Vow of Poverty and one-use items

[Creamsteak]

I agree with Reiella on this one. My point with my post was specifically to raise the question that I think is most critical to the single use magical item clause, "Is the VoP character really using a potion?" I think that the VoP character is not aloud to use any magic item at any time, but a potion can be used ON the VoP character.

 

[Artoomis]

I agree with Reiella on this one. My point with my post was specifically to raise the question that I think is most critical to the single use magical item clause, "Is the VoP character really using a potion?" I think that the VoP character is not aloud to use any magic item at any time, but a potion can be used ON the VoP character.

That, however, is not what it says in the feat at all. Someone may give you one to take. That's what the Vow says.

Now you certainly could think of that as using the potion on the VoP character. Not in the sense of "forcing it down her throat, though, but in the sense of "I'll use up my potion on the VoP character by letting her drink it."

It's not much of a stretch from there to "I'll use up my book of xxx by letting the VoP character read it."

The question is, "What is the key point here?"

1. The item is used up.
2. The item is used up AND is a potion.
3. The item is used up in one round and it NOT scroll/wand, etc.
4. The item is used up AND is a healing type of item.
5. The item is used up and is a healing type of potion.

Or maybe some variation on these.

Now let's think about the concept of the vow. You can't use any magic items, not even borrowed for one round. So how is it that you CAN use a potion of curing? What's the exception.

It really cannot be just for curing - that simply makes no sense with the Vow - you'd keep the Vow it at all time unless it will help you - but not to help others, mind you, only you. I don't buy that at all.

Number 3 above makes sense with the vow, as does number 1. Either one is accepting a gift but any ownership is fleeting as the item gifted is used up in as part of the gift.

Number 5 is just pain silly - that's simply a rules mechanic that makes no sense at all with the Vow.

 

[reiella]

That, however, is not what it says in the feat at all. Someone may give you one to take. That's what the Vow says.

Now you certainly could think of that as using the potion on the VoP character. Not in the sense of "forcing it down her throat, though, but in the sense of "I'll use up my potion on the VoP character by letting her drink it."

It's not much of a stretch from there to "I'll use up my book of xxx by letting the VoP character read it."

Hehe pretty much we'll have to agree on different assumptions on the implication of the text (And the usage of the word 'drink') , but I'll try another approach anyway because I just realized upon something funny.

If you assume it's ok to borrow a potion and use it yourself, then the rules begin to contradict themselves, unless you presume that you are allowed to borrow a magic item for a time period of Less than a Round, and it becomes non-sensical.

In order for someone to "borrow" a potion with Itemized System.

1) Non-VoP uses a move equivilant action on their turn to retrieve a potion.
2) Non-VoP uses a standard action to hand off (or throw) potion to VoP.
2) VoPer must immediately use a standard action on their turn to quaff the potion (or else they breach the 1 round limitation). They would also potentially breach the letter of their vow (irrevocably) if between obtaining the potion they got Held successfully for more than a round.

Ironically, instead, someone can apply the potion to someone else a full-round action, and not risk any such violation .

Quick Summary
I think that "Drink a potion given to you" ~= "Potion Applied to you", since it doesn't create an unexplained exception open to extrapolation.
I also feel that the letter of a Vow is significant .

 

[Creamsteak]

That, however, is not what it says in the feat at all. Someone may give you one to take. That's what the Vow says.

I disagree with this premise.

I think that the vow states, "You may not use any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf."

Replace the word magic items with "potions." That's what the examples do. They are examples of "magic items used on your behalf."

And the only way that a potion (not an oil) can be used "on your behalf" is when a potion is applied to a wounded character as a full round action. An oil can be applied "on your behalf" as a standard action, but a potion cannot. Someone adjacent to you cannot drink a potion "on your behalf."

Notice that everything I quoted is directly from the text.

 

[Scion]

Then you can read the magic book that your friend holds up in front of you

Which would be exactly equivalent to someone pooring the potion down your throat.

 

[Creamsteak]

By the letter of the word, you break the vow if you activate a magic item yourself.

However, if someone can activate the item, you still benefit.

The reason for this is pretty plain to see, the item has to be "used on your behalf" or you break the vow.

The wording for a "tome of understanding" is as such: "If anyone reads this book, which takes a total fo 48 hours over a minimum of six days, she gains an inherent bonus of from +1 to +5 (depending on the tome) to her Wisdom score."

So, activation for this magic item is reading the book. Anyone with a Vow of Poverty must not read that book for fear of breaking their vow. Whoever is holding the book has nothing to do with it, and hearing the words read to you also grants no benefit.

 

[Scion]

Says you

By the same token I could say that swallowing the potion is accepting it and you used an item. No more vow.

They are holding the book (same as potion), putting it in front of you (mouth), and having you read it (swallow).

Of course, there are lots of silly things that occur with this feat. It will be up to the dm's to decide just how silly they are going to be with it.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Seems to me that it's pretty obvious that the purpose of the vow is to deny the player access to magic items. Saying "Yo, Dave, I can't use that Ring of 3 Wishes, but you can wish me more Strength" is clearly against the intent. Surely the character could think of some cause that could benefit from the wish more than he.

I'd even be tempted to go so far as to prevent the one who took the vow from being the target of any (beneficial) spell with non-trivial material component costs.

What's next? A caster with a Vow of Silence using a ventriloquist's dummy and claiming 'It's the dummy saying the words, not me!'?

 

[Impeesa]

The potion clause implies that consuming items of non-negligible value for immaterial benefit is okay, so long as the item was owned by someone else who freely allowed the VoP character to use it. Violating the vow seems only to happen when the benefit is in the actual possession of the item - such as borrowing that cloak of resistance for even a single round. This seems to say to me that something like using the tomes is okay.

--Impeesa--

 

[The Iron Mark]

If anyone remembers, there was an issue of Dragon dealing with Prestige Races. Basically, you get the abilities of magic items, but they are actually a part of you, they take XP, and they are (ex) or (su) abilities. Can be really abused with VoP.