VoP vs. Call Weapon

[irdeggman]

The mindblade is a psionic (magical, if you like) effect. Nothing more.

It is an effect that is basically the same as a magical weapon, but, still , it is a magical (psionic) effect, NOT an actual magical item, regardless of how much it might behave like one.

It is "a semisolid blade composed of psychic energy distilled from his own mind." It is most definitely NOT a magic item, no matter how closely it may resemble one in it's use and effects.

We will have to agree to diasagree then.

It is not a "force" effect like most other "weapons" are (e.g., spiritual weapon, Mordenkainen's sword, ).


Note that I am only coming from a strict reading of the rules. I don't think it is fair that a single class (i.e., soulknife) is forbidden from taking the VoP. It is the only class that would be so affected.

I do think that VoP is a role-playing issue and not a strictly game-mechanic one which is what tends to happen when people use it and ask questions like "is this allowed?" That is almost always an indication that the player is looking for ways to get around a restriction.

The repeated advice from the FAQ and Save My Game article is to work with the player to come up with something personal for the Vow and not merely rely on the text alone. This is very wise and reflects the theme and apparent design concept of the the VoP (and pretty much all of the BoED for that matter.)

 

[Artoomis]

...The repeated advice from the FAQ and Save My Game article is to work with the player to come up with something personal for the Vow and not merely rely on the text alone. This is very wise and reflects the theme and apparent design concept of the the VoP (and pretty much all of the BoED for that matter.)

Agreed.

 

[Artoomis]

I went one-for-two with Customer Service. This came from Sam, who is extremely good with the rules and always tries to makes sure his answers are consistent with everyone elses's at WotC.

This was mostly what I expected:

Hi there William,

A holy symbol is defined in the Equipment chapter of the Player's Handbook as a separate object with a value and a weight. This means that you must have the physical object in order to have a Divine Focus for casting certain divine spells or for Turning Undead. A painted, engraved, or carved depiction of a holy symbol on your equipment does not count as a holy symbol for spellcasting or turning undead.

Crafting your own holy symbol that is usable as a Divine Focus means you craft an item with a monetary value. This too is not allowed by the Vow of Poverty according to the rules as written. At this time there is no errata stating that Holy Symbols are allowed.

Of course it is not an unreasonable house rule for a DM to allow a character with Vow of Poverty to have a holy symbol. Don't be afraid to use house rules if they enhance your group's enjoyment of the game.

A mind blade is not a true material object with a gp value, nor is it a material possession. It is a supernatural class ability that creates this semisolid psychic blade of energy. A character with Vow of Poverty can use a mind blade just fine.

I will certainly pass your feedback along to the appropriate departments for potential FAQ treatment.


Take Care and Good Gaming!

 

[wildstarsreach]

We will have to agree to diasagree then.

It is not a "force" effect like most other "weapons" are (e.g., spiritual weapon, Mordenkainen's sword, ).


Note that I am only coming from a strict reading of the rules. I don't think it is fair that a single class (i.e., soulknife) is forbidden from taking the VoP. It is the only class that would be so affected.

I do think that VoP is a role-playing issue and not a strictly game-mechanic one which is what tends to happen when people use it and ask questions like "is this allowed?" That is almost always an indication that the player is looking for ways to get around a restriction.

The repeated advice from the FAQ and Save My Game article is to work with the player to come up with something personal for the Vow and not merely rely on the text alone. This is very wise and reflects the theme and apparent design concept of the the VoP (and pretty much all of the BoED for that matter.)

I agree. There needs to be more clarifications. VoP should be based on RP and not rule splitting. The idea that I reads is possessions. Also a simple holy symbol, not an elaborate silver and gold one should be allowed. The gods would reward and encourage a cleric (IE good ones) to give up possessions in his/her name and go out there and prothlytize to the masses with their holy symbol. This makes no sense to me unless the creators of the VoP made something that really is taylored to the Monk class.

 

[wildstarsreach]

I went one-for-two with Customer Service. This came from Sam, who is extremely good with teh rules and always tries to makes sure his answers are consistent with everyone elses's at WotC.

This was mostly what I expected:

Well, that's good for the Soulknife. I think that we as a community should house rule the minimum possible value in a holy symbol. If it costs 1 gp or 25 gp, then that is what is required to work within the VoP. Now if you have a good god of money who expects his clerics to be extravagent acquiring wealth, then this is probably not a good fit or choice.

How about an answer on what started this thread, VoP with call weaponry?

 

[takasi]

The idea that I reads is possessions.

Just because you can't sell something, like Call Weapon, doesn't mean it isn't a possession.

From a metagame perspective it's skirting the rules. The bonuses are intended to offset the lack of magic items, which Call Weapon provides.

From a roleplaying perspective relying on a valuable material possession, whether you can sell it or not, violates the spirit of the vow.

As for the holy symbol and the roleplaying of the Gods rewarding you: the reward for VoP are the bonuses you get from the feat! If it means giving up some of the benefits of a Holy Symbol then that's the price you must pay for the blessings you get from VoP. I don't see a conflict as far as roleplaying is concerned.

 

[irdeggman]

Well, that's good for the Soulknife. I think that we as a community should house rule the minimum possible value in a holy symbol. If it costs 1 gp or 25 gp, then that is what is required to work within the VoP. Now if you have a good god of money who expects his clerics to be extravagent acquiring wealth, then this is probably not a good fit or choice.

How about an answer on what started this thread, VoP with call weaponry?

If it is magical then it is strictly forbidden since a VoP character can't use a magic item at all and Call Weaponry leaves no doubt whatsoever that it is actually a "real" weapon.

If it is not a simple weapon then it likewise is forbidden for an ascetic.

Those are the two things that are really without any true dissension from the masses from what I can recall.

The question on whether or not this is considered "stealing" is a different issue.

Also why should we house-rule a decent cost for a Holy Symbol at all. It is not on the allowed list plain and simple.

And cost is not really the deciding factor - again check the "costs" of some allowed "costly" items like an ordinary heavy crossbow (a simple weapon and they are allowed).

 

[frankthedm]

On a side note, I think a VOP wizard could make use of heighten spell to prepare "Read Magic" in every slot he has and use the arcane strike feat to channel those for damage into his quarterstaff.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As I've said before, I find the concept of a holy person unable to bear their god's symbol as purely illogical, leading me to the conclusion that VoP as written is deeply flawed.

Ignoring the knee-jerk reflexive response that the holy symbol isn't on the list of allowable items, so RAW ascetics are barred from owning them, I ask again that you examine this from an internal campaign world perspective.

Why would a god make the shining exemplars of the faith incapable of bearing even the rudest wooden symbol of that faith?

Imagine a layman meeting a being of great power (the ascetic) allegedly aligned to St. Cuthbert, but who loses that power upon grasping St. Cuthbert's symbol. To the layman, that would look like St. Cuthbert is punishing the ascetic for touching the symbol...much like how such a symbol would burn a vampire. It makes the ascetic look like a liar.

Its illogical, its internally inconsistent with the intentions of a presumably good deity.

 

[frankthedm]

As I've said before, I find the concept of a holy person unable to bear their god's symbol as purely illogical, leading me to the conclusion that VoP as written is deeply flawed.

Ignoring the knee-jerk reflexive response that the holy symbol isn't on the list of allowable items, so RAW ascetics are barred from owning them, I ask again that you examine this from an internal campaign world perspective.

Why would a god make the shining exemplars of the faith incapable of bearing even the rudest wooden symbol of that faith?

Imagine a layman meeting a being of great power (the ascetic) allegedly aligned to St. Cuthbert, but who loses that power upon grasping St. Cuthbert's symbol. To the layman, that would look like St. Cuthbert is punishing the ascetic for touching the symbol...much like how such a symbol would burn a vampire. It makes the ascetic look like a liar.

Its illogical, its internally inconsistent with the intentions of a presumably good deity.

It is very logical, St. Cuthbert is far less good aligned than ascetics are. An Exalted character never puts law before good. The 3.5 St. Cuthbert does. Morality is a wheel IN D&D, Cuthbert is more aligned with LE than CG. That alone IMHO disqualifies him as an appropriate deity for a gooder than good exalted character.

Your argument sounds reasonable for a Neutral good god, or a LG or CG god that favors good.