Vow of Poverty and Rogue Skills [Archive] - Wizards Community

Vow of Poverty and Rogue Skills [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
FrotzMe
07-08-07, 12:44 AM Vow of Poverty states "you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions..."; obviously, not among the listed exceptions are "thieves' tools".

Under the descriptions of both "Disable Device" and "Open Lock", it states "the effort requires at least a simple tool of the appropriate sort". However, they both go on to say that attempting the action without using a "set of theives' tools imposes a -2 circumstantial penalty on the check, even if a simple tool is employed." (my emphasis added).

The first part appears to lay down a hard and fast rule - you gotta use some sort of tool - which would appear to violate the Vow of Poverty. The second part seems to suggest, however, that the attempt can be made without the use of a simple tool ("even if").

Now, I always look at the realistic application of rules when trying to resolve inconsistencies. Realistically, you gotta have some sort of tool (even if it's just a piece of wire) if you're gonna try to pick a lock. However, just as realistically, it's nearly impossible to get through life without using anything but those few exceptions listed in the description for Vow of Poverty - a bowl to eat out of (or to use begging for alms), a blanket to sleep under, maybe even a needle to repair your robe.

So my question - does using a simple, impromptu tool to "Open Lock" or "Disable Device" (albeit taking a -2 circumstantial penalty) violate Vow of Poverty? Alternatively - Vow of Poverty permits the possession of a Spell Component Pouch (utterly useless for non-casting classes). Could you see allowing an ascetic rogue to possess a a set of theives' tools?
runestar
07-08-07, 12:58 AM Well, you are allowed a spell component pouch, and I am sure that if you look hard enough, there are bound to be some spell components which can double as thieves tools....:P
GalaGalaxia
07-08-07, 01:00 AM What does your DM say? Ultimately, it's up to your DM.

Regular thieves' tools -- ya, they violate VoP.
Some makeshift cheapo things? Not necessarily.
Krusk
07-08-07, 01:19 AM You could use something like a makeshift bobby pin and a bit of wire you found in the trash. Then just take the -2. I hope your DM dosnt say that violates the vow. If so, grow your fingernails long, and trim them into the needed shapes. It would be pretty cool, and might actually possibly work. Maybe.
FrotzMe
07-08-07, 01:19 AM Well, you are allowed a spell component pouch, and I am sure that if you look hard enough, there are bound to be some spell components which can double as thieves tools....:P

That is freakin' brilliant; never crossed my mind.

Thanks!
FrotzMe
07-08-07, 01:22 AM What does your DM say? Ultimately, it's up to your DM.

Yeah, I'm just kinda fishing for any and all possible arguments before I present my case.

I'm loving the 'spell component' angle, and as you said, makeshift throwaway junk shouldn't violate.
FrotzMe
07-08-07, 01:24 AM If so, grow your fingernails long, and trim them into the needed shapes. It would be pretty cool, and might actually possibly work. Maybe.

heh. maybe if I grow my hair long and braid it really tight...
ShinAkuma2
07-08-07, 03:06 AM I get the feeling that a Vow of Poverty Rogue wouldn't be the type to know much about opening locks, or would have given that up upon taking his exalted vows.

Worst case, you simply borrow something from a teammate, like a dagger or some such thing.
FrotzMe
07-08-07, 01:17 PM I get the feeling that a Vow of Poverty Rogue wouldn't be the type to know much about opening locks, or would have given that up upon taking his exalted vows.

Maybe that's the way you'd play it, but this rogue uses all the natural talents Praised Deity gave him to advance the cause of good against the forces of evil in this world...

Worst case, you simply borrow something from a teammate, like a dagger or some such thing.

Ah, but even borrowing a restricted item violates the Vow - "you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions..." The feat description even specifically addresses the issue of "borrowing".

Be that as it may, this rogue has his own daggers, thank you very much. One of the exceptions allowed is that "you may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons". So, he's bristling with daggers, crossbow, morningstar, and a spear or two; might even pick up some gauntlets... Hey, gotta do something with all that rogue starting capital, before he turns over the unused balance to the local Mother Teresa.

Remember, the description of the Sacred Vow states that "you have willingly given yourself to the service of a good deity or cause, denying yourself an ordinary life to serve your highest ideals." Really, this is no different than a paladin answering the call - just following that call in a slightly different (and more austere) direction. Paladins answer the call by training at arms; this person answered the call by learning the rogue's craft.
Heros_Backpack
07-08-07, 02:46 PM So why not simply say that one or more of those daggers is long enough and thin enough to slide into a lock and use that to pick it?
ShinAkuma2
07-08-07, 06:00 PM Be that as it may, this rogue has his own daggers, thank you very much.

...So then why bother asking the question? You've got improvised tools. Go with it.
FrotzMe
07-08-07, 06:22 PM ...So then why bother asking the question? You've got improvised tools. Go with it.

Because if I were DMing, I'd have a hard time swallowing the idea of picking a lock with a dagger. And have a 'dagger' specifically shaped to function as a pick is just distorting the rules beyond reason.
KurenaiYami
07-08-07, 06:35 PM I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet, but there is a skill trick in Complete Scoundrel that lets you pick locks without tools and with no penalty.
ShinAkuma2
07-08-07, 09:57 PM Because if I were DMing, I'd have a hard time swallowing the idea of picking a lock with a dagger.

Why not? It works in real life.
FrotzMe
07-09-07, 12:02 AM I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet, but there is a skill trick in Complete Scoundrel that lets you pick locks without tools and with no penalty.

hmmm. I found the Skill Trick "Cleaver Improviser", which allows you to ignore the -2 penalty when not using theives' tools, but the implication seems to be that you still need some sort of improvised tool (as normal).
FrotzMe
07-09-07, 12:07 AM Why not? It works in real life.

I'd like to see a demonstration of that. Might be able to use a dagger as an improvised tension bar, but it'd be useless as a rake (and no way you'd be able to work two daggers in the same keyhole, anyway).

Aside from jamming the dagger in the lock and forcing it open (and then we're looking at brute strength rather than skill), I really can't see any way an ordinary dagger would work.
Krusk
07-09-07, 01:39 AM I can't see anyway a man can wave his arms and call forth legions of undead, but it can happen in DND.

Just say he has an exceptionally long thin dagger that does piercing damage.

Something like so

http://www.bakaneko.com/howto/computer/intro_maya/02_dagger_ref.bmp
theplaidknight
07-09-07, 02:36 AM It sounds to me like you should have put this on the Character Optimization boards.

To your first question, no. To your second question, no.

"he's bristling with daggers, crossbow, morningstar, and a spear or two; might even pick up some gauntlets... Hey, gotta do something with all that rogue starting capital, before he turns over the unused balance to the local Mother Teresa" ... WHAT?! Are you serious? What is a Vow of Poverty, anyway?

The suggestion that you could carry around a spell component pouch, even if, since you're a rogue, you're not a spellcaster, is preposterous. Doing so would constitute a blatant go-around of the rules, known better as metagaming. I know I've been called small-minded recently, and with a little reason, but come on. Seriously. Think about what you're suggesting.
Aleolus
07-09-07, 03:47 AM Possibly, but why in the world would a Rouge take VoP anyway? Aren't most Rouges out to get cash and treasure, not give it away?
runestar
07-09-07, 06:30 AM Possibly, but why in the world would a Rouge take VoP anyway?
Yeah. Who knows what those clump of powders are up to anyways...;)

Aren't most Rouges out to get cash and treasure, not give it away?
Well, you can have a LG rogue, so an exalted one shouldn't be that far of a stretch.
pupilofyah
07-09-07, 08:45 AM Well, you are allowed a spell component pouch, and I am sure that if you look hard enough, there are bound to be some spell components which can double as thieves tools....:P

yes but not expensive spell components.

simple tools should be ok and you could talk to the DM about allowing something like the exalted strike to apply here for the party's sake. this feat is not meant to screw over the player(there is even a block for the DM about that) but to give a different option.
Rulebook
07-09-07, 09:29 AM did you say "Bristling with weapons"?

methinks you dont quite get the point of the feat...
FrotzMe
07-09-07, 02:54 PM I can't see anyway a man can wave his arms and call forth legions of undead, but it can happen in DND.

heh - that's certainly true, but you have to draw a line somewhere. If you're going to stretch the fabric of reality any way you chose, you might as well say that you can stick your finger in the keyhole and turn the lock - why bother with tools at all?

It sounds to me like you should have put this on the Character Optimization boards.

the way this thread has devolved, I can certainly appreciate that point of view. however, this started out as a simple request to comment on apparent rule conflicts.

WHAT?! Are you serious? What is a Vow of Poverty, anyway?

"Dead(ly) serious." Vow of Poverty is from the Book of Exalted Deeds. Without violating copyright, I'll summarize - You agree to not use or possess most material possessions, in exchange for which you are granted progressive bonuses. These bonuses are basically replacements for what a character might expect to receive from the use of magic items a typical character would get over the course of his progression; things like progessive bonuses to AC (since they can't use armor) and attack bonuses (since they can't use magic weapons), feats, and feat like abilities.

Seriously. Think about what you're suggesting.

The suggestion is merely that a rogue should have the same access to the tools of his trade (albeit at a -2 penalty) as a spellcaster. Looking to the permissibility of a spell component pouch is simply a way of extending the rule to accommodate a character class that was perhaps overlooked when the feat description was written.

yes but not expensive spell components.

Yeah, but for picking locks and such (particularly the warded locks typical of this technology level) you really don't need much more than a bit of wire, or some other sort of stiff, curved (or curvable) material.

this feat is not meant to screw over the player

I wholeheartedly agree.

methinks you dont quite get the point of the feat...

Quite on the contrary, I think that perhaps you are not thoroughly understanding it. The point of the feat is not to turn your character into a beggar on the streets of Calcutta. Rather, it is to allow a character the opportunity to serve the greater Good in a way that eschews fixation on material possessions.

With Vow of Poverty, the character is an instrument of Good, empowered to fight the forces of Evil. That character is not capable at a whim of changing allegiance (breaking the vow forever loses the benefits), or concentrating his efforts on his personal prosperity. It is strict in a way that perhaps exceeds the paladin.

And in order to serve as an effective instrument in the eternal struggle with Evil, the character needs access to the tools of his trade. As such, he is allowed to carry and use ordinary simple weapons to further that cause. Frankly, I don't see any conflict in this at all. The one thing that bothers me is the apparent restriction on tool use, which seems overly broad and ill conceived.
Demoyn
07-09-07, 03:10 PM I know I'm a bit more of a lax DM, but personally, I'd say that you can have anything out of chapter 7 of the PHB that costs less than a gold. Even people that have taken the Vow of Poverty require clothing, silverware, ect. Included in this, of course, would be makeshift thieves' tools. Technically speaking, anything that a minorly skilled crafter can make with no overhead (such as arrows or makeshift wire) should be completely within the realm of acceptability.
tarkin
07-09-07, 03:14 PM I see nothing wrong with makeshift tools.

The -2 penalty should be required, but besides that, it looks good to me.
tui
07-09-07, 03:55 PM I think your improvised tool for -2 is fine. A common material component for spells is "a short piece of copper wire" (Message or Sending), which could easily be used for picking locks and the like. If a VoP Wizard is able to carry around a piece of wire, so should a VoP Rogue.

FWIW, I think your interpretation of "you may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons" as permitting you to be "bristling with daggers, crossbow, morningstar, and a spear or two; might even pick up some gauntlets..." is more problematic.

Right after it says you can use simple weapons, it says "usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick". I agree that you could probably justify your interpretation according to RAW, but I disagree that it is RAI... which is what I think any reasonable DM would use as the benchmark for everything in BoED.

Anyway, I don't mean to derail your thread.. if your DM approves of it, that's all that really matters.
rkun
07-09-07, 04:58 PM personally, i think since your can "carry and use simple weapons". wich means you can use a heavy crossbow (50gp), i see nothing wrong with allowing a set of theives tools (30gp).

but if your DM says no on the set of tools you can make tension wrenchs, picks, rakes, snakes, balls-picks, double ball-picks, waffer sets, diamon sets and other simple dipass tools (such as cabinet knife picks or lock shims) out wood, bone or even leather (these materials however do not last nearly as long as our modern 550 carbon steel). with these tools you should be able to pick locks (at least) with the -2 (maybe even with out?).

one more note. i cant remember were but there is a statement in one of the books about how having something once it is needed, it say something like "even if you are thrown naked into a cell you can fasion a lock pick out of some loose hair and dried blood". im not sure how well it would work in real life but hey this is fantasy!
if i can find the exact line and from what book ill let you know.
FrotzMe
07-09-07, 05:46 PM Right after it says you can use simple weapons, it says "usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick". I agree that you could probably justify your interpretation according to RAW, but I disagree that it is RAI... which is what I think any reasonable DM would use as the benchmark for everything in BoED.

I will admit to a bit of polemic hyperbole; my concept for the character involves two daggers, and perhaps a light crossbow (but more likely, a sling). It might be argued that at 1d6/1d6, the quarterstaff is in fact a better choice; but the utility of the dagger belies that stance.

Be that as it may, I disagree with your interpretation of RAI. To begin with, if the rule were meant to limit VoP characters to Kwai Chang Caine status, it would have been easy to edit the sentence down to simply read "You may carry and use...a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick." The middle portion of that sentence was included for a reason, and that reason was to include the broader category of weapons available. Further, the sentence begins "You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons". If the intent was to limit the volume of the character's arsenal, that could easily have been rendered as "an ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapon".

if i can find the exact line and from what book ill let you know.

That would be really cool. Thanks!

For everyone else who has contributed on this thread, I thank you sincerely for your input. You've given me some rock solid arguments, examples, and ideas to help present my case. I do believe a valid argument can be made for the equitable allowance of the rogue's right to carry and use makeshift theives' tools (albeit at a -2 penalty), in light of the spellcaster's component pouch. Tui, I particularly like your line "If a VoP Wizard is able to carry around a piece of wire, so should a VoP Rogue." I'm definitely including that.
Krusk
07-09-07, 06:33 PM heh - that's certainly true, but you have to draw a line somewhere. If you're going to stretch the fabric of reality any way you chose, you might as well say that you can stick your finger in the keyhole and turn the lock - why bother with tools at all?

... look at my first suggestion.
nameneeded
07-09-07, 07:46 PM I can understand the part re the simple weapons but as you read the rest of the sections on VoP it seems clear to me that you are allowed 1 simple weapon. carrying more than that means you have wealth. I mean you can only carry 1 days worth of food! So I think your are using the words to defeat the spirit of the VoP. But thats between you and your DM.

For me the whole point of VoP is that you own NOTHING of value. Otherwise what seperates you from and 1-3rd lvl low magic world character?

As for using other people stuff the rules are clear that you cannot use or borrow MAGIC items. They can use them on you. (Spells, potions, wands etc.) But you cannot "borrow" that Cloak of Protection and agree to give it back tomorrow. Non magic items are fine. Otherwise you would have to avoid taverns as you "borrow" thier cups, chairs, plates etc. That said tech you could borrow someone else's non magic picks. I would borrow a pin and take the circumstance bonus though. Heck a pin is something that you can have. Its holding your tunic up. :D
Rulebook
07-09-07, 09:55 PM the willfull accumulation of troves of mundane, simple things is still the seeking of wealth, just not opulence.

a couple weapons okay. bristling... no.
runestar
07-09-07, 10:29 PM VOP was simply meant as an alternate source of eq, nothing more. It was probably designed for people who wanted to rp philanthropist-type characters, but it is kind of hard to achieve this credibly when your PC is decked out from head to toe in magic gear whose net value is enough to upset the economy of a small town. However, it is not feasible to play a character without eq either, since magic gear is an integral part of your character's power lv. So VOP becomes the best compromise.

In light of this, I would make an exception for thieves tools. Or at least an improvised one. :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FrotzMe 07-08-07, 12:44 AM	Vow of Poverty states "you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions..."; obviously, not among the listed exceptions are "thieves' tools". Under the descriptions of both "Disable Device" and "Open Lock", it states "the effort requires at least a simple tool of the appropriate sort". However, they both go on to say that attempting the action without using a "set of theives' tools imposes a -2 circumstantial penalty on the check, even if a simple tool is employed." (my emphasis added). The first part appears to lay down a hard and fast rule - you gotta use some sort of tool - which would appear to violate the Vow of Poverty. The second part seems to suggest, however, that the attempt can be made without the use of a simple tool ("even if"). Now, I always look at the realistic application of rules when trying to resolve inconsistencies. Realistically, you gotta have some sort of tool (even if it's just a piece of wire) if you're gonna try to pick a lock. However, just as realistically, it's nearly impossible to get through life without using anything but those few exceptions listed in the description for Vow of Poverty - a bowl to eat out of (or to use begging for alms), a blanket to sleep under, maybe even a needle to repair your robe. So my question - does using a simple, impromptu tool to "Open Lock" or "Disable Device" (albeit taking a -2 circumstantial penalty) violate Vow of Poverty? Alternatively - Vow of Poverty permits the possession of a Spell Component Pouch (utterly useless for non-casting classes). Could you see allowing an ascetic rogue to possess a a set of theives' tools?
runestar 07-08-07, 12:58 AM	Well, you are allowed a spell component pouch, and I am sure that if you look hard enough, there are bound to be some spell components which can double as thieves tools....:P
GalaGalaxia 07-08-07, 01:00 AM	What does your DM say? Ultimately, it's up to your DM. Regular thieves' tools -- ya, they violate VoP. Some makeshift cheapo things? Not necessarily.
Krusk 07-08-07, 01:19 AM	You could use something like a makeshift bobby pin and a bit of wire you found in the trash. Then just take the -2. I hope your DM dosnt say that violates the vow. If so, grow your fingernails long, and trim them into the needed shapes. It would be pretty cool, and might actually possibly work. Maybe.
FrotzMe 07-08-07, 01:19 AM	Well, you are allowed a spell component pouch, and I am sure that if you look hard enough, there are bound to be some spell components which can double as thieves tools....:P That is freakin' brilliant; never crossed my mind. Thanks!
FrotzMe 07-08-07, 01:22 AM	What does your DM say? Ultimately, it's up to your DM. Yeah, I'm just kinda fishing for any and all possible arguments before I present my case. I'm loving the 'spell component' angle, and as you said, makeshift throwaway junk shouldn't violate.
FrotzMe 07-08-07, 01:24 AM	If so, grow your fingernails long, and trim them into the needed shapes. It would be pretty cool, and might actually possibly work. Maybe. heh. maybe if I grow my hair long and braid it really tight...
ShinAkuma2 07-08-07, 03:06 AM	I get the feeling that a Vow of Poverty Rogue wouldn't be the type to know much about opening locks, or would have given that up upon taking his exalted vows. Worst case, you simply borrow something from a teammate, like a dagger or some such thing.
FrotzMe 07-08-07, 01:17 PM	I get the feeling that a Vow of Poverty Rogue wouldn't be the type to know much about opening locks, or would have given that up upon taking his exalted vows. Maybe that's the way you'd play it, but this rogue uses all the natural talents Praised Deity gave him to advance the cause of good against the forces of evil in this world... Worst case, you simply borrow something from a teammate, like a dagger or some such thing. Ah, but even borrowing a restricted item violates the Vow - "you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions..." The feat description even specifically addresses the issue of "borrowing". Be that as it may, this rogue has his own daggers, thank you very much. One of the exceptions allowed is that "you may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons". So, he's bristling with daggers, crossbow, morningstar, and a spear or two; might even pick up some gauntlets... Hey, gotta do something with all that rogue starting capital, before he turns over the unused balance to the local Mother Teresa. Remember, the description of the Sacred Vow states that "you have willingly given yourself to the service of a good deity or cause, denying yourself an ordinary life to serve your highest ideals." Really, this is no different than a paladin answering the call - just following that call in a slightly different (and more austere) direction. Paladins answer the call by training at arms; this person answered the call by learning the rogue's craft.
Heros_Backpack 07-08-07, 02:46 PM	So why not simply say that one or more of those daggers is long enough and thin enough to slide into a lock and use that to pick it?
ShinAkuma2 07-08-07, 06:00 PM	Be that as it may, this rogue has his own daggers, thank you very much. ...So then why bother asking the question? You've got improvised tools. Go with it.
FrotzMe 07-08-07, 06:22 PM	...So then why bother asking the question? You've got improvised tools. Go with it. Because if I were DMing, I'd have a hard time swallowing the idea of picking a lock with a dagger. And have a 'dagger' specifically shaped to function as a pick is just distorting the rules beyond reason.
KurenaiYami 07-08-07, 06:35 PM	I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet, but there is a skill trick in Complete Scoundrel that lets you pick locks without tools and with no penalty.
ShinAkuma2 07-08-07, 09:57 PM	Because if I were DMing, I'd have a hard time swallowing the idea of picking a lock with a dagger. Why not? It works in real life.
FrotzMe 07-09-07, 12:02 AM	I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet, but there is a skill trick in Complete Scoundrel that lets you pick locks without tools and with no penalty. hmmm. I found the Skill Trick "Cleaver Improviser", which allows you to ignore the -2 penalty when not using theives' tools, but the implication seems to be that you still need some sort of improvised tool (as normal).
FrotzMe 07-09-07, 12:07 AM	Why not? It works in real life. I'd like to see a demonstration of that. Might be able to use a dagger as an improvised tension bar, but it'd be useless as a rake (and no way you'd be able to work two daggers in the same keyhole, anyway). Aside from jamming the dagger in the lock and forcing it open (and then we're looking at brute strength rather than skill), I really can't see any way an ordinary dagger would work.
Krusk 07-09-07, 01:39 AM	I can't see anyway a man can wave his arms and call forth legions of undead, but it can happen in DND. Just say he has an exceptionally long thin dagger that does piercing damage. Something like so http://www.bakaneko.com/howto/computer/intro_maya/02_dagger_ref.bmp
theplaidknight 07-09-07, 02:36 AM	It sounds to me like you should have put this on the Character Optimization boards. To your first question, no. To your second question, no. "he's bristling with daggers, crossbow, morningstar, and a spear or two; might even pick up some gauntlets... Hey, gotta do something with all that rogue starting capital, before he turns over the unused balance to the local Mother Teresa" ... WHAT?! Are you serious? What is a Vow of Poverty, anyway? The suggestion that you could carry around a spell component pouch, even if, since you're a rogue, you're not a spellcaster, is preposterous. Doing so would constitute a blatant go-around of the rules, known better as metagaming. I know I've been called small-minded recently, and with a little reason, but come on. Seriously. Think about what you're suggesting.
Aleolus 07-09-07, 03:47 AM	Possibly, but why in the world would a Rouge take VoP anyway? Aren't most Rouges out to get cash and treasure, not give it away?
runestar 07-09-07, 06:30 AM	Possibly, but why in the world would a Rouge take VoP anyway? Yeah. Who knows what those clump of powders are up to anyways...;) Aren't most Rouges out to get cash and treasure, not give it away? Well, you can have a LG rogue, so an exalted one shouldn't be that far of a stretch.
pupilofyah 07-09-07, 08:45 AM	Well, you are allowed a spell component pouch, and I am sure that if you look hard enough, there are bound to be some spell components which can double as thieves tools....:P yes but not expensive spell components. simple tools should be ok and you could talk to the DM about allowing something like the exalted strike to apply here for the party's sake. this feat is not meant to screw over the player(there is even a block for the DM about that) but to give a different option.
Rulebook 07-09-07, 09:29 AM	did you say "Bristling with weapons"? methinks you dont quite get the point of the feat...
FrotzMe 07-09-07, 02:54 PM	I can't see anyway a man can wave his arms and call forth legions of undead, but it can happen in DND. heh - that's certainly true, but you have to draw a line somewhere. If you're going to stretch the fabric of reality any way you chose, you might as well say that you can stick your finger in the keyhole and turn the lock - why bother with tools at all? It sounds to me like you should have put this on the Character Optimization boards. the way this thread has devolved, I can certainly appreciate that point of view. however, this started out as a simple request to comment on apparent rule conflicts. WHAT?! Are you serious? What is a Vow of Poverty, anyway? "Dead(ly) serious." Vow of Poverty is from the Book of Exalted Deeds. Without violating copyright, I'll summarize - You agree to not use or possess most material possessions, in exchange for which you are granted progressive bonuses. These bonuses are basically replacements for what a character might expect to receive from the use of magic items a typical character would get over the course of his progression; things like progessive bonuses to AC (since they can't use armor) and attack bonuses (since they can't use magic weapons), feats, and feat like abilities. Seriously. Think about what you're suggesting. The suggestion is merely that a rogue should have the same access to the tools of his trade (albeit at a -2 penalty) as a spellcaster. Looking to the permissibility of a spell component pouch is simply a way of extending the rule to accommodate a character class that was perhaps overlooked when the feat description was written. yes but not expensive spell components. Yeah, but for picking locks and such (particularly the warded locks typical of this technology level) you really don't need much more than a bit of wire, or some other sort of stiff, curved (or curvable) material. this feat is not meant to screw over the player I wholeheartedly agree. methinks you dont quite get the point of the feat... Quite on the contrary, I think that perhaps you are not thoroughly understanding it. The point of the feat is not to turn your character into a beggar on the streets of Calcutta. Rather, it is to allow a character the opportunity to serve the greater Good in a way that eschews fixation on material possessions. With Vow of Poverty, the character is an instrument of Good, empowered to fight the forces of Evil. That character is not capable at a whim of changing allegiance (breaking the vow forever loses the benefits), or concentrating his efforts on his personal prosperity. It is strict in a way that perhaps exceeds the paladin. And in order to serve as an effective instrument in the eternal struggle with Evil, the character needs access to the tools of his trade. As such, he is allowed to carry and use ordinary simple weapons to further that cause. Frankly, I don't see any conflict in this at all. The one thing that bothers me is the apparent restriction on tool use, which seems overly broad and ill conceived.
Demoyn 07-09-07, 03:10 PM	I know I'm a bit more of a lax DM, but personally, I'd say that you can have anything out of chapter 7 of the PHB that costs less than a gold. Even people that have taken the Vow of Poverty require clothing, silverware, ect. Included in this, of course, would be makeshift thieves' tools. Technically speaking, anything that a minorly skilled crafter can make with no overhead (such as arrows or makeshift wire) should be completely within the realm of acceptability.
tarkin 07-09-07, 03:14 PM	I see nothing wrong with makeshift tools. The -2 penalty should be required, but besides that, it looks good to me.
tui 07-09-07, 03:55 PM	I think your improvised tool for -2 is fine. A common material component for spells is "a short piece of copper wire" (Message or Sending), which could easily be used for picking locks and the like. If a VoP Wizard is able to carry around a piece of wire, so should a VoP Rogue. FWIW, I think your interpretation of "you may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons" as permitting you to be "bristling with daggers, crossbow, morningstar, and a spear or two; might even pick up some gauntlets..." is more problematic. Right after it says you can use simple weapons, it says "usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick". I agree that you could probably justify your interpretation according to RAW, but I disagree that it is RAI... which is what I think any reasonable DM would use as the benchmark for everything in BoED. Anyway, I don't mean to derail your thread.. if your DM approves of it, that's all that really matters.
rkun 07-09-07, 04:58 PM	personally, i think since your can "carry and use simple weapons". wich means you can use a heavy crossbow (50gp), i see nothing wrong with allowing a set of theives tools (30gp). but if your DM says no on the set of tools you can make tension wrenchs, picks, rakes, snakes, balls-picks, double ball-picks, waffer sets, diamon sets and other simple dipass tools (such as cabinet knife picks or lock shims) out wood, bone or even leather (these materials however do not last nearly as long as our modern 550 carbon steel). with these tools you should be able to pick locks (at least) with the -2 (maybe even with out?). one more note. i cant remember were but there is a statement in one of the books about how having something once it is needed, it say something like "even if you are thrown naked into a cell you can fasion a lock pick out of some loose hair and dried blood". im not sure how well it would work in real life but hey this is fantasy! if i can find the exact line and from what book ill let you know.
FrotzMe 07-09-07, 05:46 PM	Right after it says you can use simple weapons, it says "usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick". I agree that you could probably justify your interpretation according to RAW, but I disagree that it is RAI... which is what I think any reasonable DM would use as the benchmark for everything in BoED. I will admit to a bit of polemic hyperbole; my concept for the character involves two daggers, and perhaps a light crossbow (but more likely, a sling). It might be argued that at 1d6/1d6, the quarterstaff is in fact a better choice; but the utility of the dagger belies that stance. Be that as it may, I disagree with your interpretation of RAI. To begin with, if the rule were meant to limit VoP characters to Kwai Chang Caine status, it would have been easy to edit the sentence down to simply read "You may carry and use...a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick." The middle portion of that sentence was included for a reason, and that reason was to include the broader category of weapons available. Further, the sentence begins "You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons". If the intent was to limit the volume of the character's arsenal, that could easily have been rendered as "an ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapon". if i can find the exact line and from what book ill let you know. That would be really cool. Thanks! For everyone else who has contributed on this thread, I thank you sincerely for your input. You've given me some rock solid arguments, examples, and ideas to help present my case. I do believe a valid argument can be made for the equitable allowance of the rogue's right to carry and use makeshift theives' tools (albeit at a -2 penalty), in light of the spellcaster's component pouch. Tui, I particularly like your line "If a VoP Wizard is able to carry around a piece of wire, so should a VoP Rogue." I'm definitely including that.
Krusk 07-09-07, 06:33 PM	heh - that's certainly true, but you have to draw a line somewhere. If you're going to stretch the fabric of reality any way you chose, you might as well say that you can stick your finger in the keyhole and turn the lock - why bother with tools at all? ... look at my first suggestion.
nameneeded 07-09-07, 07:46 PM	I can understand the part re the simple weapons but as you read the rest of the sections on VoP it seems clear to me that you are allowed 1 simple weapon. carrying more than that means you have wealth. I mean you can only carry 1 days worth of food! So I think your are using the words to defeat the spirit of the VoP. But thats between you and your DM. For me the whole point of VoP is that you own NOTHING of value. Otherwise what seperates you from and 1-3rd lvl low magic world character? As for using other people stuff the rules are clear that you cannot use or borrow MAGIC items. They can use them on you. (Spells, potions, wands etc.) But you cannot "borrow" that Cloak of Protection and agree to give it back tomorrow. Non magic items are fine. Otherwise you would have to avoid taverns as you "borrow" thier cups, chairs, plates etc. That said tech you could borrow someone else's non magic picks. I would borrow a pin and take the circumstance bonus though. Heck a pin is something that you can have. Its holding your tunic up. :D
Rulebook 07-09-07, 09:55 PM	the willfull accumulation of troves of mundane, simple things is still the seeking of wealth, just not opulence. a couple weapons okay. bristling... no.
runestar 07-09-07, 10:29 PM	VOP was simply meant as an alternate source of eq, nothing more. It was probably designed for people who wanted to rp philanthropist-type characters, but it is kind of hard to achieve this credibly when your PC is decked out from head to toe in magic gear whose net value is enough to upset the economy of a small town. However, it is not feasible to play a character without eq either, since magic gear is an integral part of your character's power lv. So VOP becomes the best compromise. In light of this, I would make an exception for thieves tools. Or at least an improvised one. :)