Vow of Poverty

[ThirdWizard]

In your game then, it would be a house rule to charge for a "Prayer Beads: Karma Only" magic item I assume...since the rules as written clearly and unequivelently state it is free in the price formula for the item, and there is no errata on the item.

:\

You cannot do that. Allowing only one bead to be purchased is a house rule.

Each strand includes two or more special beads, each with a different magic power.

No, really, it isn't. It's not a house rule. It's the actual rule itself. There is an unstated basic reasonableness in intepreting ALL written game rules (and all rules for that matter, and text in general). If you KNOW what the author meant by a typo, you read the rule as it was meant, and not with the typo. That isn't a houserule...it's the actual rule.

How can you claim to know what the author of VoP meant? Have you talked to him personally? Rystil has just as much claim as you to know what the author meant.

 

[focallength]

the feat is very specific on what you can own (minor rags etc...we have a cleric in our group with vow of povert and vow of peace and going for non-violence) From what I understand you cant own anything for more than one round (1 minute) so you can use a potion or a key or write something down.

 

[focallength]

as for treasure it even tells you what to do, you get a share of the treausre but you still cant carry it. So you have somone carry it for you until you can donate it to whoever your going to donate it to. And donating it to the party IMO is rather cheesy and not within the spirit of the feat. the cleric in our group splits it evenly between his curch and an orphanage and whomever he decides needs it during adventures, I.E displaced peasants, farmers down on their luck, pilgrims, etc...

 

[focallength]

what appears to be happening, is that people here are trying to take the feat and all its benefits and also trying to loophole and see what they can get away with. Its too bad that people cant follow the spirit of the feat and take it for what it is, instead of min-maxing. If you have the feat you own nothing and never will aside from some common clothes (pants shirt shoes, maybe a cloak a robe and a belt would suffice also) and say a small knife for eating with and a staff for walking (and defending your self with) thats it, take it for what it is and expand your roleplaying experiences and try to play a character with no possesions. Take it a step further and take vow of peace, then you seperate your self from the role players and the roll players.

 

[andargor]

From what I understand you cant own anything for more than one round (1 minute) so you can use a potion or a key or write something down.

(Emphasis mine)

So, which edition are you playing?

Andargor

 

[Presto2112]

How I see it:

A VoP character can carry anything he or she wants, pretty much, but generally not own or use it.

Using stuff (beyond what can be owned) is only allowed, if it is borrowed from someone else and only if the circumstances require the use. This would include the disguise example.

Bye
Thanee

So technically Nodwick could have a VoP?

 

[Corlon]

hmm, I've heard alot of annoyance with VoP on the boards, so I think I'd go with Rystil's argument. Any character can take a vow of poverty, but if you want to be so poor that you're magical, there are gonna be some annoying hoops to jump through .

Then again, I don't know exactly what it does, so it may not be that powerful.

 

[Mistwell]

You cannot do that. Allowing only one bead to be purchased is a house rule.

Ahem...perhaps you should read the item again. It SPECIFICALLY mentions that the item can in fact be priced for fewer beads. That is the whole purpose of the formula they provide to begin with.

How can you claim to know what the author of VoP meant? Have you talked to him personally? Rystil has just as much claim as you to know what the author meant.

I didn't say I *know* what the author of the vow of poverty meant...I said I *know* what the author of the prayer beads meant.

EVERYONE knows that the author of the prayer beads meant that you should subtract from the most expensive Karma Bead listed (the third one, "greater"). It's blatantly obvious from even a casual reading of the item. Seriously, have you even read the item we are talking about?

Here...enough of this silliness. Here is the SRD quote:

A lesser strand of prayer beads has a bead of blessing and a bead of healing. A strand of prayer beads has a bead of healing, a bead of karma, and a bead of smiting. A greater strand of prayer beads has a bead of healing, a bead of karma, a bead of summons, and a bead of wind walking.
Each special bead can be used once per day, except for the bead of summons, which works only once and then becomes nonmagical. The beads of blessing, smiting, and wind walking function as spell trigger items; the beads of karma and summons can be activated by any character capable of casting divine spells. The owner need not hold or wear the strand of prayer beads in any specific location, as long as he carries it somewhere on his person.
The power of a special bead is lost if it is removed from the strand. Reduce the price of a strand of prayer beads that is missing one or more beads by the following amounts: bead of blessing –600 gp, bead of healing –9,000 gp, bead of karma –20,000 gp, bead of smiting –16,800 gp, bead of summons –20,000 gp, bead of wind walking –46,800 gp.
Faint, moderate or strong (many schools); CL 1st (blessing), 5th (healing), 7th (smiting), 9th (karma), 11th (wind walking), 17th (summons); Craft Wondrous Items and one of the following spells per bead, as appropriate: bless (blessing); cure serious wounds, remove blindness/ deafness, or remove disease (healing); righteous might (karma); gate (summons); chaos hammer, holy smite, order’s wrath, or unholy blight (smiting), wind walk (wind walking); Price 9,600 gp (lesser), 25,800 gp (standard), 95,800 gp (greater).

Now, you tell me you have doubt about what the author meant when he mentions "Reduce the price of a strand of prayer beads that is missing one or more beads by the following amounts". Did he mean that you get PAID 11000 gp by the DM for accepting the "burden" of a "strand of prayer beads" that is missing the bead of karma and bead of smiting (25800 - 36800 = -11000)? Or do you think perhaps the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS intepretation is that the "Reduce the price" quote is referencing the starting price for the greater strand?

Yes, I can honestly say I "know" what the author meant by this item. I am sure of it.

As for the vow...I am not claiming to *know* what was meant...only offerring my interpretation (backed up by quotes from the rule) of what was meant, which seems to be shared for the most part by almost everyone here.

Given you can specifically beg expensive spell componants from another character for USE in casting a spell, what is YOUR interpretation of that rule given the "no use" portion of the vow and it's lack of mentioning begging such items as an exception to the "no use" rule?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Ahem...perhaps you should read the item again. It SPECIFICALLY mentions that the item can in fact be priced for fewer beads. That is the whole purpose of the formula they provide to begin with.



I didn't say I *know* what the author of the vow of poverty meant...I said I *know* what the author of the prayer beads meant.

EVERYONE knows that the author of the prayer beads meant that you should subtract from the most expensive Karma Bead listed (the third one, "greater"). It's blatantly obvious from even a casual reading of the item. Seriously, have you even read the item we are talking about?

Here...enough of this silliness. Here is the SRD quote:



Now, you tell me you have doubt about what the author meant when he mentions "Reduce the price of a strand of prayer beads that is missing one or more beads by the following amounts". Did he mean that you get PAID 11000 gp by the DM for accepting the "burden" of a "strand of prayer beads" that is missing the bead of karma and bead of smiting (25800 - 36800 = -11000)? Or do you think perhaps the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS intepretation is that the "Reduce the price" quote is referencing the starting price for the greater strand?

Yes, I can honestly say I "know" what the author meant by this item. I am sure of it.

As for the vow...I am not claiming to *know* what was meant...only offerring my interpretation (backed up by quotes from the rule) of what was meant, which seems to be shared for the most part by almost everyone here.

Given you can specifically beg expensive spell componants from another character for USE in casting a spell, what is YOUR interpretation of that rule given the "no use" portion of the vow and it's lack of mentioning begging such items as an exception to the "no use" rule?

Actually, a lot of people are on both sides Mistwell. Don't try to make yourself out to be on the highground or something. As for the begging spell components, you'll notice that it is an optional exception suggested by the author in a different place from the feat itself to account for the problem of expensive components. For DMs who think that this optional exception is too much of a violation of the rules, the author goes on to suggest that you could instead replace the GP cost with an XP cost.

 

[Mistwell]

as for treasure it even tells you what to do, you get a share of the treausre but you still cant carry it. So you have somone carry it for you until you can donate it to whoever your going to donate it to. And donating it to the party IMO is rather cheesy and not within the spirit of the feat. the cleric in our group splits it evenly between his curch and an orphanage and whomever he decides needs it during adventures, I.E displaced peasants, farmers down on their luck, pilgrims, etc...

It doesn't say anything about not being allowed to carry it. I just says you cannot "own" or "use" it. And, since use appears to have some vagueness to it given the "begging expensive magical componant" rule, I feel pretty confident that they don't mean simply carrying gold pieces with no intent to spend it or make something out of it.

If we go by the strict intepretation you are putting on it...then you could not in fact have someone else carry treasure "for you", since that implies you own the treasure they are carrying....and you cannot "own" treasure. If the term "ownership" has the flexibility of meaning you decide who to donate it to (which is an intpretation), then I don't see why you would be so infelxible on the ability to carry that same treasure rather than uncharitably burdening someone else with the task of carrying it "for you".