VoP vs. Call Weapon

[Musrum]

Would that be counting the FAQ and Save my Game Articles? Don't just rely on the customer service reply which went by RAW alone. All of those sources have reinforced the VoP restriction on divine foci. When I said WotC had repeatedly reinforced this I was including all of the sources mentioned not just the customer service response.

FAQ (i.e., Sage Advice) has repeatedly changed rules via errata in the past.

Who knows why? My guess is that after cutbacks old material was put into maintenance mode.

 

[irdeggman]

Who knows why? My guess is that after cutbacks old material was put into maintenance mode.

Interesting statement but it doesn't answer my question.

All of the known WotC sources of information, save errata itself (which isn't necessary if the VoP is fine as written) reinforce the point about a Divine Focus not being allowed per the VoP.

FAQ/Sage advice often issues errata (whether or not this should be "legal" or not it is simply a fact).

 

[Artoomis]

Would that be counting the FAQ and Save my Game Articles? Don't just rely on the customer service reply which went by RAW alone. All of those sources have reinforced the VoP restriction on divine foci. When I said WotC had repeatedly reinforced this I was including all of the sources mentioned not just the customer service response.

FAQ (i.e., Sage Advice) has repeatedly changed rules via errata in the past.

It is my belief (I have authority for this, but I cannot say from where) that the original inent was to include divine foci, but it simply did not get included and that WotC generally does not like to publish errata for the BoED because it is for "mature audiences" who should not need this kind of guidance from the book.

Because of this, WotC folks continually simply quote the rule that holy symbols are not permitted for the feat as written, but also point out that you should do as you see is the right thing for your own games.

In other word, rule it as you see fit for your own game. BoED, especially, is looked upon more as guidelines to build upon that strict rules.

Take that as you will.

 

[Musrum]

Interesting statement but it doesn't answer my question.

All of the known WotC sources of information, save errata itself (which isn't necessary if the VoP is fine as written) reinforce the point about a Divine Focus not being allowed per the VoP.

FAQ/Sage advice often issues errata (whether or not this should be "legal" or not it is simply a fact).

Well how about this: they restate the RAW because they have been told that it is not going to change. The reason it is not going to change: it doesn't need to!

BoED pg 30 - OTHER RAMIFICATIONS OF POVERTY
A character who has forsaken material possessions may find himself at a marked disadvantage when it comes to certain necessary expenses, such as expensive material components. One option is for ascetic characters to beg components from other party members, who are probably gaining as much benift from having the spell cast as the caster is.
---------------------------
And just checking...
PHB pg 174 - COMPONENTS
... Divine Focus(DF): ...

So the VoP Cleric simply has to ask a fellow party member if they can borrow their Holy Symbol.

Most parties I know would be so impressed with the Cleric's devotion that they would all, without exception, purchase a Holy Symbol (or two) of the Cleric's diety. These would serve as a focus for their mediatations on the powerful lessons, in word and deed, they have been witness too each day.

*VoP Cleric: Turns RAW Grinches*

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And thus the "inconsistency" goes away - due to an editorial error (as yet unrecognized via WotC).

One "inconsistency" goes away (and I agree with you that it is most probably an error in the PrCl that has caused this one in particular)- the internal illogic remains.

No sane god/divine force would penalize its followers for carrying its symbol. The more powerful the follower bearing the symbol, the better it is for the god/force's goals, the more attractive the faith is to prospective believers, etc.

Remember, by the strictest reading of the VoP, a DM could rule that the ascetic couldn't even use the holy symbol. After all, not only is it not on the list, some don't consider it a proper spell component, and thus, not borrowable by the ascetic.

As for Artoomis' assertion that they (specifically, the feat's designer) may have originally intended to include Divine Foci on the list of acceptible objects for an ascetic to carry or own- I've heard that rumor as well, and have never seen confirmation of it. As such, it remains just another rumor.

 

[Musrum]

some don't consider it a proper spell component, and thus, not borrowable by the ascetic.

That's fine too. Having displayed the ability to ignore RAW (and a DF is most certainly a component in the RAW), these people then need to turn their keen intellect onto the VoP itself.

A VoP Cleric can use a DF either:
1) Using RAW (allowing them to borrow a DF); or
2) House-ruling the intent of VoP (to allow them to own their own DF).

A VoP Cleric cannot use a DF if:
1) House-ruling that DF is not a spell component; and
2) Insisting on strict RAW for VoP.

Any DM who takes the second position really shouldn't be playing with the BoED.

 

[Hypersmurf]

1) House-ruling that DF is not a spell component;.

It's a component, but it isn't an 'expensive material component'. We know that 'expensive material components' can be considered 'necessary expenses', because they are used as the example; it's not clear whether these components are the only ones which can be begged, or whether a divine focus counts as a 'necessary expense'.

-Hyp.

 

[Musrum]

It's a component, but it isn't an 'expensive material component'. We know that 'expensive material components' can be considered 'necessary expenses', because they are used as the example; it's not clear whether these components are the only ones which can be begged, or whether a divine focus counts as a 'necessary expense'.

-Hyp.

'expensive material component' is an example in the pre-amble. The text for the rule is "One option is for ascetic characters to beg components from other party members, who are probably gaining as much benift from having the spell cast as the caster is."

The set of 'components' contains 'material component', 'focus' and 'divine focus'. All of these can be begged from other party members.

 

[irdeggman]

One "inconsistency" goes away (and I agree with you that it is most probably an error in the PrCl that has caused this one in particular)- the internal illogic remains.

Logic does not equal consistency.

And

Consistency does not equal logic.

I pointed out that inconsistency and inequality are not the same thing earlier.

I will now point out that inconsistency and illogical are not the same thing either.

Rules can be (and often are) consistent but not logical.


Illogical rules are changed via house-rules to make them "logical" to the user.

Inconsistenct rules are changed via errata (well they are supposed to be anyway) or via FAQ or other WotC communication (not the way it is "supposed" to be done but they way it has been done).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Logic does not equal consistency.

And

Consistency does not equal logic.

Ok.

While technically true, it still avoids the meat of the problem as I pointed out in that post.