Vop vs spell casting materials

[Nonlethal Force]

Another one not in the RAW (that I remember seeing). I'd allow it. For one, it's a class feature. For another, it's not really a possession. By the same token, would a Druid/Ranger lose an animal companion? Could a character with the leadership feat lose a cohort?

Although I didn't agree with you earlier, I would agree with you here. Why? Simple because a paladin does not posess their mount. Their mount is a special creature. It is summoned from the celestial realms and it returns there when allowed to return or 2 hours/level is expended.

The same thing is true about a ranger's animal/druid's animal/cohort. Those are not posessions - they are relationships. And no - before someone asks - you cannot have a "special relationship" with the greatsword! But I would allow these things. Just like I wouldn't make a VoP character travel alone (as in no other PCs) I wouldn't make them lose their companions if they are animal or cohort.

I might - just to be fair - demand that a VoP player have his cohort and all his followers be VoP characters as well. After all, a VoP player is primarily about their povery. If it is about their poverty, then it is not unreasonable to think that the people who are attracted to them are also attracted to the purity that comes with the poverty. Granted - this would be totally a DM houserule, but I think it is a legitimate one if so chosen by the DM.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Keep in mind that a VoP wizard with a starting Int of 16 (not going entirely powergaming) will fill up his one-and-only spellbook quickly. Assuming he adds spells of the highest level (who doesn't):

1: 19 0th level spells, 6 1st level spells = 25 pages
2: 2 1st level spells = +2 pages (27)
3: 2 2nd level spells = +4 pages (31)
4: 2 2nd level spells = +4 pages (35)
5: 2 3rd level spells = +6 pages (41)
6: 2 3rd level spells = +6 pages (47)
7: 2 4th level spells = +8 pages (55)
8: 2 4th level spells = +8 pages (63)
9: 2 5th level spells = +10 pages (73)
10: 2 5th level spells = +10 pages (83)
11: 2 6th level spells = +12 pages (95)
12: 1 5th level spell = +5 pages (100)

That's it. That's pretty pathetic. And, I've noticed that no one is arguing that the wizard can buy or obtain another spellbook an people have even said that once his is lost, he's done for.

I ask ya, how does that let anyone have fun? So, either relax all the limitations or just say that wizards do not make for a good choice with VoP. For example, pure fighters don't make a good choice if they choose Empower Spell and I don't see anyone clamoring to give them spells.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

well i dont think a vop wizard is a good choice. But i think its fair to at least give them a spell book at the start of the game and 2 spells a level. mainly becuse its a class feture.

That said a sorcerer is SOOOO much better at vop. In fact, they rock.

 

[Li Shenron]

Just wanted to run my players new pc concept by the rules forum see what you all thought. It’s a question of Vop vs. Wizard’s spell components & spell book.
Campaign is starting out at 5th level the player wants 2nd level Monk / 3rd level Wizard w/ VoP. I disallowed the Wizard class outright. My ruling was based on possessing anything of value; book & components. His reply “I will only pick spells with less that 1 gp cost to cast and I will get the eschew materials feat”. I again refuted the possession of the spell book, and suggested he consider the Sorcerer w/ eschew materials feat. He gave in. Am I wrong to disallow a Wizards spell book to a pc with The VoP?

It's a strict decision, but overall it's probably fair. More than possessing the spellbook, my opinion is that maintaining the spellbook (precious inks, etc...) is costing money which the character has sworn to donate to the poor. Even if he choose to never scribe extra spells, and the level-up spells are "free", they really aren't from the character point of view (they are just not counted away from the players account, but the wizard is still scribing them with the reuired ink etc.).

However... why not letting the player play a variant wizard who uses a spellbook made with recycled/biological material? He could have devised a scribe method based on certain natural substances which in fact may be worth nothing, but still possess the qualities to hold magical inscriptions. He may be forbidden to copy spells into his spellbook (because that would have a cost), and so would others to copy from his own, and his spellbook would be also worth zero for anyone else except himself.

 

[irdeggman]

There is still the following feat:

SPELL MASTERY [SPECIAL]
Prerequisite: Wizard level 1st.
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.
Normal: Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to prepare all your spells, except read magic.

So a wizard can function without a spellbook, although he sucks when compared to one who has a spellbook - but he can still function.

 

[irdeggman]

If vop was just about intrinsic value, how come a druid’s holy symbol (holly 0g) is not ok? or a clerics wooden holy symbol? (that said I think they are ok, even though they are not listed)

IMO it is because focii are spell components. I don't know why people are trying to make them something separate than that. VoP does allow a spell component pouch (and most are assuming that also includes components even though it doesn't specifically state so).

So the only question concerning focii is just as applicable to other spell components - is there a limit to the value of spell components that a character with VoP can have?

It is not about whether or not he is allowed a focus (arcane or divine).

IMO VoP was designed to accentuate the following classes:

monk (see numerous threads on how the rock with this feat)
sorcerer
psion

Others that can greatly make out here are:

druids (already have severe weapon and armor restricitons to start with)
clerics (less so than a druid but still highly doable)
rogues (can suffer greatly due to no magic items but still they can get by very well with no armor and daggers)

Classes that have a lot of trouble (this is mostly due to the dependence on non-simple weapons, armor and magic items):
wizards
fighters
paladins
rangers

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

People seem to be awfully pedantic about VoP, I would go as far to say, thier argumentative nature is so disruptive that the BoED isnt for them, given the maturity required to adapt it to your setting.

A fighter gets a sword from VoP, but its cant be masterworked or anything else, putting the Kensai PrC right out the picture. He gets an AC bonus as he levels from the VoP so he doesnt need armour, which is expressely forbidden by VoP anyway.

A 20th level monk, wiht a VoP in simple robes is wearing a fortune, why? because his deeds will be so legendary, people will pay extreme amounts of money to own something he/she wore, now how do you adjudicate that?.

Your allowed to carry a days worth of food and drink, and suddenly your in a famine striken country, that food/drink is suddenly worth 10 times its amount.

A monks weapons are only exotic to non monks, otherwise 90% of monk weapons are simple weapons (what could be more simple than 2 pieces of wood put together at right angles)

There is absolutely no reason why any class cannot take the VoP, and still be effective, the trick here is to understand what the vow means, understand its spirirt, and work within those guidlines.

To discount the spellbook for a mage is a house rule, nothing more, and if you make that call, then thats how it is for your world, but there are plenty of reason, within the spirit of the vow, as to why a mage might have a spellbook, and still donate all his money to charity, and only carry with him what he needs to survive (food, drink, clothing and a spellbook)

If you want to be RAW about it, the rules themselves are wrong, because you would not be anything but a monk with VoP, because a true VoP person would carry no gear at all, no spell component pouch, no simple weapon, nothing, a true VoP is to forsake ALL material possesions, so an adventuring VoP is almost anthema to the idea of VoP, except for perhaps the monk, or the unarmed fighter.

In essence, VoP would be an NPC peasant only thing, but its not, its been done to add a different flavour/characetr concept, and therefore, the idea of VoP iteself has been broken before it starts by allowing simple weapons and spell pouches, so to argue you may have nothing else because it doesnt follow VoP by RAW is an exercise in futility.

Sorry to sound so aggresive, but it strikes me that some poeple are being deliberately obtrusive about the RAW of VoP, or simply just dont get it. But if you dont get it, dont use it.

Feegle Out

 

[Raven Crowking]

It does allow a component pouch so I would say that spell components are allowed. But only as components. That is a 100gp pearl is OK when treated as a component but if attempting to "sell" it. . .

If you need a 100 gp pearl to cast a spell, does that come as part of a spell component pouch, or is that a seperate item? If it comes as part of a spell component pouch, I would expect people in your campaign to buy pouches and then sell their more valuable contents off individually.


RC

 

[Infiniti2000]

There is still the following feat:
(spell mastery)
So a wizard can function without a spellbook, although he sucks when compared to one who has a spellbook - but he can still function.

Spell Mastery only helps when the spellbook is lost. A wizard cannot choose any spells for spell mastery that he doesn't already know, so he'll still fill up the spellbook, but now with useless spells. At least a normal wizard could sell that spellbook, but only if the DM considered it valuable.

Feegle, on the other hand, the stuff from the BoED was intended to be use with certain role-playing consequences, and in the case of VoP, quite severe consequences. When you just ignore those role-playing guidelines, you're not handling the material very well. It seems like you're looking at the BoED as a means of acquiring very powerful abilities while trying to ignore the restrictions as much as possible. I'd say you were distorting the intent of the feat, not trying to be creative about it.

A wizard is just not a viable VoP concept.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you want to be RAW about it, the rules themselves are wrong, because you would not be anything but a monk with VoP, because a true VoP person would carry no gear at all, no spell component pouch, no simple weapon, nothing, a true VoP is to forsake ALL material possesions, so an adventuring VoP is almost anthema to the idea of VoP, except for perhaps the monk, or the unarmed fighter.

In essence, VoP would be an NPC peasant only thing, but its not, its been done to add a different flavour/characetr concept, and therefore, the idea of VoP iteself has been broken before it starts by allowing simple weapons and spell pouches, so to argue you may have nothing else because it doesnt follow VoP by RAW is an exercise in futility.

Sorry to sound so aggresive, but it strikes me that some poeple are being deliberately obtrusive about the RAW of VoP, or simply just dont get it. But if you dont get it, dont use it.

But are you sure that the concept was meant to be open to all characters? From how it works and how it is described, it seemed to me that the idea comes from some saints and holy figures like S.Francis, who couldn't suffer watching someone in need and immediately donated everything valuable they had, or like some christian and buddhist monks who believe that property is the reason of greed which is the source of evil.

I've always thought that VoP represents that: a character who would not keep anything valuable for a long time. I would certainly not strip someone's VoP because they pick up a coin in the middle of the road, or because they used a weapon in an energency situation. But the RP required for VoP to make sense is such that a character would not keep possession of something which, if sold or given, could help someone in need. That's why I suggested a worthless version of the spellbook (that said, it's also fair to forbid the wizard to gather expensive components, since there are anyway hundreds of spells with no cost; he simply would not resist keeping the components at the first occasion when he could sell them and donate the money).

IMHO the VoP was designed with that idea in mind. Even if it is feasible only for Monks. They didn't specifically forbid other classes to take VoP, but at the same time it doesn't necessarily need to work well for everyone. The point is not that a fighter with VoP is screwed (could be true from a game's point of view), but that a fighter who at some point in his life takes a VoP probably ends up retiring from being a fighter.

The problem is that even if the VoP is designed to allow a mature player to play such a difficult concept, with the possibility to still be part of an adventuring party, the typical player believes that it must be used just to boost your character and try to go around the limitations of VoP. But the limitations of VoP are the REASON of VoP, and in this case I totally agree with you that if the player isn't interested in the limitations, he's not interested in VoP at all and should play something else.

I also note that it's quite stupid to want the VoP benefit alone, since those benefits are more or less what you get from your normal equipment...