Vow of poverty question

[jholt5638]

Its been 5 or so years since I last ran a game. Before I banned vow of poverty because I thought it was broken I am considering allowing in the new game I trying to start. My only experience with it is one player and the way it was used made me rule it broken and for to rule anything broken is quite a feat in itself.

My question is Vow of Poverty inherently broken or was the player and myself just using/allowing it to be used wrong?

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Vow of Poverty i broken when applied to characters that aren't very dependent upon gear in the first place, like Druids. Since all the effects apply to a Wild Shaped Druid, it gets pretty crazy.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As long as it's not a Druid or Monk, you should be fine. My own experience is that it's severely underpowered, for any class that actually uses gear, if the rest of the party has the ability to craft/purchase gear for their suggested wealth-by-character-level.

 

[N'raac]

So, basically, it's OK as long as only characters who are not suited for the feat are permitted to take it? By that logic, let's prohibit full casters taking metamagic feats as well.

Logically, a feat which substantially restricts gear would be taken by characters least reliant on gear. If the feat is not balanced for such characters, I'd remove it.

 

[Michael Morris]

So, basically, it's OK as long as only characters who are not suited for the feat are permitted to take it? By that logic, let's prohibit full casters taking metamagic feats as well.

Logically, a feat which substantially restricts gear would be taken by characters least reliant on gear. If the feat is not balanced for such characters, I'd remove it.

The feat is balanced *if* you give out treasure to the rest of the party at the rate 3e recommends. If you don't want to give out treasure at that rate it can quickly become broken. To be honest, Vow of Poverty is the ugliest example of 3e's enforced handout of treasure in order to progress mentality, which is the worst trait of that edition and one it shares with 4e. Fortunately 5e has went back to the mentality that magic items are optional, like in 1e and 2e.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have allowed and I have seen it used I never found it very broken. Yes you get some nice things but you give up items to get them.

How did your player abuse it last time?

 

[the Jester]

Its been 5 or so years since I last ran a game. Before I banned vow of poverty because I thought it was broken I am considering allowing in the new game I trying to start. My only experience with it is one player and the way it was used made me rule it broken and for to rule anything broken is quite a feat in itself.

My question is Vow of Poverty inherently broken or was the player and myself just using/allowing it to be used wrong?

Inherently broken. Balancing in-game mechanics with in-game roleplaying penalties just doesn't work.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Halivar]

Inherently broken. Balancing in-game mechanics with in-game roleplaying penalties just doesn't work.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

My take is that I compare it mechanically against the rest of the party; roleplay aside, if you have a DM that observes wealth-by-level guidelines, you are shafting yourself with VoP, even if you're a druid or monk. In a magic-lite game, maybe it shines; that's not my cuppa so I wouldn't know.

 

[doghead]

I ghost hacked a Druid Swanmay (still not quite sure what that is) with VoP once and really enjoyed it.
An equipment list consisting of a staff and knife, and no magical bling bling to worry about.

thotd

 

[the Jester]

My take is that I compare it mechanically against the rest of the party; roleplay aside, if you have a DM that observes wealth-by-level guidelines, you are shafting yourself with VoP, even if you're a druid or monk. In a magic-lite game, maybe it shines; that's not my cuppa so I wouldn't know.

This is a good point. I probably give out somewhat less than standard loot (with a lot of treasure in nontraditional forms, such as titles and positions).