VoP vs. Call Weapon

[Artoomis]

Well, no; there's a difference between "They are considered magic weapons for the purpose of damage reduction that requires a magic weapon to overcome" and "They are considered magic weapons and thus are effective against damage reduction that requires a magic weapon to overcome".

The second - the text from Call Weapon - states that they are considered magic weapons. It goes on to explain what effect this consideration has upon DR X/Magic. Being effective against the DR is a result of being considered a magic weapon, but that consideration is not limited to DR by the text.

-Hyp.

Either way - I'll not argue it - it's a very silly power to select for a VoP character.

 

[wildstarsreach]

1. Your own words prove the violation. The act of possession is the violation. No they can’t. The Feat is very clear. No magic weapons.

Only if you use the axiom that 'Possession is 9/10ths of the law'. You are the user of the item for the duration of the power. You can't give it to someone else, you can't sell it. You are assuming that by asking the question that my words are indicating a violation. You assume that there is a violation. I don't.

You create a weapon that is identical at most levels to the abilities you get with having VoP. What about a wizard who casts Mordenkainen's sword. It is a sword of force. It is magical. Why shouldn't this count towards the reasoning that I think you are following? Every spell is a magic weapon of some sort. Would the psionic power bolt be against this criteria? You enhance bolts to do magical damage. Things are already hard enough with this feat. I'm sure if this player is going to fail to meet their restrictions, it will be for more than ust this. I'm for giving players breaks but hammering them when they are abusive.

 

[Sejs]

Only if you use the axiom that 'Possession is 9/10ths of the law'. You are the user of the item for the duration of the power. You can't give it to someone else, you can't sell it. You are assuming that by asking the question that my words are indicating a violation. You assume that there is a violation. I don't.

Frank's always held a very strict view of VoP. Many other things too, really. That's just how he rolls.

The base disagreement he holds (unless I miss my guess) is the difference between attacking with magical energy (such as in the case of mord's sword, flameblade, etc) versus attacking with a magically augmented material possession. Part of the issue there stems from the difference between a magical weapon compared to a mundane weapon with a spell effect on it (such as shillelagh). Frank's view says that the Vow states no magical or non-simple weapons, and that there's no wiggle room, own or use, break the vow and you lose. Intent or not, class ability or not, doesn't matter, take it or leave it.

He's not wrong per se, he's just got a different take on it that emphasized letter over spirit, as opposed to the one you and I hold which says spirit over letter.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The act of possession is the violation.

Frank's always held a very strict view of VoP.

Actually, according to the RAW reading of the feat, it is ownership or use that is the violation, not "posession." There IS a difference.

A waitress bringing me my soup has possession of it, but at no time does she own it. Before I order it, the soup belongs to the restaraunt. After I order it, it is mine- she just delivers it to my table, no ownership is involved.

And as for "borrowing"- to me that implies the concept that the ascetic is going to use the borrowed item himself. Otherwise, he is no more than a "bearer" (like the waitress, above), and thus, not a "borrower."

Thus, it would be perfectly permissible for an ascetic to carry a +5 Holy Avenger...IF he's carrying it without intent to use, and makes no claim of ownership- he intends to drop it at its proper destination, be it church, a paladin, or an auction to feed the poor.

OTOH, the instant he draws the blade with intent to use it, however, or sells it to feed himself...*POOF*

 

[Solarious]

Personally, I would let it slide. There is no point in having it be an actual magic weapon, because VoP is almost certainly going to give you more powerful bonuses. And besides, the flavour is very silly. Where are all those +5 weapons of every concievable type lying around waiting to be summoned? I would modify the flavour so that they are bringing in ectoplasm from the Astral and shaping it to their desire, a weapon, to be specific.

The initial magical property is just the effect of having a weapon created by psionic powers: anything more is augmentation similar to MW and GMW. This would probably change the discipline from Psychoportation to Metacreativity, but it wouldn't matter much, since it's a Psychic Warrior power, learnable by anyone with 2nd level powers through the Expanded Knowledge feat. And who would want to? The superior choice is obviously Astral Construct anyways.

 

[frankthedm]

He's not wrong per se, he's just got a different take on it that emphasized letter over spirit, as opposed to the one you and I hold which says spirit over letter.

It was my error on possession.

It is the use of the item that would be the violation. The Called weapon is a magic weapon, If left unattended against a damaging effect, it’s magical status entitles it to a saving throw. It is immune to Shatter and other effects that ruin only mundane equipment.

Those who honor the “Spirit” of a Vow do not try and work around the vow. They go out of thier way to make sure to the follow the vow. If the vow taker suspect a party member is spending GP in planning to buff something mundane the VOP character has, the onus is on the VOP character to disuade those plans.

A person who swears a VOP can use a potion given to them to drink, but could not use a club with an oil or spell of magic weapon applied to it for it is now a magic weapon. Some might call this strict, I call it making sure the other players don’t sneak enhancements onto the VOP’s mundane gear [Magic weapon, greater magic weapon, magic vestments… etc]

Also on a side note…

The amount of enhancement has no bearing either way. If the Weapon is alright to use, then psion is in his rights to call and use the +5 weapon.

 

[Tetsubo]

How do people handle the use of the Spiritual Weapon spell with a VoP? I see it as being very similar with the OPs question...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Personally, I'd be happy with a psionic character changing the flavour text of their call weaponry - so maybe it doesn't summon a 'real weapon from somewhen else', it is just a spell like effect which creates a weapon out of nothing (astral material, whatever). I'd allow it in the same way that I'd allow spell casters with VoP to cast their various spells without worrying too much about it, or allow a soulknife to summon/create his magic blade when he wants to.

Would this overpower the VoP guy? I don't think so. Would it allow him some cool moments? I think it would.

Thus for me it would be fine. No worries at all.

 

[irdeggman]

Pg 48

“You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf – you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion’s ebony fly. You may not, however, “borrow” a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, want or staff.”

Pg 30 the Exalted Strike benefit grants an enhancement bonus to all attacks and damage rolls “In effect, any weapon the character wields becomes a +1 magic weapon.”

The bonuses go +1 at 4th level
+2 at 10th
+3 at 14th
+4 at 17th
+5 at 20th

The psionic power allows a +1 per 4 (additional pp spent).

And you can’t spend more pp than your class level.

So +1 at 5th
+2 at 9th
+3 at 13th
+4 at 17th


Since enhancement bonuses do not stack it appears that the power allows getting to +2 and +3 one level early.

It would be relatively simple to rule that the augmentation bonus can’t be used.

The question comes about can a VoP character use a quarterstaff that has had Magic Weapon cast on it by an ally?

But I see the underlying principle here - is the character (i.e., player) attempting a work-around? IMO this would qualify for not allowing it on principle. I mean a VoP character is supposed to be above others in the first place and the VoP is supposed to place them in a special circumstance (with a lot of attitude towards things).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some might call this strict, I call it making sure the other players don’t sneak enhancements onto the VOP’s mundane gear [Magic weapon, greater magic weapon, magic vestments… etc]

To which I counter:

“You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf – you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion’s ebony fly.

emphasis mine.

There is a distinction between something that is a permanent magic item and having something in your possession enhanced by a spell, and its reflected in that sentence.