Vow of Poverty - Exact Wording (Semiexact :P)

[Starbuck_II]

If you can snag Pathfinder rules: the trait Birthmark (everyone has 2 traits) gives you a Divine Focus mark on your body for free so this would work combined wiuth VoP.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Or if you can apply the expensive component rule to foci, then a cleric can cast for 1/5 of an experience point each time and a druid for...zero divided by five is still zero... xp.

It's not worth a feat or a trait (which to get a PF trait in 3E would basically require a feat on Additional Traits, since PF traits are flat out improvements without drawback and thus aren't compatible with 3E traits). Either the DM is sane, or you don't play a divine caster with VoP in his games, that's all it really comes down to.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Or if you can apply the expensive component rule to foci, then a cleric can cast for 1/5 of an experience point each time and a druid for...zero divided by five is still zero... xp.

It's not worth a feat or a trait (which to get a PF trait in 3E would basically require a feat on Additional Traits, since PF traits are flat out improvements without drawback and thus aren't compatible with 3E traits). Either the DM is sane, or you don't play a divine caster with VoP in his games, that's all it really comes down to.

Eh, Additional Traits gives 2 traits not 1. So they are worth 1/2 a feat each.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I didn't realize I could split up my feat choices into halves. Even if you get another trait, you're still spending a full feat basically for the divine focus work around.

 

[irdeggman]

*head desk* I am appalled to see a Divine Focus is disallowed due to rulings. And the Apostle of Peace just got a little bit more of a headache to me. So I suppose the next question is...is there a means to bypass this? At all?

By the way, where is this FAQ spoken of found? I believe me and it have to get to know each other a little more...

Check the WotC site for the 3.5 FAQ.

But since you are looking for ways to get around the restrictions I would point out another FAQ quote (which I strongly agree with by the way - the bolded portions)

Can a character avoid breaking the Vow of Poverty
feat’s restrictions by declaring his weapon to be an
ancestral relic, signature weapon, legacy weapon, or other
special kind of weapon?


No. The Vow of Poverty feat (BE 48) very clearly states
that you cannot own or use any material possessions, with
exceptions listed in the feat’s description.

The Sage strongly suggests that if you’re trying to find
ways around the various Vow feats in BoED, you might be
missing the point of the feats. (The book doesn’t bear the
mature audiences warning just for subject matter, but also for
approach to character creation.) These feats are intended to
open up interesting roleplaying opportunities without unduly
punishing a character’s playability. In the case of the Vow of
Poverty, the intent is to allow what would otherwise be a
severely underpowered character (one without possessions) to
retain viability in the game. Finding ways to retain one’s
possessions while still benefiting from the feat defeats the
entire purpose of the feat!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

*head desk* I am appalled to see a Divine Focus is disallowed due to rulings.

Yep, and that lies at the core of why VoP as written violates the feat's internal logic. It's not simply that it prevents a divine caster from casting some spells or using some class features, it is that the disallowed spells and ability are core to the essential functions of a clergyman within the hierarchy of religious organizations AND is at odds with the goals of the being or philosophy to whom the vow was made.

 

[irdeggman]

Yep, and that lies at the core of why VoP as written violates the feat's internal logic. It's not simply that it prevents a divine caster from casting some spells or using some class features, it is that the disallowed spells and ability are core to the essential functions of a clergyman within the hierarchy of religious organizations AND is at odds with the goals of the being or philosophy to whom the vow was made.

And almost everyone posting here agrees. But we are coming from a strictly RAW based orientation.

I would allow a simple holy symbol - but I acknowledge that would be a house rule. Even the FAQ seems to indicate that this was a quirk in the RAW but that it was RAW.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

And almost everyone posting here agrees. But we are coming from a strictly RAW based orientation.

I would allow a simple holy symbol - but I acknowledge that would be a house rule. Even the FAQ seems to indicate that this was a quirk in the RAW but that it was RAW.

I think the proper term here is "oversight," not quirk.

 

[irdeggman]

I think the proper term here is "oversight," not quirk.

Works for me.

The only errata for the book was for the shapechange/polymorph issue,

I believe that WotC didn't bother with paying attention to the book since it was "for mature audiences only" and they thought that meant a DM would be paying a lot of attention to how he/she incorporated the material into his/her game (hence house-rules).

IIRC the BoED and its sister book the Book of Vile Darkness came out in the cusp period between 3.0 and 3.5 which may also explain its apparent lack of good editing

 

[Jacob]

IIRC the BoED and its sister book the Book of Vile Darkness came out in the cusp period between 3.0 and 3.5 which may also explain its apparent lack of good editing

Many a people have said this to me. I wholeheartedly have to agree.

On how I will implement the PC in a game, I suppose it's a good thing the VoP is meant to be more roleplaying flavor. One of the things the DM has been trying to work into the game is fun roleplaying aspects, because it's a larger focus on fighting most of the time. Will be interesting how I'm supposed to Turn some zombies wandering around, and cast some of the more awesome spells I was looking forward to. End of Strife is something to look forward to. But should I ever get to Epic, at least I'll never have to beg for a holy symbol again with Permanent Emanation tacked on. Good times.