Vow Of Poverty...

[kenobi65]

Palidon

Paladin, Sir T. Not "palidon."

I only comment because I've seen enough of your posts to know you always spell it that way. Not sure if it's a style thing for you, or it's just a word you stumble on (like the folks who always type "rouge" for "rogue").

 

[der_kluge]

*whew* for a second there I thought this might be a discussion about the relative merits of the role-playing pros and cons of this feat.

Please don't let me cease the munchkiness of this thread. Please continue.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

like I said before I type with out looking at what Im typing then post.

Very rarely do I catch myself and correct grammar or spelling..+ being Australian - we are not known for our precise diction.

Thorncrest

Paladin, Sir T. Not "palidon."

I only comment because I've seen enough of your posts to know you always spell it that way. Not sure if it's a style thing for you, or it's just a word you stumble on (like the folks who always type "rouge" for "rogue").

 

[Crothian]

*whew* for a second there I thought this might be a discussion about the relative merits of the role-playing pros and cons of this feat.

Please don't let me cease the munchkiness of this thread. Please continue.

duh, D&D is only about the number crunching. I'm starting a petition to actually remove all that silly role playing crap out of the books.....

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

what is munchiness?

I see the word munchin used a bit, but I have no idea what it means. If I had to take a guess from the former ways it was used, I would assume it means players trying to work the system to much?......am Ihot or cold?


Thorncrest

*whew* for a second there I thought this might be a discussion about the relative merits of the role-playing pros and cons of this feat.

Please don't let me cease the munchkiness of this thread. Please continue.

 

[Crothian]

I see the word munchin used a bit, but I have no idea what it means. If I had to take a guess from the former ways it was used, I would assume it means players trying to work the system to much?......am Ihot or cold?


Thorncrest

hot. It is a player that bends and possible breaks rules to create the most powerful character they can

 

[Pants]

Please don't let me cease the munchkiness of this thread. Please continue.

Yeah, D&D should go diceless. All those rules just promote inferior roll-playing.

 

[Jarrod]

I'm currently playing a VoP wizard. It's kinda fun, but did require the GM to create some house rules (as I can see the hordes of "you can't do that!" coming on the horizon...)

The character pays XP for learning spells and using expensive components, AKA the Eschew Materials feat. Likewise, he has a spellbook-equivalent.

Roleplaying: we have a greedy thief in the party, and it's great fun to play off him. From a player perspective, it's fun to not have to worry about treasure at all and do great roleplaying things like "I donate my share to the orphanage."

And he hasn't been overpowered. 8th level, and he's got built-in armor (and is never attacked, so hey) and an INT booster. Quite honestly, the VoP has hurt me power-wise; I got my INT boost a lot later than a wizard would have arranged one, and I get "mind blank" instead of Pearls of Power.

The VoP is quite powerful with certain character types (monk and wildshape druid come to mind), middling with others, and weak with some.

 

[wingsandsword]

The monk in the game I DM is about to take VoP, and I'm the one who suggested it. The player is new to 3.x (an old 1e player), and hated the inherent reliance on magic items that the rules presumed. She wanted the character from the beginning to eschew material goods, and only begrudgingly bought magic items because she considered it out-of-character but needed by the game system (the game started at Level 5).

So I showed her VoP, and she loved the idea, and is working towards taking that as her next feat (having just taken Sacred Vow). She's already got the roleplaying down, isn't trying to powergame it, and monks don't have alot of the inherent catches of the VoP, since they typically don't activate magic items, don't have as much inherent need for MI's (with Ki Strike) and even if it is a little powerful, she's the party tank (no fighters, just a monk), so she can use all the power she can get.

As a DM, I wouldn't let just anybody take VoP. That person who got +5 Inherent Bonuses to ability scores beforehand would be right out, inherently ineligbile for VoP because they are violating the spirit of it. Instead of donating their wealth to charity, they sunk it into things they couldnt' give away and used their wealth to become more powerful instead of helping others when they had a chance to. Sorry, you failed the roleplaying requirement for VoP. Although, to be nice I would warn them beforehand it wouldn't work, and not be a rat-bastard DM and wait until they are taking the feat and tell them they can't.

I'll also agree that any PC should be able to carry a wooden holy symbol (or other appropirate modest token of faith), it's not on the list but it's hardly game-breaking and it's very thematic and roleplaying appropriate.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

*whew* for a second there I thought this might be a discussion about the relative merits of the role-playing pros and cons of this feat.

Please don't let me cease the munchkiness of this thread. Please continue.

Gee, terribly helpful aren't we? Why don't you post about the merits of role playing this feat rather than just b****hing about it?