Apostle Of Peace question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Apostle Of Peace question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Kozeljnik
09-12-05, 07:37 AM The prerequisite feats for an Apostle Of Peace are Sacred Vow and vows of Nonviolence, Peace and Poverty. VoP means you can't own anything more than a robe and staff (or something of equal "value"), so far so good.

The apostle's description however, says that "As a part of their sacred vows, apostles of peace forswear the use of armor, though they may wear magic items that protect them (such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor"

so now i'm wondering, does this cancel the benefits of VoP (as in breaking it), or is this an exception?
runestar
09-12-05, 09:48 AM Given the way this this worded. I think this specifically allows you to bypass certain restrictions curtailed by the vow.
MJ the Prophet
09-12-05, 11:01 AM Oh dear god, not again.
Technically, by the wording of this, you can wear rings of protection and such. However, this makes you lose your Vow of Poverty, and thus the PrC that depends on it as a prereq.
It is not an exception to the rule. It is bad editing, probably put in before VoPov was decided on as a prereq.
Kozeljnik
09-12-05, 11:09 AM not again? this happened before?
CravesLove
09-12-05, 04:20 PM There has been discussion on this before, mostly in relation to the Vow of Poverty.

I think its clear in context, at least as Rules-As-Written, that Apostle of Peace can make an exception to the Vow of Poverty in wearing magical items that give defense. This would not, as per written, negate the Vow of Poverty or any such thing.

That said, it is generaly agreed that it goes against the spirit of the rules, and is very likely an editing error. Given the wording, as an exception to armor restrictions and not specificaly an exception to the Vow of Poverty, its hard to argue the writers meant to do this.

Since there is no official errata (that I know of anyway), it depends on how the DM/Players choose to work it.

Regards,
Fitz
Kozeljnik
09-12-05, 04:28 PM thanks a lot. i was going to ignore that anyway and just sell off eventual bracers and rings to the other party members (besides, the vows provide good AC and i'm a monk, so it's no big problem)

thanks again.
Morwen
09-12-05, 09:26 PM thanks a lot. i was going to ignore that anyway and just sell off eventual bracers and rings to the other party members (besides, the vows provide good AC and i'm a monk, so it's no big problem)

thanks again.
Selling them to others implies that you own them in the first place, which is a no-no if you've got VoP (and your DM doesn't think the wording of Apostle of Peace lifts the VoP-restrictions) :)
runestar
09-12-05, 10:03 PM Well, you could wear them, but the problem still comes in trying to procure them, since that alone seems to violate the feat. Its like saying "sure, you can wear them, if you can get them. And the moment you attempt to acquire them, you violate the feat and fall!!!!"
caeruleus
09-12-05, 10:07 PM I remember hearing that the author said the comment about magic items was a mistake; they must must abide by the VoP.

Sorry that I can't remember where I saw this. If you don't want to believe me, that's up to you.
CravesLove
09-12-05, 10:18 PM Well, you could wear them, but the problem still comes in trying to procure them, since that alone seems to violate the feat. Its like saying "sure, you can wear them, if you can get them. And the moment you attempt to acquire them, you violate the feat and fall!!!!"

That's the whole point. For this reason alone, it should be considered as an official exception. At least AS WRITTEN.

Fitz
Schmendrick
09-12-05, 10:42 PM That depends on how you're handling treasure. A VoP character's treasure still comes out of the party's haul of loot, it just gets given away to worthwhile causes. A lot of parties divide treasure by keeping 'accounts' for everybody based on the total treasure value and allowing members to "buy" magic items from the collection with their shares. If a VoP takes his share in coin (to be donated), then he has in effect "sold" the items to the rest of the party. VoP characters can handle wealth (coin or magic item or whatever), they just can't use it (which is the prerogative of an owner). Selling something you've never used (and never intend to) to get gold you're going to give away doesn't violate the Vow.
El_Machinae
09-13-05, 11:22 AM That's similar to how I've run it. The AoP is allowed to wear defensive items, but must give them away as soon as it is viable. If he's in the World's Largest Dungeon, then he's allowed to wear the ring of elemental protection.
SpaceDye
09-13-05, 12:33 PM I'd agree with the two above posters. For an Apostle (or anybody using the Vow) to hold an item is one thing, but to use it is another. Holding some bracers or coin for a friend is okay, or even selling something or looting something to give away is okay (of course it is based on situation too), but using it is not.

I've always been irked with the Apostle having VoP. Not only does the description say that he can use defensive items, but look at the picture. He obviously has several non-defensive magical items in use.
Dnjscott
09-13-05, 09:51 PM I'd agree with the two above posters. For an Apostle (or anybody using the Vow) to hold an item is one thing, but to use it is another. Holding some bracers or coin for a friend is okay, or even selling something or looting something to give away is okay (of course it is based on situation too), but using it is not.

I've always been irked with the Apostle having VoP. Not only does the description say that he can use defensive items, but look at the picture. He obviously has several non-defensive magical items in use.

Yeah!! I've noticed that, too. He's got what looks like a Staff, Scrolls, Ioun Stones... Not to mention that he's dressed rather nicer than you'd expect someone with VOP to be. Personally, I think it's VOP that seems more like the typo, but I guess a nebulous interview somewhere contradicts it...
Schmendrick
09-13-05, 11:59 PM I'd agree with the two above posters. For an Apostle (or anybody using the Vow) to hold an item is one thing, but to use it is another. Holding some bracers or coin for a friend is okay, or even selling something or looting something to give away is okay (of course it is based on situation too), but using it is not.

I've always been irked with the Apostle having VoP. Not only does the description say that he can use defensive items, but look at the picture. He obviously has several non-defensive magical items in use.
Hm... actually using (wearing) such things isn't really covered by VoP, even if they're given away as soon as possible. Other items that have an effect by merely being carried would probably be ok.
caeruleus
09-14-05, 02:26 AM I've always been irked with the Apostle having VoP. Not only does the description say that he can use defensive items, but look at the picture. He obviously has several non-defensive magical items in use.

The people who do the artwork for prestige classes almost never actually read the entry for the prestige classes they illustrate. Pointing to an illustration does not override the rules.

Vow of Poverty makes perfect sense for an Apostle of Peace, given that private property always comes at someone else's expense.
Dnjscott
09-14-05, 02:57 AM The people who do the artwork for prestige classes almost never actually read the entry for the prestige classes they illustrate. Pointing to an illustration does not override the rules.

Vow of Poverty makes perfect sense for an Apostle of Peace, given that private property always comes at someone else's expense.

Well, it also specifically says that an AOP "may wear magic items that protect them, such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor".

Though it has generally been held to not mean anything. Still, both of them together is odd. But, uh, you seem really certain about your opinions, so I certainly wouldn't want to argue with you.
Rhomphaia
09-14-05, 03:08 AM This is an oddity, and I usually took it as an exception to the rule, especially where the role of an AoP (or anyone with the Vow of Peace feat) is concerned. The AoP, in any event, is most likely to be an NPC. Let's face it, I only know of one nutjob who would play such a character. Personally, I consider myself a good role-player, but not -that- good. I don't think that 99% of players out there could play an AoP accurately and still keep the benefit of all their feats and the PrC. In this light, I would see the ability to use defensive magic items and not violating their VoP to be an acceptable reward for being able to play the character right.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kozeljnik 09-12-05, 07:37 AM	The prerequisite feats for an Apostle Of Peace are Sacred Vow and vows of Nonviolence, Peace and Poverty. VoP means you can't own anything more than a robe and staff (or something of equal "value"), so far so good. The apostle's description however, says that "As a part of their sacred vows, apostles of peace forswear the use of armor, though they may wear magic items that protect them (such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor" so now i'm wondering, does this cancel the benefits of VoP (as in breaking it), or is this an exception?
runestar 09-12-05, 09:48 AM	Given the way this this worded. I think this specifically allows you to bypass certain restrictions curtailed by the vow.
MJ the Prophet 09-12-05, 11:01 AM	Oh dear god, not again. Technically, by the wording of this, you can wear rings of protection and such. However, this makes you lose your Vow of Poverty, and thus the PrC that depends on it as a prereq. It is not an exception to the rule. It is bad editing, probably put in before VoPov was decided on as a prereq.
Kozeljnik 09-12-05, 11:09 AM	not again? this happened before?
CravesLove 09-12-05, 04:20 PM	There has been discussion on this before, mostly in relation to the Vow of Poverty. I think its clear in context, at least as Rules-As-Written, that Apostle of Peace can make an exception to the Vow of Poverty in wearing magical items that give defense. This would not, as per written, negate the Vow of Poverty or any such thing. That said, it is generaly agreed that it goes against the spirit of the rules, and is very likely an editing error. Given the wording, as an exception to armor restrictions and not specificaly an exception to the Vow of Poverty, its hard to argue the writers meant to do this. Since there is no official errata (that I know of anyway), it depends on how the DM/Players choose to work it. Regards, Fitz
Kozeljnik 09-12-05, 04:28 PM	thanks a lot. i was going to ignore that anyway and just sell off eventual bracers and rings to the other party members (besides, the vows provide good AC and i'm a monk, so it's no big problem) thanks again.
Morwen 09-12-05, 09:26 PM	thanks a lot. i was going to ignore that anyway and just sell off eventual bracers and rings to the other party members (besides, the vows provide good AC and i'm a monk, so it's no big problem) thanks again. Selling them to others implies that you own them in the first place, which is a no-no if you've got VoP (and your DM doesn't think the wording of Apostle of Peace lifts the VoP-restrictions) :)
runestar 09-12-05, 10:03 PM	Well, you could wear them, but the problem still comes in trying to procure them, since that alone seems to violate the feat. Its like saying "sure, you can wear them, if you can get them. And the moment you attempt to acquire them, you violate the feat and fall!!!!"
caeruleus 09-12-05, 10:07 PM	I remember hearing that the author said the comment about magic items was a mistake; they must must abide by the VoP. Sorry that I can't remember where I saw this. If you don't want to believe me, that's up to you.
CravesLove 09-12-05, 10:18 PM	Well, you could wear them, but the problem still comes in trying to procure them, since that alone seems to violate the feat. Its like saying "sure, you can wear them, if you can get them. And the moment you attempt to acquire them, you violate the feat and fall!!!!" That's the whole point. For this reason alone, it should be considered as an official exception. At least AS WRITTEN. Fitz
Schmendrick 09-12-05, 10:42 PM	That depends on how you're handling treasure. A VoP character's treasure still comes out of the party's haul of loot, it just gets given away to worthwhile causes. A lot of parties divide treasure by keeping 'accounts' for everybody based on the total treasure value and allowing members to "buy" magic items from the collection with their shares. If a VoP takes his share in coin (to be donated), then he has in effect "sold" the items to the rest of the party. VoP characters can handle wealth (coin or magic item or whatever), they just can't use it (which is the prerogative of an owner). Selling something you've never used (and never intend to) to get gold you're going to give away doesn't violate the Vow.
El_Machinae 09-13-05, 11:22 AM	That's similar to how I've run it. The AoP is allowed to wear defensive items, but must give them away as soon as it is viable. If he's in the World's Largest Dungeon, then he's allowed to wear the ring of elemental protection.
SpaceDye 09-13-05, 12:33 PM	I'd agree with the two above posters. For an Apostle (or anybody using the Vow) to hold an item is one thing, but to use it is another. Holding some bracers or coin for a friend is okay, or even selling something or looting something to give away is okay (of course it is based on situation too), but using it is not. I've always been irked with the Apostle having VoP. Not only does the description say that he can use defensive items, but look at the picture. He obviously has several non-defensive magical items in use.
Dnjscott 09-13-05, 09:51 PM	I'd agree with the two above posters. For an Apostle (or anybody using the Vow) to hold an item is one thing, but to use it is another. Holding some bracers or coin for a friend is okay, or even selling something or looting something to give away is okay (of course it is based on situation too), but using it is not. I've always been irked with the Apostle having VoP. Not only does the description say that he can use defensive items, but look at the picture. He obviously has several non-defensive magical items in use. Yeah!! I've noticed that, too. He's got what looks like a Staff, Scrolls, Ioun Stones... Not to mention that he's dressed rather nicer than you'd expect someone with VOP to be. Personally, I think it's VOP that seems more like the typo, but I guess a nebulous interview somewhere contradicts it...
Schmendrick 09-13-05, 11:59 PM	I'd agree with the two above posters. For an Apostle (or anybody using the Vow) to hold an item is one thing, but to use it is another. Holding some bracers or coin for a friend is okay, or even selling something or looting something to give away is okay (of course it is based on situation too), but using it is not. I've always been irked with the Apostle having VoP. Not only does the description say that he can use defensive items, but look at the picture. He obviously has several non-defensive magical items in use. Hm... actually using (wearing) such things isn't really covered by VoP, even if they're given away as soon as possible. Other items that have an effect by merely being carried would probably be ok.
caeruleus 09-14-05, 02:26 AM	I've always been irked with the Apostle having VoP. Not only does the description say that he can use defensive items, but look at the picture. He obviously has several non-defensive magical items in use. The people who do the artwork for prestige classes almost never actually read the entry for the prestige classes they illustrate. Pointing to an illustration does not override the rules. Vow of Poverty makes perfect sense for an Apostle of Peace, given that private property always comes at someone else's expense.
Dnjscott 09-14-05, 02:57 AM	The people who do the artwork for prestige classes almost never actually read the entry for the prestige classes they illustrate. Pointing to an illustration does not override the rules. Vow of Poverty makes perfect sense for an Apostle of Peace, given that private property always comes at someone else's expense. Well, it also specifically says that an AOP "may wear magic items that protect them, such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor". Though it has generally been held to not mean anything. Still, both of them together is odd. But, uh, you seem really certain about your opinions, so I certainly wouldn't want to argue with you.
Rhomphaia 09-14-05, 03:08 AM	This is an oddity, and I usually took it as an exception to the rule, especially where the role of an AoP (or anyone with the Vow of Peace feat) is concerned. The AoP, in any event, is most likely to be an NPC. Let's face it, I only know of one nutjob who would play such a character. Personally, I consider myself a good role-player, but not -that- good. I don't think that 99% of players out there could play an AoP accurately and still keep the benefit of all their feats and the PrC. In this light, I would see the ability to use defensive magic items and not violating their VoP to be an acceptable reward for being able to play the character right.