Oh, another thing, check out all of the different disjunction threads to see the differeing of opinion. Plus dms saying whether or not and to what degree they would replace the gear. Also at what speed. Since that is the only spell I can think of that actually destroy mass amounts of gear it should be relevant.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Vow of Poverty: Power Analysis
- Thread starter gfunk
- Start date
- Status
Olive said:
And I think the idea of a DM destroying your stuff and NOT eventually giving you sufficient treasure to bring you back up to where the game ASSUMES you will be, isn't anywhere near to fun.
The rules assume that characters of a given level will have reasonably close to the treasure levels indicated for a character of their level. To give them less, is to put them out of balance with the rest of the encounter.
A CR 15 monster is a reasonable encounter for a party of 15th level with it's gear intact. Take away even HALF of their equipment, and suddenly, it's probably a very challenging encounter ... more like what they'd expect if they were facing a CR17 or CR18 encounter. And, IMO, they should be REWARDED accordingly (in both XP and treasure).
In the long run, of course vow of poverty will be overpowered if your DM destroys PC items and doesn't give anything to replace them. A DM who destroys items has to give comparatively more treasure in the long run to make up for it, or else character wealth will be far too low for their level. It is ok to punish players somewhat, but playing the rest of your campaign impoverished probably won't be any fun.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Olive said:
I think that the idea of a DM ignoring the wealth level of PCs when deciding how to challenge and reward them is even more video game sounding myself...
two
First Post
i thinkee
I think that a DM destroying items and replacing them during the process of adjudicating new CR's based on post- and pre-equipment loss, whilst attempting to deal with a rogue monk (not a multi-class) who is vow of povertized, is like a card game put out by Hasbro, while a video still of the game session in which equipment is lost is more like a physical indication that the game, that which has been videotaped and now exists only in digital- and/or magnetic residue on appropriate media (and of course in the player's minds involved in the session); this said, the residual residua is more like the game itself than either a card game or, previuosly mentioned, a video tape of the session itself or a video game developed therefrom.
I think that a DM destroying items and replacing them during the process of adjudicating new CR's based on post- and pre-equipment loss, whilst attempting to deal with a rogue monk (not a multi-class) who is vow of povertized, is like a card game put out by Hasbro, while a video still of the game session in which equipment is lost is more like a physical indication that the game, that which has been videotaped and now exists only in digital- and/or magnetic residue on appropriate media (and of course in the player's minds involved in the session); this said, the residual residua is more like the game itself than either a card game or, previuosly mentioned, a video tape of the session itself or a video game developed therefrom.
ascendance
First Post
Ridley's Cohort said:
In fact, when I was playing Temple of Elemental Evil the video game, I felt I was playing with exactly that sort of GM
Last edited:
So, back on topic a little bit, does anyone see a problem with my analysis of vow of poverty? When you have a fixed bonus, what really matters is how much this bonus would cost to get at lowest marginal cost, not the exact bonus.
This shows why giving a character a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score is not worth 25000 gp unless the character has no way to find a cheaper marginal cost to increase that ability score (so, if the character has a +4 item, this is an absolutely terrible deal).
In the same way, +8 enhancement to Wis, for example, shouldn’t be considered 50000 more than +6 Wis if all it really gives you (skills and other things aside) is +1 stun fist DC, +1 Will save and +1 AC. A marginal +1 bonus to a cloak of resistance, ki straps, and an ioun stone of insight (+1 AC), for example, give a greater bonus for much less than 50000 gold.
This shows why giving a character a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score is not worth 25000 gp unless the character has no way to find a cheaper marginal cost to increase that ability score (so, if the character has a +4 item, this is an absolutely terrible deal).
In the same way, +8 enhancement to Wis, for example, shouldn’t be considered 50000 more than +6 Wis if all it really gives you (skills and other things aside) is +1 stun fist DC, +1 Will save and +1 AC. A marginal +1 bonus to a cloak of resistance, ki straps, and an ioun stone of insight (+1 AC), for example, give a greater bonus for much less than 50000 gold.
Elric, that Wisdom increase also gives you more spells per day and +1 spell DC, if you go with cleric (or other divine spellcaster class), instead of monk.
Bonus types should be priced based ont eh type, always. The biggest reason is stacking. a +1 Inherent Bonus is worth as much as a +5 Enhancement Bonus ... because it'd stack with any spell or effect that gave an Enhancement Bonus. Which, as luck would have it, are (literally) a dime a dozen.
Bonus types should be priced based ont eh type, always. The biggest reason is stacking. a +1 Inherent Bonus is worth as much as a +5 Enhancement Bonus ... because it'd stack with any spell or effect that gave an Enhancement Bonus. Which, as luck would have it, are (literally) a dime a dozen.
Last edited:
Not that I disagree completely.. or at least I think that I dont.. but no, a +1 inherant is not worth as much as a +5 enhancement. Doesnt matter if they do stack with one another, +5 is worth way more.
But really the main reason I even wrote on here is a complaint about inherant bonuses
After all, since they dont stack with themselves, but cost as much either way (whether you get them all at once or later on) they are just nonsensical.
On the topic of the thread, the items equivalencies you are given here are always going to be worth less than being able to choose items yourself. Plus you have to be exalted. Double whammy so really, the items should be under a 50% or so reduction from needing to use a feat, plus have an alignment restriction, plus not being able to pick and choose for yourself for the most part.
I'll definately have to see this feat in action sometime and see how it holds up.. too bad they didnt put different ones on there for higher/lower pc wealth campaigns.. then it would be easier to adjust to taste. Probably way too complicated though.
But really the main reason I even wrote on here is a complaint about inherant bonuses
After all, since they dont stack with themselves, but cost as much either way (whether you get them all at once or later on) they are just nonsensical.On the topic of the thread, the items equivalencies you are given here are always going to be worth less than being able to choose items yourself. Plus you have to be exalted. Double whammy
so really, the items should be under a 50% or so reduction from needing to use a feat, plus have an alignment restriction, plus not being able to pick and choose for yourself for the most part.I'll definately have to see this feat in action sometime and see how it holds up.. too bad they didnt put different ones on there for higher/lower pc wealth campaigns.. then it would be easier to adjust to taste. Probably way too complicated though.
- Status
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
