VoP vs. Call Weapon

[FireLance]

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.

Yeah, there are some quirky things in the BoED, but that doesn't stop me from liking most if it anyway. It's great inspirational reading, and if the rules don't always exactly fit in with what I want from my game, they are about 90% there and the remaining 10% of effort required to make it work in my game isn't too hard for me. It's as easy as house-ruling that a VOP character can carry around a wooden holy symbol.

Alternatively, the problem could be overcome with an exalted feat (VOP characters get bonus exalted feats anyway) that worked like Eschew Materials. This shouldn't cause balance problems since there is already a feat in Faiths of Eberron (Worldy Focus) which allows does this. With the exalted feat, you have a servant of the divine who is so holy that he does not even need a holy symbol to cast his spells (and I'd broaden it to turning undead as well).

Mind you, even by the strictest interpretation of VOP, an ascetic wouldn't lose his powers simply by touching a holy symbol, only by claiming it as a possession or by using it.

 

[wildstarsreach]

In the allowed equipment, it allows a 1 gp belt pouch for components but not the 1 gp Holy symbol. I know that those are the rules by you got to wonder what were they thinking?

 

[Musrum]

The Apostle of Peace has VoP has a requirement, but also has Turn Undead (Su) as a class feature.

How do they use this class feature?

 

[Hypersmurf]

In the allowed equipment, it allows a 1 gp belt pouch for components but not the 1 gp Holy symbol. I know that those are the rules by you got to wonder what were they thinking?

You can use a 12gp heavy mace or a 50gp heavy crossbow, but not a 1gp hammer or a 6gp handaxe. Price isn't what determines what's allowed.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

The Apostle of Peace has VoP has a requirement, but also has Turn Undead (Su) as a class feature.

How do they use this class feature?

They don't.


If you note in the Weapon and Armor Proficiency section for the Prestige Class it says several things that violate the VoP too.

Like the fact that they can use magic items that provide protection (such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor).

So the Prestige Class is poorly written and violates its own rules. {Gosh WotC has never done that before.}

 

[irdeggman]

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.

Well as as been pointed several times the VoP is a role-playing tool for "mature" gamers.

Excerpts from the FAQ:

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.

That said, the Sage would fully support any DM who felt this to be an unfair abuse of the spirit of the Vow of Poverty. One of the reasons that Book of Exalted Deeds is a “mature audiences” book is that many of its options are intended to allow players to create interesting roleplaying opportunities while not unduly hindering their characters’ ability to participate in adventures, not as avenues of abuse to create the most powerful character imaginable. If the DM felt that the kensai in question was trying to take advantage of the wording of Vow of Poverty to subvert its spirit, he’d be well within his rights to disallow the character from selecting the feat.

 

[Artoomis]

They don't.


If you note in the Weapon and Armor Proficiency section for the Prestige Class it says several things that violate the VoP too.

Like the fact that they can use magic items that provide protection (such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor).

So the Prestige Class is poorly written and violates its own rules. {Gosh WotC has never done that before.}

It would appear that one of three things is true:

1. The AoP was poorly written

or

2. The AoP somehow modifies the VoP so that:

a. Magic items that provide protection are allowed and

b. A holy symbol is allowed (implied by class feature of turning and spells that need divine foci)

or

3. The magic item part was an error but no one at WotC even considered that a Holy Symbol was not allowed by VoP - at least at the time AoP was written.

or

4. The AoP divine foci is special somehow and is not a holy symbol. (and the magic item part is an error).

It's obviously ludicrous to think that class features of a prestige class that Requires VoP could not be used because of the VoP.

 

[Artoomis]

I checked the FAQ and errata and found nothing on the Apostle of Peace, so I sent in the following:

In light of the fact that no errata on the Apostle of Peace (AoP) has been issue, a number of us out here in D&D land are wondering how it is intended to work in conjunction with Vow of Poverty (VoP).

The AoP specifically allows magic items of protection which are specifically prohibited by VoP. Is this intended as a VoP modification for this class only or an error? Whatever it is, an addition to the errata for this would be helpful.

The AoP allows a holy symbol by implication. It has turning as a class feature, as well as some spells that require divine foci. I assume one of the following is intended, but which one? Any one of these choices is certainly a good candidate for errata.

1. The AoP has a special exception to the VoP and may carry and use a holy symbol.

2. The VoP does not prohibit holy symbols, despite previous rulings from WotC to the contrary.

3. The divine foci for the AoP is not a holy symbol. I do not know what it would be them - perhaps they always carry a staff and that acts as their divine foci?

Finally, the ludicrous possibility that an AoP cannot use some class features because they violate the VoP.

We are puzzled as to the intent of WotC with how this class works with VoP. Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Sejs]

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.

Oh, because VoP is intended for people who punch things or turn into bears, of course.

...friggin' ridiculous.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, one useful response from Customer Service (see above) and then this pretty much useless one:

Thank you for contacting us.

Yes you can wear protection items, but you then lose all abilities associated with the Vow of Poverty which will make you lose the AoP class.

By a strict reading of the rules, you are not able to have a Holy symbol.

Unfortunately I can only help with how the rules work, I cannot comment on why the rules may have been created in specific ways.

As an after thought, these situations are very good candidates for house rules. Yes I can see how these rules seem to contradict each other and not work together like they should, but there has been no errata changing how this feat and PrC work and therefore the rules stand as written. It is up to you as a DM to make a decision on how this should work in your campaign in the end.

Take Care!
Good Gaming!

Absolutely dang useless. Oh, well. Sometimes you slay the dragon, sometimes the dragon wins.

My recommendation, for what it is worth, is to ignore the VoP restriction on holy symbols (or, more generally, divine foci) completely. Part of the reason for that is that in certain cases it may be possible to work around this restriction staying within the spirit and letter of the rules, so it's probably better to just allow it generally.

If you don't like that, then you should either let the AoP class have one, have them carry a staff and make that be the divine foci for them, or simply remove the requirment for a diuvine foci for them to turn or cast spells - in effect making the character himself the divine foci.

I suppose the last comes closest the the best result from a tight reading of the rules, but that's arguable just like anything else - especially around here .