So tell me about the Book of Exalted Deeds in play

The other thing to remember about VoP is that since one character will not be taking any treasure at all, that character's share is divided up between the other characters. This may not be a problem for you, but it's worth noting that they will end up somewhat over-equipped for their level if adjustments are not made.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dr. Awkward said:
The other thing to remember about VoP is that since one character will not be taking any treasure at all, that character's share is divided up between the other characters. This may not be a problem for you, but it's worth noting that they will end up somewhat over-equipped for their level if adjustments are not made.
We play it that the VoP character still takes his fair share of the loot, but has to donate it all to charity. I thought that was in there, but it must be a house rule. Anyway, it works fairly well.
 

kilamanjaro said:
We play it that the VoP character still takes his fair share of the loot, but has to donate it all to charity. I thought that was in there, but it must be a house rule. Anyway, it works fairly well.

I'm pretty sure its mentioned in the book -- I don't know if its a must, or a suggestion...

As for the roleplaying aspect, its no different than having a Paladin in the group -- and technically the "Exalted" character is not necessarily lawful. The book gives a very good (IMO) explanation of "Goodness" which, as others have pointed out, can lead to interesting roleplaying. Furthermore, several of the PrC's are connected to specific deities/demigods, which gives them an idea of what is expected of them. Our Druid (same game as Kealios) is using an Exalted PrC (Lion of Talisid) and really enjoys it. As Kealios said, it lead to a great sub-plot...

As for the VoP, is has great benefits and significant weaknesses. You are limited (at least) to a non-magical quarterstaff, sling, or club, and you're not even supposed to carry things like healing potions, etc. And, as erian mentioned, the Exalted feats are pretty slim...

So in our case its worked out well -- we like the good vs evil theme, so no problems there. If your players want it, then I'd say go for it. You might want to introduce it gradually if you've been campaigning with the same characters for a while... maybe an encounter with a celestial entity or something, or an increased focus on battling evil outsiders...
 


We have an Monk (Exalted) with the VoP in our group and there has been no particular balance issues of note thus far, he has a higher Ac than anyone else in the group but considering the limitations of the VoP as GM I haven't had any gripes with it so far.

His characters as per the Vow gets no money, magic iteme tc.. shares, but I don't prevent him from carrying healing potions the others may give to him. the vow is about being poor, not being stupid afterall :)
 

I don't like the Vows myself, for various reasons mainly balance, and the prestige classes are either too based on those vows (pre-req's) or not generic enough for my games. Compared to the BoVD, Exalted Deeds doesn't see half the use.
 

Dr. Awkward said:
The other thing to remember about VoP is that since one character will not be taking any treasure at all, that character's share is divided up between the other characters. This may not be a problem for you, but it's worth noting that they will end up somewhat over-equipped for their level if adjustments are not made.

Vow of Poverty actually requires the person to donate his share of treasure to temples, orders, charitable organizations, the poor, etc. This is spelled out on page 29 in the Tithe and Offerings section ("Some characters are required to [give money from the treasure they acquire]") and on pages 30-31 in the Other Ramifications of Powerty section (""Having a character in the party who has taken a vow of poverty should not necessarily mean that the other party members get bigger shares of treasure! An ascetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial. The majority of her share of party treasure (or the profits from the sale thereof) should be donated to the needy...")

The VoP monk in a game I'm running just donated 6,282 GP to an impoverished village. Playing without this rule would definitely unbalance VoP, and I don't recommend it. It's actually rather fun watching the greedier party members saddness as gobs of money go flying out of the party's control. :)

Neo said:
His characters as per the Vow gets no money, magic iteme tc.. shares, but I don't prevent him from carrying healing potions the others may give to him. the vow is about being poor, not being stupid afterall.

Note this would be a house rule. By the book, a VoP character can only carry simple weapons, clothes he's wearing, a sack, food for one day, and a spell component pouch. A friend can hand him a potion in time of need, but the VoP person cannot carry it around as a matter of course (from the Vow of Poverty feat, page 48). The inconvenience factor of having to have one party member take a potion to the monk and waste that time is an important limitation that I've strictly enforced.

Eric
 

Beware the holy urine ravage (aka golden ice) and don't allow the touch of golden ice feat.

The ravages are "holy" poisons that inflict ability damage and the damage is INCREASED by the evil opponent's Cha modifier. Yep, the higher the fiend's Cha, the more damage it takes.
 

Neo said:
His characters as per the Vow gets no money, magic iteme tc.. shares, but I don't prevent him from carrying healing potions the others may give to him. the vow is about being poor, not being stupid afterall :)
This is very much a no-no. The entire point of VoP (as with all the other feats, spells, and PrCs in the book) is that the moment you start "gaming" them to reduce the drawbacks, you're not conforming with the spirit of the rule to begin with.

Regarding the BoED more generally: I'd say it works well in play IF you make it clear that the array of options it contains represent a reward for role-playing a VERY Good (capital "G") character. Introducing the book mid-play should not cause any problems; in fact, most of the stuff in the book is better implemented toward levels 5+, when players can relax a bit about survival and start focusing on developing truly virtuous heroes. However, the main caveat I'd suggest is this: Use BoED only if you have a group oriented toward roleplaying rather than powergaming. Otherwise, the entire point of the options contained therein is lost.

Down to specifics...

Special Rules: Lotsa good stuff here, including channeling and sanctified stuff, which are great. The one section that I'd think carefully about are the ravages and afflictions. IMHO, "good" versions of poison really shouldn't exist; they're explained nicely, mind you, but they rub me (and might rub you or your players) the wrong way. Afflictions bother me less than ravages (it's easy to see "divine punishments" in a D&D game) but again, I wish that evil at least had that edge going for it, and that disease were just a bad thing, period.

One thing I'd just flat-out ignore is the suggested+2 LA for a half-celestial; it's fine at +4, and I don't see why BoED tries to bring it down.

Feats: IMHO, the feats are actually quite well balanced, with the exception of Touch of Golden Ice, which is a bit overpowered at low levels and just kinda silly (see Special Rules, above). VoP is a bugbear for many, but the fact is that the vow really just replaces standard wealth by level, with the extra bonuses of being non-sunderable and of granting exalted feats (which, as others pointed out, aren't abundant enough to be so great after you take two or three), and the concurrent penalty of affording reduced flexibility and completely barring access to certain capabilities (e.g. invisibility, flying) compared with characters who have a well-chosen magic item selection.

PrCs: Some good stuff, some borderline power concerns. Specifically, the Celestial Mystic (especially when applied to a sorcerer, since the CM arguably gets a whole raft of spells known at 2nd level), the Champion of Gwyn..., the Fist of Raziel (which is just plain better than taking levels of paladin past 2nd), and the Lion of Talisid (applied to a straight druid, it's again pretty much a pure improvement) are all at least balanced high, if not just overpowered. They won't break a campaign, but they're mightier PrCs than any I've seen, including the much-maligned incantatrix.

Spells: Haven't run into many problems here. Starmantle and sublime revelry might be a bit powerful in that they confer blanket damage reduction, but probably not given how high level they are.

Magic Items: Devilhusk armor really doesn't seem like something that belongs in this book; it sounds like something a demon would wear. And absolutely NO retributive amulets unless you want your PCs nearly immune to weapons, please.
 

ruleslawyer said:
This is very much a no-no. The entire point of VoP (as with all the other feats, spells, and PrCs in the book) is that the moment you start "gaming" them to reduce the drawbacks, you're not conforming with the spirit of the rule to begin with.

At your game table it may be a no no but at my table, what I say goes :D and I'm quite happy with him being denied money, magic items, not being able to have weapons etc.. offered or loaned to him by other PC's etc.. as part of his vow, but i'm not going to implement the vow in such a way as to help encourage his death.

In my game magic isn't hugely available for purposes of healing so the group have to rely a lot on healing potions, which isn't a big deal anyway as they are herbal as opposed to magical in my campaign anyway. Denying him the right to tend his wounds is tantamount to such silly limits as say preventing him from carrying the food and water he needs to survive etc.. like I said its about doing without not being stupid :D
 

Remove ads

Top