Vow of Poverty

[CM]

by that reasoning you can't own food or drink...
can someone post the whole feat so I can see it?

You can carry enough food and drink for one day. I'm not sure how you're going to carry drink in a simple sack along with the food, but I guess they manage somehow.

 

[Rystil Arden]

You can carry enough food and drink for one day. I'm not sure how you're going to carry drink in a simple sack along with the food, but I guess they manage somehow.

Fortunately, the feat does make you not need food or drink at level 5.

 

[smootrk]

I think Rystil Arden's mind is made up regardless of anyone else's reasoning on the intent of that particular rule in the feat.

Or maybe he is just trying to provoke thoughtful dialog on the subject?

 

[Rystil Arden]

I think Rystil Arden's mind is made up regardless of anyone else's reasoning on the intent of that particular rule in the feat.

Or maybe he is just trying to provoke thoughtful dialog on the subject?

In my opinion, on a feat that gives out benefits with a cost, you have to draw the line, and draw it hard, on the cost. If you allow some violations, the players will bring in situations that blur the line, and then blur it further...and further, until eventually the player can do anything they want as long as they don't have any magic items under their permanent possession. You have to draw the line somewhere, so why not draw the line where the rules say to do so?

 

[Crothian]

I think Rystil Arden's mind is made up regardless of anyone else's reasoning on the intent of that particular rule in the feat.

Or maybe he is just trying to provoke thoughtful dialog on the subject?

the first one...... :\

 

[Crothian]

In my opinion, on a feat that gives out benefits with a cost, you have to draw the line, and draw it hard, on the cost. If you allow some violations, the players will bring in situations that blur the line, and then blur it further...and further, until eventually the player can do anything they want as long as they don't have any magic items under their permanent possession. You have to draw the line somewhere, so why not draw the line where the rules say to do so?

So, your own players with take the rules and use them to their advantage so much that there is not little bending of the rules in your games? That's sad.

 

[Rystil Arden]

So, your own players with take the rules and use them to their advantage so much that there is not little bending of the rules in your games? That's sad.

My players would never take the feat in the first place. The fact is, you can houserule it if you like, and I don't think it would even be unbalanced to houserule that you can use whatever you want as long as you don't have any permanent magic items on you. But it needs to be clear that this is a houserule and that you are bending the rules. Would I allow some of the suggested mundane item uses? Probably. But the fact that by the book you can't do these things should be acknowledged, and I would expect players to understand that I was bending the rules to allow this and keep flavour, rather than take for granted that they could always do something like this with the feat.

 

[Crothian]

I just find that too rigid. The DM has the descretion to interpret the rules and not breatch house rules.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I just find that too rigid. The DM has the descretion to interpret the rules and not breatch house rules.

If there's something that needs to be interpreted, then certainly, I agree. But I believe that in this case, there is no interpretation open without houseruling some changes in the feat. Now, if you believe the feat to be ridiculous, and that it seriously needs to be reworded to allow for some obvious and non-unbalancing uses of objects, I wouldn't disagree with you. But it requires rewording, not simply interpretation. The feat unequivocally states that you can't own or use anything except for the following exceptions. Someone earlier said that this sort of interpretation makes me a rules lawyer, but in my opinion what it really does is prevent rules-lawyering. Since the players would admit that the feat as written works as I have stated, they won't argue with me that they should get more than the amount I choose to give them.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Wearing a set of clothes or using a pen does not constitute ownership in my humble opinion, whatever the feat description may say. Magical items and such are understandable. A writing instrument would be necessary for a mage character for instance, and strikes me as a tool that could be carried... now if it was a deluxe gold and jeweled pen, no way.

You don't have mages with VoP. They're not allowed to own:

Their spellbook.
The ink that goes into their spellbook.