Vow of Poverty and a 'party' Cure wand

[Maldor]

Hmm so it is an acceptable practice to play in a group that deliberatly deprives one member of his/her "share" of treasure?

In a word "yes" nothing in the rule say you must share the treasure and if i'm playing a greed character and he finds out your throwing away(in his piont of view) treasure that he risked his life for then he will not likly want to give you something of value that he thinks your wasteing

So an ascetic character "must" demand his/her share of treasure so that he/she can "help out the poor and those who need". A VoP character further more must give away an even larger portion of his/her share (pretty much all of it).

the VOP PC can demand, beg, piss and moan all he wants that doesn't meaning my PC cares but like i said in my early post he would usally get his share because a VOP PC is usally traviling with other good PC's

 

[Diirk]

the VOP PC can demand, beg, piss and moan all he wants that doesn't meaning my PC cares but like i said in my early post he would usally get his share because a VOP PC is usally traviling with other good PC's

True, but if you play a greedy character that seeks to actively deny other people of their rightful share of treasure, then don't be surprised if they don't want to journey with you anymore. I don't really see what business of yours it is what they do with whatever they earn.

 

[irdeggman]

True, but if you play a greedy character that seeks to actively deny other people of their rightful share of treasure, then don't be surprised if they don't want to journey with you anymore. I don't really see what business of yours it is what they do with whatever they earn.

Bingo.

Once it's diviied up its no longer something you can claim, it is someone else's.

And the "greed" character would always (to be in character) be demanding "larger shares" than everyone else - hence the likelihood of being "excluded" from the group by and large.

I imagine such a character would have a hard time adventuring with a paladin or cleric of a benevolent good deity" too.

Basically "exalted" characters do not fit in well with non-good ones at all. Imagine the troubles that PHB paladin would have only magnify it ten fold.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Dip into 1 level of Binder class, and take the feat that allows you to add 2 to the highest level vestige you can bind. Then bind Buer. She will give you a constant Fast Healing 1, Immunity to Disease/Poison, a 30 foot "aura" that will supress any disease/poison within your allies, and an ability to heal 1d8 +binder level (+10) every 5 rounds.

So for very little investment (a level and a feat), you have an unlimited Cure Light Wound ability (only limit being the time, can only use for 30 seconds at a time) which is great for out of combat healing.

 

[Nifft]

Dip into 1 level of Binder class, and take the feat that allows you to add 2 to the highest level vestige you can bind.

No.

The feat allows you to add two to your level for the purpose of binding Vestiges. One level of Binder + Improved Binding = 2nd level Vestiges, not 3rd.

(And Buer is 4th anyway...)

Cheers, -- N

 

[pallandrome]

I run pallys and VoP types under the "best effort" rule.

Lets say that Bob the monk is about to kick the bucket, and Timmy the VoP cleric, out of spells, is trying to save him. He can...

A) Grab the wand, say "Screw VoP, I'm not gonna let my friend die!", and save Bob.

or

B) Let Bob die, in order to save his VoP.

If Timmy chose B, then Bob dies, and Timmy loses his VoP anyway, due to his selfish action. Depending on his deity, he might ALSO lose his cleric powers due to an alignment shift until he makes up for his misdeed.

If Timmy chose A, Bob lives, and because of his selfless act of sacrifice, Timmy gets to keep his VoP. Also, everyone gets cheesecake.

Now, Timmy wouldn't be able to use the wand under normal circumstances, as he wouldn't be countering his possession of the wand with a commisurate act of goodness. But I'm not so much of a duche-DM that I'm going to screw over Timmy whether he saves Bob or not. That's not roleplaying hard choices, that's just being unfun.

 

[Falkus]

Or he can find a third solution. I dislike binary moral choices where there are only two things a character can do. In my experience, they never actually happen in the games I play.

 

[Will]

Me, in those situations, I'd say the benefits of VoP are lost until the character has Atonement cast upon him.

And, if it was breaking a vow for a really really good reason, the Atonement would be something pretty simple:

"For your violation of the precepts of your Vow, you must take this broom and sweep the front steps of the Temple of Light from sunup until sundown."

'How many days?'

"Just today."

'... Oh! Um. Thank you.'

"And be appropriately penitent."

'Yes, sir.'

 

[Drowbane]

In the SCAP (spoilers?),

Spoiler

I had a to decide whether to use a Control Water wand and lose my VoP or refuse to use the wand and risk there not being enough capable to use them to save Cauldron. My Cleric ended up willfully violating the hell out of his Vow in order to save the City.... in character he only had one choice. Our DM thought about it and decided that such a mitigating circumstance wouldn't cost me the feat, as my Deity would have probably stopped granting me spells had I been so selfish as to value the benefits of my Vow over the lives of hundreds. My cleric prayed for guidance and asking for atonement for his actions... and realized the truth of the matter. Divine insight?

Good times.

...<snip>...Now, Timmy wouldn't be able to use the wand under normal circumstances, as he wouldn't be countering his possession of the wand with a commisurate act of goodness. But I'm not so much of a duche-DM that I'm going to screw over Timmy whether he saves Bob or not. That's not roleplaying hard choices, that's just being unfun.

yeah, it was like that. heh.

 

[Nifft]

That's not roleplaying hard choices, that's just being unfun.

Yep yep yep.

This is exactly why a lot of people hate the feat.

Cheers, -- N