Vop vs spell casting materials

[Malum]

I would allow (& our group voted) a Cleric, after all can have a hand carved holy symbol. The Player has warmed to the idea of a Sorcerer as it turns out he wanted the extra feats given to the Wizard.

As far as our groups decision making it's a group vote with that campaigns GM as tie breaker. So in this case it was a 3/5 decision.

the Nazi ref. was a bit over board, even for my dark sense of humor, and for you to say "It wasnt intended to be insulting" doesnt cut it. I dont know you well enough to except that as humor. A great many others would take that extremely offensively.

Malum

 

[Dimwhit]

Blanket? I don't think that word means what you think it means. I was being specific: "by the choice in character".

Blanket is the right word. So no one wanting Wizard/Monk and VoP could want it for any reason other than powergaming? I don't know about you, but I don't think I could possibly know the intentions of every person out there who might be interested in that combo.

Personally, I could see some good roleplaying possibilities out of it. But apparently, that's not a possible motivation in this case.

 

[DonTadow]

The DM is by no means a dictator here. The player asked and the DM spent a couple of days and enlisted the help of the people here to consider it. Based on the discussion herein, he decided against allowing it. Your statement that he's very much a dictator is patently false.

This I wholeheartedly disagree with. I cannot emphasize enough how bad I think your idea is. You definitely should not ba/allow the whole book. You should absolutely consider each and every element of a supplement before allowing it; line item veto if you must call it that.

The choice of monk 2/wizard 3 is clearly a powergaming choice. It is certainly not for background or as an interesting concept. Add in VoP and it's even more clear. I can guarantee that if asked the player would say he wanted to be a wizard for the faster spell progression over sorcerer (if the player were honest about it).

You don't even know the player, you're making a heck of an assumption based off a couple of classes and a feat. What ever happened to being innocent until proven guilty. We havn't even heard hte players great backstory. I allow most concepts (whether they're devised out of power gaming or not) so long as the races are allowed in the campaign and there's a great backstory with it. If you can explain it, then I'll allow it.

 

[fafhrd]

True to form, we have another victory for Godwin's Law.

 

[irdeggman]

The Wizard class is not banned as far as RAW goes. The POV wizard is allowed to have one item. could this item not be his spell book.

Nothing in the books says a VoP character is allowed 1 item. I'm assuming you are meaning that 1 item doesn't count towards the VoP restrictions by this.

The feat is very specific on thsi.

"You must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions:. . . "

It sends you to the variant rule section for Voluntary Poverty, which lays out the benefits and has some more text about "Other Ramifications of Poverty" which includes the mention of not "owning" expensive material components and having to "beg components from othr party members".

This section also has the alternative rule for substituting xp for gp value of spell components, as someone mentioned previously.

 

[DonTadow]

Nothing in the books says a VoP character is allowed 1 item. I'm assuming you are meaning that 1 item doesn't count towards the VoP restrictions by this.

The feat is very specific on thsi.

"You must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions:. . . "

It sends you to the variant rule section for Voluntary Poverty, which lays out the benefits and has some more text about "Other Ramifications of Poverty" which includes the mention of not "owning" expensive material components and having to "beg components from othr party members".

This section also has the alternative rule for substituting xp for gp value of spell components, as someone mentioned previously.

I interpret the second part of the feat as being, one non expensive mundane item.

You also got to put the feat into some realistic context. Why would not the exalted understand that as a wizard he'd need a spellbok, even if he did make it himself and its very poor quality.

 

[Dimwhit]

True to form, we have another victory for Godwin's Law.

What's Godwin's Law?

Edit: Never mind. Google is my friend. (Funny, btw.)

 

[DonTadow]

I would allow (& our group voted) a Cleric, after all can have a hand carved holy symbol. The Player has warmed to the idea of a Sorcerer as it turns out he wanted the extra feats given to the Wizard.

As far as our groups decision making it's a group vote with that campaigns GM as tie breaker. So in this case it was a 3/5 decision.

the Nazi ref. was a bit over board, even for my dark sense of humor, and for you to say "It wasnt intended to be insulting" doesnt cut it. I dont know you well enough to except that as humor. A great many others would take that extremely offensively.

Malum

Wow a bunch of germans get a little rambunctious and several words are no longer usable in the dictionary. (Dark enough for you?)

No I didn't even mean the nazi reference as a joke. I meant to imply you were being a bit dictator like in your judgement on the ruling. I meant it in the reference of "soup nazi". YOu're not even willing to work with him on it. If a player is really interested in something why not? This reminded me of an editorial Erick Mona did earlier this year where he wouldnt allow a ninja player but he tried it out and it ended out to be ok. I don't know your players, but do you play with powergamers? If he's not known to be one why not let him try it out? I guess we need to know more about the player before we start placing judgement on the guy.

For instance, in my campaign I'd let player N play anything he wanted. He could play a rock and I'd allow it because his roleplaying is so good and he always has a reason for a concept. He stats his pcs out very well. I dont think caring about your pcs longevity is powergaming. Now Player R on the other hand, I make her stick to the core stuff because she will try to take advantage of you if you're sleeping. so do you have player n or player r?

 

[irdeggman]

I think we are on the same side of this discussion, but only disagreeing about a few fine points and making them mountains when they should be mole hills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irdeggman
It does not state they must be written into a spell book.

Actually, it does as my quote proved. The two free spells are explicitly "to add to her spellbook."

Here are the 2 applicable pieces of text.

From the Wizard class description:

Spellbooks: A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory.

A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from her prohibited school or schools, if any; see School Specialization, below) plus three 1st-level spells of your choice. For each point of Intelligence bonus the wizard has, the spellbook holds one additional 1st-level spell of your choice. At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards’ spellbooks to her own.

From the magic overview section:

Spells Gained at a New Level: Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, she gains two spells of her choice to add to her spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels she can cast. If she has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from her specialty school.

Again the two texts do not say they must be added only that by learning them in this way they can be added to her spellbook. “for” and “to add to” do not state only added to. Now if the wizard doesn’t add them to her spellbook they are mostly useless since she can’t cast them without a spellbook to study, unless of course she goes the Spell Mastery route.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irdeggman
Another point is in the skill description for Spellcraft.

What's the point? I see you quoting Spellcraft, but you make no point on it.

Well I pointed out that there are two things there.

One to decipher the spell and then another to learn the spell.

To me “learn” means “to know”.

So once the spellcraft check is made the wizard now “knows” the spell in question. There is no mention of having to place it into her spellbook in order to know it.

I agree, but the VoP wizard can't use the scrolls or spellbooks in the first place, right?

Not exactly, it states that a VoP caster can’t cast a spell from a scroll, wand or staff. And can't own or use any material possessions The Voluntary Poverty section talks about begging expensive material components from other party members so there is at least something to hang onto here.

2. A VoP wizard cannot use scrolls or others' spellbooks, thus rendering Spell Mastery useless.

Actually this one is incorrect, well subject to debate anyway. A spellbook is not a magical item and thus a VoP wizard could borrow one. Back to that beg components from other party members issue. There at least seems to be a thread to stand on here.

 

[irdeggman]

You also got to put the feat into some realistic context.

Whoa, never insert realism into a rules discussion.