Vop vs spell casting materials

[Cabral]

The Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness are for mature audiences, not because of naughty bits, but because of things like the VoP.

These are books that should be kept far away from rules lawyers. Vow of Poverty, for example, is not meant to be picked apart in usual rules debates. It's meant to compensate aesetic characters for class features that they would lose for giving up their material possessions. No character class or prestige class should be rendered impotent by taking the Vow. The material is "mature audiences only" because you have to maturely handle the adjudication of the Vow, for example, and what it means for a given character.

I believe the sage stated in one Dragon Magazine issue that a Samurai would have to give up his ancestral daisho with the Vow of Poverty. I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. In addition, I think the Sage should avoid the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness if his adjudications are going to be from a rules lawyer standpoint. A Samurai with the Vow of Poverty should have the Vow tweaked to accomodate the daisho. Why? because that daisho is part of who he is. He loses honor by losing/giving up his daisho.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The purpose of something like Sage Advice is to interpret the rules as they exist, not change them. Sometimes, when a rule causes problems as it exists, the sage may decide to suggest some improvements, but that is really beyond the bounds of the sage's mandate. No one who writes the sage expects "House rule it to whatever you want" as an answer!

Me, I see nothing wrong with a samurai giving up his ancestral daisho when undertaking the VoP. The ancestral diasho was part of who he was; the VoP defines who he is. I have seen too many martial arts movies, perhaps. Although I might be wrong, doesn't Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon begin with a Wudan warrior giving away his sword, the Green Destiny? Isn't this exactly the kind of renunciation of the material world that VoP is intended to represent?

I could easily see a character giving up an ancestral possession, only to as for it back years later because some problem has come up that requires her to turn her back on her VoP....


RC

 

[Cabral]

The purpose of something like Sage Advice is to interpret the rules as they exist, not change them. Sometimes, when a rule causes problems as it exists, the sage may decide to suggest some improvements, but that is really beyond the bounds of the sage's mandate. No one who writes the sage expects "House rule it to whatever you want" as an answer!

Well, in the past, he has made comments about house rules - including one about Vow of Poverty and some class ... monk and/or kensai. The fact that he didn't in the case of the daisho is, imo, an example of a lesser quality of "Sage Advice".

Me, I see nothing wrong with a samurai giving up his ancestral daisho when undertaking the VoP. The ancestral diasho was part of who he was; the VoP defines who he is. I have seen too many martial arts movies, perhaps. Although I might be wrong, doesn't Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon begin with a Wudan warrior giving away his sword, the Green Destiny? Isn't this exactly the kind of renunciation of the material world that VoP is intended to represent?

Yes, but in that case, I believe it to more of a case of giving up the associated life. What about the wandering Samurai/Ronin who has nothing to his name except his family's swords? Does he have to multiclass into monk to remain a viable character? Why not just apply Vow of Poverty with accomodations for the daisho?

I could easily see a character giving up an ancestral possession, only to as for it back years later because some problem has come up that requires her to turn her back on her VoP....

RC

That is a slightly different character.

Think of it this way. The character, in a way, worships his ancestors. The daisho is not his possession, but rather it represents his duty and tie to his ancestors. Discarding the daisho is also discarding and dishonoring the ancestors (in the CT,HD example, I would say that is an exception) and thus Vow of Poverty should be able to make accomdations.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In other words, could a character with a VoP be a custodian of something?

Easy answer: Are you ready to give it up if the "owner" demands its return?

In your example, if the samurai had a living family, and that family (rather than the samurai) was the daisho's owner(s), then presumably they could ask for its return to place in the hands of another. In other words, the daisho in this case is not part of the character, but part of the character's family.

Your main question, though, "What about the wandering Samurai/Ronin who has nothing to his name except his family's swords? Does he have to multiclass into monk to remain a viable character?" suggests that VoP is the only way to build such a character viably. And, maybe it is in the current incarnation of D&D. Let's face it, D&D is now (and has always been) as much about the stuff you own as who you are.

IMC, class defense bonuses, fighting styles, and weapon skills would allow you build this sort of character without relying on VoP.


RC

 

[Cabral]

In other words, could a character with a VoP be a custodian of something?

Easy answer: Are you ready to give it up if the "owner" demands its return?

Yes. As long as the Vow-taker does not benefit from the item he is a custodian for. (Involuntary "custodians" are another matter, you can't take away the benefit of VoP by supergluing a signet ring on their finger...)

In your example, if the samurai had a living family, and that family (rather than the samurai) was the daisho's owner(s), then presumably they could ask for its return to place in the hands of another. In other words, the daisho in this case is not part of the character, but part of the character's family.

In that case he would carry it and guard it but not use it.

Your main question, though, "What about the wandering Samurai/Ronin who has nothing to his name except his family's swords? Does he have to multiclass into monk to remain a viable character?" suggests that VoP is the only way to build such a character viably. And, maybe it is in the current incarnation of D&D. Let's face it, D&D is now (and has always been) as much about the stuff you own as who you are.

IMC, class defense bonuses, fighting styles, and weapon skills would allow you build this sort of character without relying on VoP.

It's not the only way, but it is a conceptually fitting method

 

[Plane Sailing]

DonTadow and anyone else: No snarky comments about anyone else, please.

Many thanks

 

[irdeggman]

The purpose of something like Sage Advice is to interpret the rules as they exist, not change them. Sometimes, when a rule causes problems as it exists, the sage may decide to suggest some improvements, but that is really beyond the bounds of the sage's mandate. No one who writes the sage expects "House rule it to whatever you want" as an answer!

Me, I see nothing wrong with a samurai giving up his ancestral daisho when undertaking the VoP. The ancestral diasho was part of who he was; the VoP defines who he is. I have seen too many martial arts movies, perhaps. Although I might be wrong, doesn't Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon begin with a Wudan warrior giving away his sword, the Green Destiny? Isn't this exactly the kind of renunciation of the material world that VoP is intended to represent?

I could easily see a character giving up an ancestral possession, only to as for it back years later because some problem has come up that requires her to turn her back on her VoP....


RC

IMO the problem arrises in that the character "values" the daisho too greatly. It becomes something "prized" and essentially a material possession.

IMO part of the VoP is to not place any type of ownership on material things. They are not "owned" by the character but are part of the greater world and hence he will not "use" them. They are better off being used by others who have a greater need than the character. Sort of like the native american values on land "no one can own it".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

Yep...my bad- I actually had it right in the thread I linked to. Remember kids- your brain going to mush is the first sign of old age. Your brains going to feed zombies is the first sign of a George Romero movie.

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?

A spell component pouch, when purchased, costs 5gp, and specifically states:

A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcsasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldnt fit in a pouch... (PHB p130)

Some have interpreted that to mean that because it doesn't come in the pouch when you buy it, it can never be used by a VoP PC. I disagree- the game mechanics of the spell component pouch state that it essentially acts like a "decanter of endless spell components" for inexpensive, easy to acquire spell components. It would make no sense for the same mechanics to apply for expensive/unique components, thus, they must be seperately acquired. It also makes no sense to say that you can't put other, more expensive or unusual components in it.

The true problem of expensive components & VoP PCs is their expense- hence the paragraph about begging for components. In my application of the VoP, the ascetic may acquire expensive components a variety of ways- so long as he's not hoarding wealth to BUY them, I'm ok with his bartering services, or asking that a particular portion (such as a pearl) of the party's newly found treasure be given to him for use as components. (Note: the same section that talks about ascetics borrowing components ALSO mentions that such PCs be given their share of party treasure- they must dispense of it in accord with their vow, however.)

I believe the sage stated in one Dragon Magazine issue that a Samurai would have to give up his ancestral daisho with the Vow of Poverty. I completely and wholeheartedly disagree.

I'll sit on the fence on this one- the vow DOES explicitly limit the ascetic to simple weapons, but the daisho IS a central part of being a samurai. Then again, so is the honor of keeping vows. And, as others have stated, there are stories of daisho-less samurai.

Basically, if the player can give me justification for keeping it, I'd let that one slide.

Cabral is also right that he could conceivably bear it as a caretaker of his family honor without using it, until someone else becomes worthy of bearing the daisho as weapons.

However, I could just as easily see a Samurai surrendering his daisho either to someone else in his family, or to the caretaking of a temple- to be reclaimed by him only under certain circumstances, like the direct order of the entity to whom he has made the VoP, or to transfer it to another family member.

In some of the stories of daisho-less samurai I have read- historical and fiction- the daisho were indeed ensconced in temples. In some cases, they remained there for decades, until reclaimed by someone else in the samurai's family.

I could also see the samurai destroying them 1) to prevent their being sullied by lesser persons, or 2) as a condition of (and demonstration of the depth of their devotion to) their Vow.