Vow of Poverty and one-use items

[Creamsteak]

The language they use to allow a character to use a potion of cure serious wounds is, "You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf."

Also note the end, "You may not, however, borrow a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff."

The way this is worded does not make exception allowing the use of a single use magic item. It allows a character to benefit from magic items used on your behalf. Obviously the character can benefit from a haste spell, or even a wish when another character is doing the item activation.

The only awkwardness I can think of is the instance in which a potion is applied. The character "can drink" a potion. Does that mean that the character can drink the potion as a standard action, in which case the character IS using a single-use magic item; or is the character only allowed to recieve the benefit of the magic item, such as when a character is unconcious and the potion is delivered by another character as a full round action?

 

[clark411]

Potions weigh nothing, and are a no real burden to carry. If you had 100 lb boulders of Cure Moderate kicking around instead of potions, then there would be a burden. However, the whole "A N/PC stands next to you for a round, and wee you get 1d8+1 healing for it." is far less of a stretch in terms of acceptibility.

Dependency and burden are two entirely different things. PCs always depend upon each other. Fighter looks at an Adamantium Door locked at DC 30 and scratches his head. A Rogue looks at a divine scroll, has no ranks in UMD, and passes it to the Druid. Burden, however, is when the Cleric has no choice but to heal the guy who can't use healing potions (and no, it's not a burden for the Cleric if the nonClerics opted to not buy potions that were readily available). It's when the Fighter has to carry the naturally STR 1 character through an entire campaign, always moving into a Heavy Load, without his own actual consent ("You want to make a STR 1 character and my guy has to carry him? But..") because the alternatives would be leaving that PC behind.. much as you would leave behind the 5 HP VoP chap.

Ultimately, it comes down to the idea that VoP's concession isn't designed to give VoP characters a One Use Item loophole, but rather to let them play without the constraints of no healing. VoP isn't designed around making Player 1 powerful, and weakening Player 2 (the healer) who has no choice but to help Player 1 or leave him behind.

 

[Artoomis]

The language they use to allow a character to use a potion of cure serious wounds is, "You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf."

Also note the end, "You may not, however, borrow a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff."

The way this is worded does not make exception allowing the use of a single use magic item. It allows a character to benefit from magic items used on your behalf. Obviously the character can benefit from a haste spell, or even a wish when another character is doing the item activation.

The only awkwardness I can think of is the instance in which a potion is applied. The character "can drink" a potion. Does that mean that the character can drink the potion as a standard action, in which case the character IS using a single-use magic item; or is the character only allowed to recieve the benefit of the magic item, such as when a character is unconcious and the potion is delivered by another character as a full round action?

Apparently if you use a potion, you are getting a "benefit from magic items used on your behalf" and not doing the equivalent of "cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff."

How odd.

However, since you cannot cast a spell from a scroll, wand or staff, I guess reading a book is right out.

 

[Sejs]

I was thinking about this the other day, and I figure the stat manuals are the one item that I'd let slide by the no material possessions thing. The use of the books represents studying them and learning to master the various techniques held therein.

It's knowledge more than anything. After you're done with the alotted study period, you still retain the knowledge of what you need to do to maintain that bonus.

I was actually curious if someone with one of those books could teach the techniques to multiple people. More than one person studying the book at a time, basically.

 

[reiella]

Apparently if you use a potion, you are getting a "benefit from magic items used on your behalf" and not doing the equivalent of "cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff."

How odd.

However, since you cannot cast a spell from a scroll, wand or staff, I guess reading a book is right out.

Actually I believe creamsteak was trying to make a distinction between someone else using a potion on you (pouring potion down your throat, and you 'drinking' it instead of spitting it back into the vial) and you pouring the potion in your mouth. And that interpretation seems the 'easiest' that's in-line with the rules, even if it is poorly phrased due to potential multiple meaning of the word 'drink'.

[ Assume 'you' is the VoP empowered individual ]

 

[Artoomis]

Actually I believe creamsteak was trying to make a distinction between someone else using a potion on you (pouring potion down your throat, and you 'drinking' it instead of spitting it back into the vial) and you pouring the potion in your mouth. And that interpretation seems the 'easiest' that's in-line with the rules, even if it is poorly phrased due to potential multiple meaning of the word 'drink'.

[ Assume 'you' is the VoP empowered individual ]

I got that, but that's pretty clearly not what they meant. They clearly meant you may drink a potion of curing any time it's offered.

Which takes you right back to the question of what other magic items you may use if offered.

 

[hazmat]

Unless the DM states otherwise the VOP empowered individual may not use any other magic items.

Allowing potions of cure was probably done for the convience of all players.

 

[James McMurray]

In my campaign a VoP monk is about to use a salve of resurrection on the party cleric. Even though its technically against the vow (he isn't havinga magic item used on him) I'm allowing it because it isn't against the spirit of the feat, whereas using a magical tome (IMO) is.

And of course, using this salve could result in the monk's permanent and irrevocable death, so it wouldn't be very nice to have him risk all that and then lose his VoP benefits, even though he is about to perform the most good act this party has seen in several adventures.

 

[Altalazar]

Just how far does the VoP go??

If the VoP character is in a life and death struggle, and is the last one standing, right in front of the beast that can only be slayed by the special magic sword, and so the other PC, with his dying breath, tosses the sword to him so he can catch it in one smooth arc, bringing it down into the beast and slaying it and saving the entire town - is that violating the VoP? He, after all, would be "borrowing" the item to kill it.

Or you could just use some common sense here and see that a VoP is meant to indicate that a PC can't have / use magic items on a continuous, regular basis, but using an item now and then for one-shot deals, like with the sword or with a magic book, are not the same thing as having an item in possession - like carrying around a magic dagger that you always use in combat. (With an exception for potions, which you CAN carry around and use when needed).

 

[reiella]

Or you could just use some common sense here and see that a VoP is meant to indicate that a PC can't have / use magic items on a continuous, regular basis, but using an item now and then for one-shot deals, like with the sword or with a magic book, are not the same thing as having an item in possession - like carrying around a magic dagger that you always use in combat. (With an exception for potions, which you CAN carry around and use when needed).

Common sense is hardly that .

A feat that grants bonus feats should be extremely strict (in my opinion).

If the Vow is only upheld when it's "convienant", then it isn't much of a Vow. To me, the idea of vows (and the extreme benefits gained from this one) represent the ideal of actually sacrificing significant amounts for your BELIEFS.

Your example of the VoPer using his ally's enchanted sword to kill the enchanted beastie is a nice internal conflict, but represents the idea of why the Vow is significant to begin with.

By the same length, would you say that someone with a Vow of Non-violence would kill a Big Bad if it becomes impossible to otherwise subdue him?

The text explicitly states that you cannot "borrow" a cloak of resistance or ANY other magic item from a copanion for even a single round...

Quick comment on the potion after rereading the block. It looks much more like "you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, recieve a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly." to be a list of examples of having a magic item used on your behalf. And my opinion still is a bit harsh on the idea that the monk isn't the one performing the (in game) action of "Drink a potion"; instead it is a companion using "Aid Another" to pour a potion down the VoPs mouth.

Truthfully, I'd be ok with the Monk having wishes/miracles cast for his benefit to increase stats, although by the letter of the rules, I would not allow the tomes to be used. Of course, I'd probably go with a "Who Cares" idea in my campaign for the tome .