vow of Poverty character is banned from using any magic items. If he takes levels of Kensai and imbues his body as a magical weapon, it becomes a magic item. Thus,m if he does so, he will instantly be using amagic item and lose his VoP benefits.

Note that I know there are several logical holes in this argument, I merely use it as a rationalization for my pimary goal: disallowing an end run around the VoP's stringent rules. IMO the VoP is balanced when used by a character with no access to magical items, including weapon enhancements. If you tack on the ability to add +9 worth of special abilities to his already potent benefits the feat becomes too strong.

All of the above is merele IMO, YMMV, and all the other disclaimer acronyms that I can't think of right now.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

When someone cops an attitude of "check the names on the cover of the book", then, I believe they honestly deserve whatever comes their way. Especially when theirs isn't on the covers of all the books in question.

In all honestly, I did refrain from using as much vitriol as I might've liked to.

That's funny, my copy of BOED says "James Wyatt, Christopher Perkins, Darrin Drader" at the bottom.

 

[Zimri]

My opinion is that a Vow of Poverty character is banned from using any magic items. If he takes levels of Kensai and imbues his body as a magical weapon, it becomes a magic item. Thus,m if he does so, he will instantly be using amagic item and lose his VoP benefits.

Note that I know there are several logical holes in this argument, I merely use it as a rationalization for my pimary goal: disallowing an end run around the VoP's stringent rules. IMO the VoP is balanced when used by a character with no access to magical items, including weapon enhancements. If you tack on the ability to add +9 worth of special abilities to his already potent benefits the feat becomes too strong.

All of the above is merele IMO, YMMV, and all the other disclaimer acronyms that I can't think of right now.

Not to try to discredit your opinion or Darrin's for that matter, I just want to be able to comprehend it all. Why then are Tatooed monks Tatooes which are also a class ability, emulate spells, and posessed in much the same manner a monks body are (even moreso since they need to be acquired from something outside of him/herself) allowed ?