Vop vs spell casting materials

[Infiniti2000]

I know you're kidding, but I still disagree.

I once based a PC on a character from the comic book Archer & Armstrong (one was an Immortal, one was a monk). The comic-book monk had been kicked out of the monestary, ending his training. Ditto my PC.

I'm kidding insomuch as saying it in a lighthearted fashion, in that I would do it, too. I'm not kidding when I say that it's my opinion that anyone who takes exactly 2 levels of monk and then switches classes is doing naught but powergaming. If you want the flavor take 1 or 3 or more, but not 2. Same thing with Paladin.

 

[Dimwhit]

Oh, c'mon. No one takes only two levels of monk for any reason other than powergaming.

Well, I've never understood why someone would want to take ANY levels of the Monk class, but I suppose that's another discussion for a different thread.

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

RE: Spell Mastery- A 16 Int Human Wizard takes Spell Mastery at 1st level, along with VoP. He can learn 2 spells. He will not be able to learn any more spells until 3rd level, when he becomes eligible to take Spell Mastery Again.

What are the odds that a Wizard who can only cast 2 spells will make it to 3rd level? Lets say he does...he learns 2 more spells, and will now have access to 4 spells until he makes 6th level.

What are the odds he'll live that long?

Just a point to note, Vow of Poverty requires 2 feats, you have to take sacred Vow first, so at first level your wizards choice's are

Sacred Vow and Spell Mastery
or
Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty

Its 3rd level before you can get the build you require

Well, I've never understood why someone would want to take ANY levels of the Monk class, but I suppose that's another discussion for a different thread.

I alway felt that, the only monk I had ever seen in game, was always the ame guy tryng to make monks work, and they always failed miserably. Then I had the oportunity to run a VoP monk, and it worked a treat. I guess he never played to the monks true strengths (he used to get magic to enhance his dex before wisdom, when wisdom stacks so well with everything a monk does, but hes the kind of guy I imagine behind the "Elan" character in OoTS)

One thing I will say a far as a monk/wizard combo is concerned, it makes farmore sense than a monk/sorceror. Monks are disciplined and ordered, just like wizards are, but sorcerors tend to be unordered, chaotic and generally more unstable but charismatic, hence why the PhB guides monk players to Lawful alignments, and sorcerors to chaotic alignments

Feegle Out

 

[irdeggman]

And yet you can have a crossbow that is 2 times the value of a blank spellbook. The items a VoP PC may carry are not based on absolute value of material items.

IMHO, VoP is broken- not in terms of its effects, but in its poorly worded drafting. My opinion is not based on what it does (RAW) to a wizard & his spellbook, but rather to the divine spellcasters and their divine foci.

A different VOP thread in which I said the following:


The point? VoP is, IMHO, seriously flawed in regards to divine spellcasters, gutting them. That it does a similar number on Wizards is no surprise to me, and is (to me) an indicator that it is similarly flawed in respect to them.

There are plenty of ways to play VoP without gutting the spellcasters.

YES, I know what VoP says RAW. I just don't think that it was intended to be written as it was- see above quotes.

(Someone on another thread about this stated that the guy who drafted VoP stated that spellbooks and divine foci were not intended to be excised- he messed up- but I have yet to see an actual quote or link to that effect.)

Note the text under Voluntary Poverty - which the VoP feat sends you to. It talks about having to beg expensive spell compnets from other party members. So it appears to me that spell components (non-expensive ones) are included in the spell component pouch allowance.

It also seems absurd to me to state that focii are not a subset of material components.

So all foci are not stored in a spell component pouch?

Things like:
crystal/prism for Read Magic
dart for Acid Arrow
A tiny bell and a piece of very fine silver wire for Alarm
A tiny lens of ruby or sapphire set in a small golden loop. For Analyze Dweomer
A set of marked sticks, bones, or similar tokens of at least 25 gp value for Augery

 

[Raven Crowking]

Of course, there is a big difference between discussing the RAW and what you can do in a house rule. So long as the DM approves, and the players don't mutiny, you can do anything you want in a house rule.

If, for example, you wanted to lower the requirement for a feat, you could also lower the benefits in order to keep the original balance. Or, you could raise the benefits if you wanted it to be a feat that "everyone" (i.e., all PCs) should take.

If everyone's happy, and the game is both interesting and fun, then no harm no foul, right?


RC

 

[Dimwhit]

So all foci are not stored in a spell component pouch?

The main argument (I think) was not over foci, but over a Cleric's Divine Focus, which is a little different than regular foci.

 

[irdeggman]

The main argument (I think) was not over foci, but over a Cleric's Divine Focus, which is a little different than regular foci.

Why is it different?

They are both foci.

One is used more often than the other, but they should be the same components wise.

 

[DonTadow]

Note the text under Voluntary Poverty - which the VoP feat sends you to. It talks about having to beg expensive spell compnets from other party members. So it appears to me that spell components (non-expensive ones) are included in the spell component pouch allowance.

It also seems absurd to me to state that focii are not a subset of material components.

So all foci are not stored in a spell component pouch?

Things like:
crystal/prism for Read Magic
dart for Acid Arrow
A tiny bell and a piece of very fine silver wire for Alarm
A tiny lens of ruby or sapphire set in a small golden loop. For Analyze Dweomer
A set of marked sticks, bones, or similar tokens of at least 25 gp value for Augery

Here's my thing, if wizards are banned from using POV, why would they even include the part about begging for spell components.

I guess at some point you got to DM and do the math. There's no logical reason why a wizard shoudln't be allowed to have his class provided spellbook. Now, if this were a non power gaming character (which I guess has been proven that it is), give him some homly looking paprys and make him have to kill the animals to have the ink for the stuff.

As said, with a bad interpration of this rule, it seems only monks can take it. However, I'm pretty sure the guys at wizards would have put in class restrictions if there were class restrictions. Don't let technicallities run the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

Personally, I think several people here are blowing the literal aspect of VoP way out of proportion. It's obvious that the designers had a Monk in mind when they designed that class and they did not consider all of the ramifications of other classes.

If you have a Cleric, sure, let him have a Divine Focus.

If you have a Wizard, sure, let him have a spellbook, but only a spellbook with level acquired spells since those are "free". Hence, he is limited in spell casting. Between tatooing himself at low level and using a single spell book with only level acquired spells at high level, he might get 2 of every spell level. He might not.

If you have a Paladin, sure, let him have Heavy Mace if that is what his Deity uses or what he wants to use.


In fact, I would even get rid of the "single day of rations" limitation and up it to maybe 3 days of rations.

This is a game we are discussing and games are meant to be fun. Having your VoP character starving or constantly wasting game time by hunting for food is not the type of fun I want at my table. Surviving off the land once in a while is a nice divergence for players, but doing it every single day is like searching for traps at every single door, regardless of situation. Boring and it slows down the game (I am not talking about it slowing down the game because you have to make a die roll for it, I am talking about it slowing down the game because it interrupts the current flow of the game to do a mundane task).


A non-Monk VoP character will be very difficult to play as is. Why be a hardcase about it and make it even more difficult? The game is about fun, not about dictatorship.

 

[DonTadow]

Personally, I think several people here are blowing the literal aspect of VoP way out of proportion. It's obvious that the designers had a Monk in mind when they designed that class and they did not consider all of the ramifications of other classes.

If you have a Cleric, sure, let him have a Divine Focus.

If you have a Wizard, sure, let him have a spellbook, but only a spellbook with level acquired spells since those are "free". Hence, he is limited in spell casting. Between tatooing himself at low level and using a single spell book with only level acquired spells at high level, he might get 2 of every spell level. He might not.

If you have a Paladin, sure, let him have Heavy Mace if that is what his Deity uses or what he wants to use.


In fact, I would even get rid of the "single day of rations" limitation and up it to maybe 3 days of rations.

This is a game we are discussing and games are meant to be fun. Having your VoP character starving or constantly wasting game time by hunting for food is not the type of fun I want at my table. Surviving off the land once in a while is a nice divergence for players, but doing it every single day is like searching for traps at every single door, regardless of situation. Boring and it slows down the game (I am not talking about it slowing down the game because you have to make a die roll for it, I am talking about it slowing down the game because it interrupts the current flow of the game to do a mundane task).


A non-Monk VoP character will be very difficult to play as is. Why be a hardcase about it and make it even more difficult? The game is about fun, not about dictatorship.

Remind me to buy you a bunch of flowers/boxed set of wallabies/secret santa present

Are you to tell us the designers were so silly, that they designed a feat with a specifiec character class in mind... wait... no a bunch of feats wit ha specific character class in mind... and in stead of giving it a character class restriction (which they've done for countless feats) they just left it up for the user to ::figure it out::. I love how they decided to throw us off by including text and references (including non monk materials the pc can wield).

Tell me are there any more puzzles in wotc material that we may decipher.