VoP vs. Call Weapon

[Dannyalcatraz]

As long as the weapon summoned is a simple, nonmagical weapon, it doesn't violate the VoP.

However, IMHO, an ascetic cannot be forced to drop a weapon that his enemy has enchanted with Magic Weapon or the like. The spirit of the vow is that the ascetic's abilities come from the subject of his vow (a deity or philosophy)- not from the enhancements from his allies. Advantages that come about because of his opponent's attacks would not be covered by this.

 

[MarkB]

So, if it's a real weapon from somewhere else in space and time, isn't this by definition a form of theft, however temporary? Nevermind the Vow of Poverty, that would surely violate Exalted status, wouldn't it? You're taking away a weapon someone else may be relying upon, and keeping it for rounds or minutes.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

MarkB, I suppose you have a point in certain situations. However, I would say that this could be easily houserules to acomodate a VoP player. Because of the power of a person VoP a DM could simply handwave that the power calls an unattended weapon from somewhere. I realize an unattended weapon might still bring trouble as a possibility.

As for it being stealing, I can also see your point, but for the purposes of the game I as a DM wouldn't make a big deal out of it. For the most part, VoP tends to be a bit underpowered anyway (unless you are a monk - and the monk is not likely to be summoning weapons with a power they don't get!) This power isn't going to unbalance the VoP character, especially since they would truly only need to summon unenhanced weapons on account of their VoP abilities anyway. If a player really wanted this for for flavor reasons, I'd allow it.

 

[irdeggman]

The biggest restriction is that it must be a non-magical simple weapon.

VoP only allows using non-magical simple weapons.

So what is going to be summoned? A mace, a crossbow, a club, a quarterstaff?

No really impressive weapons allowed.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

No really impressive weapons allowed.

Right. Except that the VoP doesn't need any impressive weapons. Their weapons become impressive due to their VoP ability. This is why I have been saying all along that the psionic VoP character can use this power at the 1 pp level to make sure they don't get a magic weapon.

 

[Sejs]

I'd probably let it fly because it's A) a class feature, and not one that augments an existing out-vow material possession (such as the Vassal of Bahamut's armor), and B) it's not something you own it's something you do. Much like how I wouldn't penalize a VoP druid for casting Shillelagh.

Bottom line is I don't feel it breaks the spirit of the vow, and to me that's what counts.

 

[wildstarsreach]

Having read through the posts, here is my opinion. No, it does not violate the VoP.

Why you say, if considered an actual weapon, it is normal and non-distinctive other than the glow from the astral summoning. Theoretically this could be construed as stealing but says nothing about denying the owner its use. The summoned weapon could be from a fallen being on some distant battlefield. Therefore no owner would be hurt. Two, does enhancing your weapon violate you VoP? I don't think so.

Its advantage is that at 1st level you can overcome DR magic. Now how many fights happen at this level where it would be necessary to have magic to defeat a foe? Usually it would be silver or cold iron. You'd be outclassed if it were often. You get a +1 enhancement at 4th level with VoP so at 5th level when you could manifest 5 PP to enhance your summoned weapon, it would be useless since they would not stack.

In this I would use the quote "A difference that makes no difference is no difference."

Does owning a spellbook since this is a class feature for a wizard violate the VoP. Does owning a suit of common Full Plate, weapons, a horse and such violate this. The VoP is meant to make that the character gets by on the minimum necessary to accomplish him doing. It doesn't allow to hold back say 5000 GP and bribe the officials so that you could smuggle some oppressed peasants out of a kingdom. It would allow youhave the armor and accoutrements necessary to fight or cast spells. It would not allow a wizard to buy every spell willy nilly but under DM supervision to add occasional spells beyond the 2 they get every level if the DM saw some benefit that would help the poor masses.

One other thing, about the only time that this would really be an issue is when a PC is without his weapon such as a negotiation where the situation requires that no weapons are present.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Any one who said that they would alow this is overlooking the obvouis.

Weapons gained by call weaponry are distinctive due to their astral glimmer. They are considered magic weapons and thus are effective against damage reduction that requires a magic weapon to overcome.
Augment: For every 4 additional power points you spend, this power improves the weapon’s enhancement bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls by 1.

As you can see in the bold, the weapon upon being summoned is magic. Spening the extra pp only encrease the magic bonus, so for example, if you need a +5 weapon to overcome you have to spen 20 points.

Very much so, does this violate VoP.

---Rusty

 

[wildstarsreach]

Any one who said that they would alow this is overlooking the obvouis.



As you can see in the bold, the weapon upon being summoned is magic. Spening the extra pp only encrease the magic bonus, so for example, if you need a +5 weapon to overcome you have to spen 20 points.

Very much so, does this violate VoP.

---Rusty

Enhancements

______ VOP _________________Call Weapon
1st__ Nothing______________ +0 but affect DR Magic
4th__ +1 to hit/damage_______ no change
5th__ no change_____________ +1 to hit/damage
9th__ no change_____________ +2 to hit/damage
10th__ +2 to hit/damage_______ no change
13th__ +3 to hit/damage_______ +3 to hit/damage
17th__ +4 to hit/damage_______ +4 to hit/damage
20th__ +5 to hit/damage_______ no change
21st__ no change_____________ +5 to hit/damage

The above is when you can do damage based on which ability. Having a wizard or cleric augment your weapon is not against the rules so enhancing your called weapon should not be either. The call weapon is based on the minimum manifester level to spend the PP 's for augmentation.

The amounts don't stack. You don't own a summoned creature for the time you have it in your control. Why is it that you are considered the owner for the few rounds that you have possession of the weapon? I just don't see how it violates the Vow of Poverty?

 

[irdeggman]

Any one who said that they would alow this is overlooking the obvouis.



As you can see in the bold, the weapon upon being summoned is magic. Spening the extra pp only encrease the magic bonus, so for example, if you need a +5 weapon to overcome you have to spen 20 points.

Very much so, does this violate VoP.

---Rusty

I came short of taking that position because a VoP character can use a simple weapon that has had spells like magic weapon cast on it - so it most likely does not violate the VoP becasue of this (and it is a temporary condition that only lasts as long as the power is maintained).

A similiar argument could be made to forbid a soulknife from using his mindblade because it is treated as a magic weapon for bypassing DR (and gets enhancement bonuses at higher levels as well as magical properties).

As well as a monks unarmed strike at higher levels.

So I would go along with the stance that as long as it is used to summon only a simple weapon then it doesn't bypass the VoP restriction.