Vow of Poverty: Power Analysis

[Scion]

Doesn't matter; playing the game as published, that's the closes approximation. And since there are no rules for limb loss, I'd have to say that the limb-regaining benefits of the ring are a moot point entirely, and not worth ANY reduction in cost.

You can dislike the price all you want, but that's what the designers have pegged that basic ability at, price-wise.

The spell regeneration is the reason why the item costs so much. Since regen is a higher level spell if you take out that ability most of the cost goes with it.

So, you are trying to peg an incorrect price tag on something. I went through my reasoning for what the price should be. You can disagree with that all you like, but priceing it at 90k is completely wrong. No way around that, you are putting up an item that happens to have the same ability in part of its list of abilities and claming the whole price. Very bad work there. Completely incorrect.

90k for something that 'might' cast a minor curing spell on the wearer every hour? woo. It cannot be shared to best effect in a useful manor, you have to wait for days to get anything useful out of it. At these levels if you are relying on 'time' to get your hp back then you are probably already dead.

So you may 'dislike' my interpretation all you like, but your 'interpretation' of the price is very distasteful and, imo, drastically wrong.

That's a nonstarter. The Gem only works while held in yourhand, and then held up to yoru eye and looked through. It's not constantly in effect, it's use-activated. You can't use the Gem of Seeing and wield a double-weapon - the Ascetic can wield a double weapon (the quarterstaff, specifically), and still has True Seeing active!

Further, the Gem is a held object, so while in use, it is subject to sunder and disarm attempts - making it far more vulnerable to removal than an ordinary, worn piece of magical equipment.

you can strap something across your head which puts the gem in position. Say like a monacle. This would still not even take up an item slot on the person, but it would work just fine. For 30 minutes a day, divided up however you like. Every now and then you tick it over and look around through it for a round. As you have 300 rounds in a day that will pretty much be just as good as continual use in most cases.

But then I gave in the concession to make it use up a valueable slot for the ascetic but actually work all of the time and still pricing it the same. Technically it would probably wind up being much less. Like I said, 300 rounds a day is nearly the same thing as continual use anyway.


How often does one sunder headgear? Doesnt happen very often in my campaigns, usually it is better to simply attack the person or their weapon or something else like that entirely.

 

[Thanee]

NOONE can "easily" acquire an inherent bonus.

+

By level 20? Everyone can. Except the ascetic.

It's only 27,500gp, a fraction of your total wealth by then, for a +1 bonus.

But the ascetic could be offered a few castings of Wish - even five of them at once - as a non-proprty "reward" for completing a quest.

Yeah, and if he did not decline would lose his benefits irrevocably. Great idea.

...BILL GATES...

Bill Gates is a D&D character?

PHB page 174, right hand column, under "XP Cost":
[bq]However, you may, on gaining enough XP to attain a new level, use those XP for casting a spell rather than keeping them and advancing a level.[/bq]

Ah, ok.

Sounds a bit like you have to use them "immediately" (or at least very close to obtaining them) somehow... but well, that doesn't really matter.

Yes, what the other person would pay, for a comparable bonus. And in pricing things, "comparable" means "same number, same (general) type".

Well, ok, then it's the 64k not the 91k as I had proposed.

HUH?!? ...

As I said, you are reading a bit much into that...

I was only talking about deliberately spending much of ones resources on inherent bonuses while planning to become an ascetic. Nothing else. Everything beyond that is just in your imagination.

I totally agree, that a player who does an error without obvious intent could be handled more leniently.

Which is not what you're talking about in response ... not even close!

It's also not what I was talking about to begin with. Just your imagination, as I said.

Anyways...

It's not the restrictions which would be totally unfair - it would be the underhanded attempts of a GM to trick a player into voiding his Vow and thus losing the benefits thereof, which would be IMO cheating.

If it is done in an unfair fashion, yeah, I agree. But in general I do not agree with this statement. An ascetic has to be tested, and more than once, with situations which will make the decision hard to not leave the path. That's what the vow is all about. Asceticism. Not cool bonuses.

Player and GM need to be on the same page as to where that boundary is and isn't.

That certainly helps.

Pre-existing published item - first appeared in the ELH (as a non-epic item), but then appeared subsequently in the Arms and Equipment Guide.

Hmm... and it gives just the benefit of five 12k items? That price seems totally excessive to me. Even if you calculated them in the normal fashion, that is 12k+4x18k=84k it would be a lot less!

The resistance will end up costing quite a bit more than the 144,000gp I listed, if we go down THAT road.

How so, unless you deliberately price it in an unreasonable fashion?

A single ring combining all these properties, even using the multiple different abilities penalty, costs less than that (see above).

That price simply can't be right.

Or is the Energy Resistance higher than 10? Maybe there's the "problem".

Okay, then if you want to eliminate the 50% markup for nonremovability, we'll take out the half-million-GP discount for non-versatility.

That's what I said, yes.

Now, we're back to the 850K-950K range, which is worse for your case.

That's close enough for me, it's just a very rough estimate, anyways.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Pax]

+
By level 20? Everyone can. Except the ascetic.

It's only 27,500gp, a fraction of your total wealth by then, for a +1 bonus.

For an ascetic, it's only 5,000xp to cast it yourself, if able.

For an ascetic, it's only an exchange of favors to beg for the benefits of a Wish from a team-mate, or request it in exchange for help or other services from an NPC.

But the ascetic could be offered a few castings of Wish - even five of them at once - as a non-proprty "reward" for completing a quest.

Yeah, and if he did not decline would lose his benefits irrevocably. Great idea.

Where in the Nine Hells did you get that cockamamie idea ..?!?!?

[bq][...] You may not use any magic items of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf - you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride your companion's ebony fly.[/bq]

I see no reason to suspect that a spell cast directly on you by a Sorceror, Wizard, Cleric, or similar person shoudl be treated any differently from a spell cast on you by means of using a Staff.

So .... where, exactly, did you get the idea that someone (or several someones) offering to cast wish on your behalf would void your vow?

Bill Gates is a D&D character?

No, bill Gates is a resident of the same Earth as Saint Francis was resident upon. If you expect Saint Francis to have had inherent bonusses, then Bill Gates - being inarguably among the wealthiest men on Earth - must have them too.

If it is done in an unfair fashion, yeah, I agree. But in general I do not agree with this statement. An ascetic has to be tested, and more than once, with situations which will make the decision hard to not leave the path. That's what the vow is all about. Asceticism. Not cool bonuses.

Yes, but those tests should not be failed because the player didn't know where the line was. Violating one's vow should require an intentional act, which means the player must actively cooperate with the GM in order to lose his Vow.

In any situation where the ascetic (and/or his player) is forced to adopt a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" approach ... IOW, where there IS no "right way out" ... then the GM has IMO essentially cheated, unless the player agreed to that situation arising. And no, I don't believe taking the vow does - nor should - constitute "implicit agreement" to such underhanded chicanery.

Hmm... and it gives just the benefit of five 12k items? That price seems totally excessive to me. Even if you calculated them in the normal fashion, that is 12k+4x18k=84k it would be a lot less!

Are you looking at the right items ... I don't think so. At 20th level, the ascetic has resistance 15 to all five energy types. You're pricing them based on rings that give resistance 10. That's a wee bit different, wouldn't you agree ...?

Five rings of Minor X-energy Resistance (giving resistance (10) to their respective energies) is simply not as good as a Minor Ring of universal Energy Resistance which gives 150% as much protection.

Or is the Energy Resistance higher than 10? Maybe there's the "problem".

Yep. ^_^

That's close enough for me, it's just a very rough estimate, anyways.

Bye
Thanee

And it supports my entire point now, that the Vow is hardly UNDERpowered, if taken by a character with the right class(es) and other feat(s) to properly take advantage of it's benefits.

Just as with ANY feat, class, race, item, skill, spell, whatever. ^_^

 

[Pax]

@Scion:
Look. Obviously you're looking to reject the entire DMG pricing guidelines, if you won't accept their results. Based on that, I seeno way to debate such assessments with you - we're obviously not playing the same game, by the same rules.

So you can go play "Scion d20", and balance the Vow for that, to your heart's content. I, on the other hand, would prefer to stick with the as-published D&D 3.5e when debating the balance (or lack thereof, as the case might be) of published options, rules, feats, etc.

When you're ready to debate the Vow of Poverty in terms of the D&D game as published by WOTC[, I'll be perfectly happy to join you. But not before then, sorry.

 

[Thanee]

I see no reason to suspect that a spell cast directly on you by a Sorceror, Wizard, Cleric, or similar person shoudl be treated any differently from a spell cast on you by means of using a Staff.

In your example, you were speaking of payment basically, whether it comes in monetary or spell form, doesn't matter, it breaks the vow to accept it.

If someone would freely cast a wish spell for you not as part of an exchange of favors, as you suggested, then it would be acceptable, but in no other form.

No, bill Gates is a resident of the same Earth as Saint Francis was resident upon. If you expect Saint Francis to have had inherent bonusses, then Bill Gates - being inarguably among the wealthiest men on Earth - must have them too.

Hey, you said, he has inherent bonuses, not me.

Yes, but those tests should not be failed because the player didn't know where the line was.

Course not, but that line is pretty clearly defined, really.

In any situation where the ascetic (and/or his player) is forced to adopt a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" approach ... IOW, where there IS no "right way out" ... then the GM has IMO essentially cheated, unless the player agreed to that situation arising.

Are you looking at the right items ... I don't think so. At 20th level, the ascetic has resistance 15 to all five energy types. You're pricing them based on rings that give resistance 10. That's a wee bit different, wouldn't you agree ...?

Yeah, that's what I wondered as well. I took that from your listing of the ring of minor universal resistance (or something like that). Can't check what amount of resistance you get right now.

Altho, now that I think about it, isn't the 15 from 3.0? I think the "minor" ring was like that, IIRC.

And it supports my entire point now, that the Vow is hardly UNDERpowered, if taken by a character with the right class(es) and other feat(s) to properly take advantage of it's benefits.

Just as with ANY feat, class, race, item, skill, spell, whatever. ^_^

Did I say anything else?

I think it's more or less balanced (more on the weak side at higher levels, since it does not include many essential abilities, like flying) and thus your pricing guidelines give a wrong impression (even tho you do think it is balanced yourself ), hence they are most probably wrong at some point.

And, of course, the feat is better for some classes, every feat is. But just because it is good for some, doesn't change its general power level (unless it was extremely good, which it simply is not).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scion]

@Scion:
Look. Obviously you're looking to reject the entire DMG pricing guidelines, if you won't accept their results. Based on that, I seeno way to debate such assessments with you - we're obviously not playing the same game, by the same rules.

Ahh.. attacking the person since you have no useful way to debate the problem.

Once again, the ring of regen is based off of the regen spell. Take away the ability to bring back lost limbs and you no longer have that spell. You do not have that item.

Therefore your entire premise of useing that item is inherantly flawed because you wish to use the full price.

That is completely wrong. As I have shown. If you refuse to accept that is your own lack of dealing with reality. Once you have gotten past this issue and can actually talk about the problem rationally feel free to come back.

 

[Pax]

In your example, you were speaking of payment basically, whether it comes in monetary or spell form, doesn't matter, it breaks the vow to accept it.

There's nothing in the Vow of Poverty - in either word or spirit - that forbids an exchange of favors or services.

An inherent bonus gained from someone casting one or more wish spells on your behalf is not, at all, a material possession. It is, if anything, an immaterial possession.

If someone would freely cast a wish spell for you not as part of an exchange of favors, as you suggested, then it would be acceptable, but in no other form.

This position is wholly unsupported by the rules. By your logic, even saying "thank you" to an ascetic, who does not immediately (and likely quite rudely) refuse those thanks, would constitute a violation of his vow.

An ascetic does not vow never to accept help from otehrs, nor give it; the ascetic does not vow never to exchange favors, to trade help-for-help or deed-for-deed.

What he does vow is never to own more than the most utterly basic physical things possible to survive - basic, ordinary clothes; a walking stick; a bag; a day's worth of food and water; that sort of thing.

Hey, you said, he has inherent bonuses, not me.

No.

I said I'd bother to try and fulfill your request for "proof" that Saint Francis had obtained inherent bonusses prior to his taking a Vow of Poverty ... if and when you showed me that Bill Gates has such bonusses.

IOW, when you show me that real-world wealth gains a real-world parallel to inherent bonusses, I'll bother to try proving wether or not Saint Francis had gotten any before (or after) taking his own Vows.

Yeah, that's what I wondered as well. I took that from your listing of the ring of minor universal resistance (or something like that). Can't check what amount of resistance you get right now.

Well, wether or not it's available now isn't nearly as important as the relative price of what a Ring of (say) Fire Resistance 15 would[/iu] cost, and then, what addin the same resistance to each of cold, shock, sonic, and acid would do to the item's final price.

And besides, the BoED is a 3.0 product too. Since their 20th level energy resistance is "the next step up from 10" ... maybe in 3.5 it shuld be resistance 20 ... ?

That'd make it worth ... I'd say, 196,000gp (28K for the first energy, and +42K for each of the other four).

WRT the pricing: I recognise that there are some gaps, so it's not perfect ... however, the fact that you couldn't actually BUY that specific range of abilities in item-form, given the appropriate amount of wealth for a character of that level, well ...

... I think the wealth assessment proves that the Vow of Poverty is absolutely NOT underpowered. A potentially suboptimal choice, sure - but not underpowered at all.

Ahh.. attacking the person since you have no useful way to debate the problem.

No, if I wanted to attack you, it would most certainly be unmistakable as anything less THAN an attack. Hmm, didn't Pirate caution people about provoking insults, as well as delivering them? Maybe I should drop (anotehr) line to the moderators, hm?

You see, I simply consider debating with you a cosmic waste of my time, because you're NOT debating within the rules as published. If you want to debate your houserules, fine - find someone who wants to join you in that, 'cause I don't.

Ad now, off to the moderators. While I'll normally give what I'm given ... PC has already warned against such, so I won't fall into that trap (one I tend to suspect you've deliberately laid ... we'll just have to see if the moderators agree).

 

[Scion]

you have yet again ignored the issue and posted an insult and an attack.

Please stick to the issues.

You cannot set the ability of the vop with the ring of regen. They do different things.

Therefore your numbers are wrong.

 

[Pax]

@Scion: *plonk* and second report to the moderators.

 

[Thanee]

There's nothing in the Vow of Poverty - in either word or spirit - that forbids an exchange of favors or services.

If you say so...

Hey, I have an idea. What about servants! The VoP doesn't rule out servants, or does it? While servants are certainly pretty material, they are no possession. So an ascetic could have servants and they could be really helpful, like weaving a new robe every day, so one wouldn't have to run around in the same old garb all the time (of course burning the old one, so you do not own two at the same time), or clean one's boots, or collect blossoms for one to sleep on. The ascetic could even get a number of scantily clad girls and/or guys for massage and other such services... and best of all, the ascetic just let's someone else pay for it, and returns the favor in another way...


Live a life full of debauchery! Asceticism - that's where it's at.


Geez, seriously, you consider accepting a spell with a quite material value of 26,530 gp as a reward to not breaking the vow or poverty, because it is not a material possession!?

Where's the difference, when you accept payment in gold or payment in service. Why not just let your employer pay the wizard at the corner to cast that nice spell for you instead of your own. I mean, hey, you never touched any gold piece, so it can't be wrong, eh?

I said I'd bother to try and fulfill your request for "proof" that Saint Francis had obtained inherent bonusses prior to his taking a Vow of Poverty ... if and when you showed me that Bill Gates has such bonusses.

You take stuff way too literal.

My "request" as you put it, was merely expressing, that Saint Francis is not a D&D character and thus a rather poor example for a fellow who obtained an inherent bonus before becoming an ascetic (because as you also realize, there is no such thing as an inherent bonus in real life), since that is precisely what I was talking about... inherent bonuses aquired before becoming an ascetic, moreso, doing that purposefully to circumvent the loss of material wealth (which, btw, is the same you are suggesting with the "services" up there, a circumvention of the vow). You fleshed that out in your mind and read into it, that I meant, which I did not, that giving up your material possessions to become an ascetic - as Saint Francis did - is not feasible.

And besides, the BoED is a 3.0 product too.

Is it? I thought it was actually 3.5 already.

... I think the wealth assessment proves that the Vow of Poverty is absolutely NOT underpowered. A potentially suboptimal choice, sure - but not underpowered at all.

Well, that's mainly a matter of definition. If I think underpowered equals a potentially (well more like usually) suboptimal choice (and no optimal choice, except under very narrow circumstances), for example, that would be basically the same, I guess.

Bye
Thanee