Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Staple 04-08-07, 05:36 PM	Vow Poverty is one of those feats that almost any class can take, but really shines in the only a few, one of them being monk. One thing that Vow of Poverty says is that the one who takes the vow cannot use a magical weapon (among other things). Now, monks have the option of taking Improved Disarm as a bonus feat. If my Vow of Poverty Paladin/monk makes a successful disarm attempt with his unarmed strike, the Player's Guide says that the weapon winds up in his hand. My question is, if the paladin/monk uses the freshly swiped weapon on his next attack, does this count as a breach of the Vow? Obviously he could still use his unarmed strike, but I don't know if using the weapon is an option.
Shadowhowler 04-08-07, 06:56 PM	Hm... I would say if the stolen weapon is anything more then a comon weapon, IE if it's masterwork or Magical, then no, you wouldn't use it. You can toss it behind you and procede to pummel said unarmed bastered... and unless he has Improved Unarmed Strike himself, if he tries to respond via fists, pummel him some more with your AoO. Yum
bobothechimp 04-08-07, 07:04 PM	Vow of Poverty explicitly states you can't borrow items that break the vow even for a round, so I would have to say no.
StruckingFuggle 04-08-07, 08:42 PM	I would say that as long as you don't USE it in the combat, you can hold on to it, to keep HIM from using it or picking it up... but you can't use it, and once he's defeated, it goes with the rest of the loot.
Perseus_Stoned 04-08-07, 08:49 PM	Mechanically, no, it has too much room to be broken under certain circumstances, but flavor wise absolutely. Assuming it goes under "loot" or the like, there's no real reason you'd be breaking the vow's purpose by using such a weapon. What you have to be careful about is non-proficiencies and the like... and if I was your DM I'd have your enemies take note and maybe use a flunky wielding a cursed weapon every now and then ;) If you use the weapon beyond the encounter I'd say you break your vow, but beyond that it seems kosher. Just... make sure your DM is forgiving if you completely wreck an encounter due to it.
DarkflameX 04-08-07, 09:48 PM	id say that as long as you dont make an attack with the weapon its fine.
Rulebook 04-09-07, 01:15 AM	i'd say you dont always have to be holding it. just knock it out of his hands and you're fine.
Krusk 04-09-07, 09:26 AM	I would say you could not attack with the weapon, but you could take it. Just disarm and grab the weapon, and then kick for your unarmed strike.
Witch 04-09-07, 09:34 AM	Flavorwise, I'd say you could use the weapon just fine, as long as you go to sell or give it to charity immediately. I'm not sure how to deal with this mechanically, though.
Merestil Haye 04-09-07, 09:36 AM	I would say that as long as you don't USE it in the combat, you can hold on to it, to keep HIM from using it or picking it up... but you can't use it, and once he's defeated, it goes with the rest of the loot.I agree with this. An alternative would be to drop the weapon; it's a free action to do so, and remember it falls into your space, which means to grab it he has to enter your space, opening up all sorts of opportunities for mayhem on his person.
starfire311 04-09-07, 09:39 AM	Flavorwise, I'd say you could use the weapon just fine, as long as you go to sell or give it to charity immediately. Exactly, the flavor of VoP should not be, that you devlop a phobia or alergy to anything that has material value, it could easily be that you feel that you don't need material wealth, and that it is better used by charitable organizations... this flavor in no way prevents you from hitting a bad guy with a weapon you just took from him. I'm not sure how to deal with this mechanically, though. this is the big question, would it be broken to allow this tactic, yes it is clear that the mechanics in BoED prohibit you from using the weapon, but it is my opinion that that was not the intent, I aslo think that sense VoP is in general a weak strategy, I would allow this occasionally, but if it is clear that the player is just trying to find a loophole in VoP, then that is something to discuss with the player.
runestar 04-09-07, 09:58 AM	What if the weapon had some constant ability, like energy resistance or something? Wouldn't the monk benefit from it, albeit unwittingly?:D
Ian0311 04-09-07, 10:45 AM	I say this, disarm and state that you're throwing it to the ground IMMEDIATELY after you disarm (or, better yet, knock it out of your enemy's hand(s)). I would talk this over with your DM before hand, though, as to not end up with a broken vow. Either way, your enemy has to pick it up and provokes an AoO; so you win.
e7way 04-09-07, 12:35 PM	Holding the wepon in your hand and USING the weapon are 2 different things. Holding any magic item for the purposes of transporting or disarming the oppenent does not break your vow, gaining benefit from using said weapon IS however the vow breaker. When my monk with VOP ends his adventures i always take a share of treasure from my party but i immediately take it to a temple or monastary or church for its distribution to the poor how else is it going to get there? As long as the character doesnt use the items properties then or gain a benifit from the item you should be ok. If you disarm an oppenent you musnt use the sword to attack or gain benifit from any magiacal properties on the sword, so to be safe id drop right away or toss it to a friend if you DM allows it.
Witch 04-09-07, 02:03 PM	Holding the wepon in your hand and USING the weapon are 2 different things. Holding any magic item for the purposes of transporting or disarming the oppenent does not break your vow, gaining benefit from using said weapon IS however the vow breaker. Why? If you're holding it, you might as well use it until you get a chance to give it to charity.
Ian0311 04-09-07, 03:06 PM	Why? If you're holding it, you might as well use it until you get a chance to give it to charity. That is a direct violation of the vow.
Witch 04-09-07, 03:23 PM	That is a direct violation of the vow. Tell me what the difference is between holding an item and attacking with it, with regards to the spirit of the vow. "Oh sure, I can hold everything I want! I can't do anything with it though, because I don't believe in material wealth." I don't believe whoever it is that grants the benefits of Vow of Poverty, or those who take it, are stupid enough to believe that while holding an item is fine, using an item is not. Either both are out of line, or none of them is. That's the only two options that maintain the spirit of the vow without being utterly ridiculous.
starfire311 04-09-07, 03:29 PM	Tell me what the difference is between holding an item and attacking with it, with regards to the spirit of the vow. "Oh sure, I can hold everything I want! I can't do anything with it though, because I don't believe in material wealth." I don't believe whoever it is that grants the benefits of Vow of Poverty, or those who take it, are stupid enough to believe that while holding an item is fine, using an item is not. Either both are out of line, or none of them is. That's the only two options that maintain the spirit of the vow without being utterly ridiculous. especially if it is an item that grants a benefit to anyone that "holds" even if they don't use it, and how would the VoP character even know it was magical.
Ian0311 04-09-07, 03:58 PM	especially if it is an item that grants a benefit to anyone that "holds" even if they don't use it, and how would the VoP character even know it was magical. It's the principle; a VoP character would make every effort to NOT utilize material possessions beyond what he is allowed and would never knowingly use an item that grants a passive bonus nor would he hold on to an item longer than he has to use it. What Witch suggested was a violation of the vow because it involved the use of an item that is prohibited by VoP. He can hold the item all day long and all night long, but ACTUAL USAGE or KNOWING BENEFIT of these items is forbidden due to the vow. If it's a longsword, it's not an approved weapon and therefore shouldn't be used. If it's a club that turns out to be magical later (he doesn't know at the time), then that's ok, but he has to not benefit from the club from that point on.
Witch 04-09-07, 03:59 PM	What Witch suggested was a violation of the vow because it involved the use of an item that is prohibited by VoP. He can hold the item all day long and all night long, but ACTUAL USAGE or KNOWING BENEFIT of these items is forbidden due to the vow. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Come on, think this through. Try to catch the spirit of a vow of poverty, rather than the exact text.
Ian0311 04-09-07, 04:32 PM	Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Come on, think this through. Try to catch the spirit of a vow of poverty, rather than the exact text. What's hypocritical about it? Unless he actually owns it (breaks the vow), he could hold on to it, but using it would be against the SPIRIT of the vow (and it would also break the vow, as you know).
Witch 04-09-07, 04:39 PM	What's hypocritical about it? Unless he actually owns it (breaks the vow), he could hold on to it, but using it would be against the SPIRIT of the vow (and it would also break the vow, as you know). Why would using it be against the spirit of the vow? The vow's spirit is "Instead of using material wealth, I should be redistributing it among the poor." Now, tell me what is the difference in spirit between actually holding a disarmed sword and using it. On a further note, to go into what you said earlier, imagine the following situation. VoP Character disarms a club. He uses the club. Then, the disarmed character says "Hah, it's magical." "Dear god", says the VoP character. "I can't use that!" and he throws it away. That's a situation you believe that ought to happen. I don't.
T_Stalker 04-09-07, 04:52 PM	"A character who swears a vow of poverty cannot own magic items, but he gains certain spiritual benefits that can help outweigh the lack of those items." I would see no problem having a character walking around unarmed all the time and having him use his enemies' weapons against them. I really loved the one scene in Hercules, the series, where Iolus asks Herc why he doesn't carry a weapon. He then attacks the big guy and get's disarmed, only getting the response: "I like letting the other guy carry it for me." That one and the line "Nothing beats experience." :) (That actually just about sums up all good things I really recall from that show.) I'd let him use it just for the encounter. On a side note, imagine a char with VOP and the feat that lets him use improvised weapons at no penalty. Would anyone have a problem with picking up a random heavy, obviously expensive looking item laying around in the room and proceeding to beat the crap out of bad guys with it. Examples could include, but are not limited to: horseshoes of a zephyr, adamantium door, the royal scepter, a really thick book with golden pages (Tome of ...), ... Just as long as there's a cool oneliner at the end, followed by the nonchalant dropping of said item, or putting it in the donation bag for the charity cause of the moment, I say it should be fine.
Perseus_Stoned 04-09-07, 06:56 PM	What's hypocritical about it? Unless he actually owns it (breaks the vow), he could hold on to it, but using it would be against the SPIRIT of the vow (and it would also break the vow, as you know). Not true; the spirit is using your wealth to help the poor- in no way does taking someone else's sword (for a short term benefit) constitute "hoarding" wealth. The only issue here is mechanical, it is fine flavor-wise.
Empiro 04-09-07, 08:00 PM	Not true; the spirit is using your wealth to help the poor- in no way does taking someone else's sword (for a short term benefit) constitute "hoarding" wealth. The only issue here is mechanical, it is fine flavor-wise. Short versus long term has nothing to do with the feat. The feat also states that you can't borrow something, even for just 1 turn. By your interpretation, it would be OK, if after the battle, they loot the cloak of resistance/belt of giant strength from the fallen foes, and so long as the person says that "oh no, I'm not hoarding this, I'll give it to the poor as soon as we reach the next town", then he can wear and benefit from those items all he wants. With respect to magical items -- don't forget that all magical weapons and armor are masterwork, so you should be able to tell as soon as you pick one up.
Witch 04-09-07, 08:05 PM	and so long as the person says that "oh no, I'm not hoarding this, I'll give it to the poor as soon as we reach the next town", then he can wear and benefit from those items all he wants. Yep, provided he actively heads to look for a town.
Empiro 04-09-07, 10:56 PM	Yep, provided he actively heads to look for a town. I've finally had a chance to re-read the feat. Here is an excerpt, and it pretty much renders the who "own" vs "use" debate moot: Book of Exalted Deeds: To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions:... Emphasis mine of course. There you go--if you disarm someone, you can't use the weapon unless it's a simple, non-masterwork weapon. You also cannot use any loot you recover, even if you intend to give it away.
starfire311 04-09-07, 11:04 PM	I've finally had a chance to re-read the feat. Here is an excerpt, and it pretty much renders the who "own" vs "use" debate moot: No one here is debating the mechanics, it has been said repeatably, what mine and I believe witches and perseus' contention is that using the item is in no way against the flavor of the VoP. Ofcourse the mechanics say you can't but the mechanics are rediculous, because the mechanics do not support the flavor. It is like if the mechanics for a Monks abilities said they could only be performed while heavily encumbered and wearing heavy armor... no one could debate that is what the mechanics are, but the flavor would sure suck... yes this is Hyperbole.
Empiro 04-09-07, 11:15 PM	No one here is debating the mechanics, it has been said repeatably, what mine and I believe witches and perseus' contention is that using the item is in no way against the flavor of the VoP. Ofcourse the mechanics say you can't but the mechanics are rediculous, because the mechanics do not support the flavor. It is like if the mechanics for a Monks abilities said they could only be performed while heavily encumbered and wearing heavy armor... no one could debate that is what the mechanics are, but the flavor would sure suck... yes this is Hyperbole. One issue is that your interpretation of the "spirit" too easily lets one escape the limitations imposed by the feat. The spirit of the feat in my mind is that someone with the feat goes out and intends to prove that one needs not possess nor use any material goods and possessions in order to fight and defeat evil.
Perseus_Stoned 04-09-07, 11:23 PM	Short versus long term has nothing to do with the feat. The feat also states that you can't borrow something, even for just 1 turn. By your interpretation, it would be OK, if after the battle, they loot the cloak of resistance/belt of giant strength from the fallen foes, and so long as the person says that "oh no, I'm not hoarding this, I'll give it to the poor as soon as we reach the next town", then he can wear and benefit from those items all he wants. This would be perfectly acceptable, provided his intent is just that. This still sticks fine to the spirit of the feat, its still the mechanics which you have to take into consideration when deciding such a thing is balanced or not. To Empiro (post #1): Damn... starfire and his fingers of magic beat me to it. The spirit of the feat in my mind is that someone with the feat goes out and intends to prove that one needs not possess nor use any material goods and possessions in order to fight and defeat evil. This is not the spirit of the feat at all, which is surprising considering you just claim to have read it. The spirit of the feat is to better others through giving them wealth and so enlighten yourself. While I would agree your interpretation is correct for a neutral or evil character, in the case as its written (unless there is text to dispute this; all I have is my interpretation on having read it extensively) that would be wrong.
Earthcrosser599 04-09-07, 11:39 PM	The VoP character has declared, in character and out, that he is forsaking certain things. Trying to use one of those prohibited things you just took from someone else is declaring that your vow is subject to what you feel like doing at a given moment. Going back on your vow because it's convenient is out of character for anyone who has taken the feat.
Neutronium_Dragon 04-09-07, 11:39 PM	Since the spirit of the vow is to not benefit personally from material possessions, simply holding the thing after you've disarmed it isn't a problem as long as he doesn't actually use it himself. (Nothing prevents a VoP character from carrying the sack of gold that the wealthy noble is donating to the church from the manor to the chapel, either - he just can't spend it himself.) If the thing has some "while held..." property then the character will need to put it away, throw it away, or at least drop it once he becomes aware of that. (If he doesn't know or at least suspect that there's such a property then he shouldn't be penalized for that - violating the VoP requires conscious choice.)
Perseus_Stoned 04-09-07, 11:49 PM	The VoP character has declared, in character and out, that he is forsaking certain things. Trying to use one of those prohibited things you just took from someone else is declaring that your vow is subject to what you feel like doing at a given moment. Going back on your vow because it's convenient is out of character for anyone who has taken the feat. Book of Exalted Deeds (pg31): "While taking upon the burden of poverty voluntarily, an ascetic recognizes that many people do not have the freedom to choose poverty, but instead have it forced upon them, and seeks to better those unfortunates as much as possible." No where does it say you give up using material items to gain power, it simply says this power is a by-product of taking the vow (pg29, last paragraph). Going by strict RAW "owning or using possessions" means using a weapon to win a fight is grounds to immediately lose your feat. Going by RAW (in general) it conflicts since, as quoted above, you actively seek "to better those unfortunates as much as possible". To not use an item in a case where it would benefit your mission (and perhaps save lives) would also give you grounds to lose your feat. All-in-all its your DM's call, on what works mechanically for him, as well as how RAW abiding he is. However, just to clarify, the portion I quoted shows that the spirit of VoP is intended to represent self-sacrifice and do good for others. You are not doing it in exchange for power and to think so is foolish; you do it for the greater good and if the greater good is for you to use a weapon to finish off an enemy... well than that abides by the spirit of the feat.
Tichondrus 04-09-07, 11:56 PM	responding the original post: I'd say that as long as you don't know the weapon is imbued, you can. Just use it, if you realize it's magical, let it go
Krusk 04-10-07, 01:23 AM	If you are willing to let your monk carry the weapon and use it until he gets to a church that leads down the path of a player saying, "oh no not this church i wanted to wait for a poorer town to give it to, ill hold onto it a bit longer..." I think it was put in there just to avoid situations like that. Cant use it ever, not even once. the clause is probably simply because there needed to be line somewhere, and so they picked that spot for simplicity.
Perseus_Stoned 04-10-07, 02:51 AM	...that leads down the path of a player saying, "oh no not this church i wanted to wait for a poorer town to give it to, ill hold onto it a bit longer..." ... That is not true and an incredibly biased statement.
starfire311 04-10-07, 08:41 AM	I think it was put in there just to avoid situations like that. Cant use it ever, not even once. the clause is probably simply because there needed to be line somewhere, and so they picked that spot for simplicity. I agree that this is probably why the put the line where they did, if they allowed you to follow the spirit of the character, there would be too many loopholes for munchkins to exploit. However it is my opinion, that no VoP character would try to exploit a loophole in a rule, even if he found a loophole he would still adhere to the intent, heck one could argue that he would fall from exalted status if he did try to exploit a loophole.
Krusk 04-10-07, 11:57 AM	I agree, no character would do that. unfortunatly many untrustworthy players would. Most of the people playing VOP characters should be mature enough to understand the roleplay reasons and restrictions, but plenty of them are not. They probably realized that plenty of players will try to do it, even subconsciously. especially the ones who should not be playing a vop character in the first place. BAsically they needed to make the feat work crunch wise, and hope people understood the fluff part.
e7way 04-10-07, 12:32 PM	Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Come on, think this through. Try to catch the spirit of a vow of poverty, rather than the exact text. Spirit of the vow?? OK then, ill give you an actual situation then and you ask me what spirit of the vow is. We are in the Bloodstone campaign. We are going through the first Bloodstone module. Banak a 23rd level cleric shows up in our village with his undead army our group of 6 characters shows up to fight him we are only 17th level. We send our armies out to fight his undead, so we can concentrate all of our parties energy on Banak. Banak is wearing some amulet of orcus which renders him impervious to all spells and physical attacks our melee fighters go out to attack him he laughs and starts casting spell after spell at the party, killing one after another. DM is grinning everyone in the party is really confused and getting ******. DM starts to feel bad for party has one of them make a spot check. Character notices amulet surges with power every time Banak gets hit. Players realize he's getting the power from the amulet. Since half the group is dead or incapacitated and there is no way for 2 of the characters to get to Banak and get to the amulet. Its up to my LG, VOP, Monk to do the job. But with your interpretation my monk is will just have to sit there and watch Banak kill the whole party because he cant touch magic items? Not to mention the downfall of the whole village of Bloodstone (population of 2000 and most are poverty stricken). Now tell me does that seem to fit the ideals of a LG, VOP, monk? I cant do anything about it because of the spirit of the rule says that i cant touch a magic item. No way my friend, they worded it in the book the way they did just for this kind of purpose i believe. Someone said in a post that a monk picks up a club and starts to use it and later finds out that its magical. THAT would be to me a violation! If the monk is smart he looks at his mage and says "please good sir can you possibly check to see if that club is magical". To quote a great comic book "with great power comes great responsibility."
Witch 04-10-07, 01:01 PM	But with your interpretation my monk is will just have to sit there and watch Banak kill the whole party because he cant touch magic items? Not to mention the downfall of the whole village of Bloodstone (population of 2000 and most are poverty stricken). No, my interpretation is that your monk could actually use the amulet instead of just taking it in his hand. That is, if using the amulet isn't an evil act upon itself. Someone said in a post that a monk picks up a club and starts to use it and later finds out that its magical. THAT would be to me a violation! If the monk is smart he looks at his mage and says "please good sir can you possibly check to see if that club is magical". To quote a great comic book "with great power comes great responsibility." I sincerely doubt that quote originates from a comic book. And I also doubt what responsibility is relevant about the disarming and then using of a magical item in combat.
Krusk 04-10-07, 02:52 PM	quotes from the spiderman movie, dont think it was actually in the comic book though. I would say your monk can grab the amulet, but cannot use any of the abilities for himself. He can even put it on, to free up his hand, but not activate it. He then immediatly drops it off in a donation basket. Maybe after purifying the evil in it somehow.
Snaeferu 04-10-07, 04:39 PM	You should read the feat one more time. . . The feat specify says that; you may not, however, "borrow" a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round. Clearly that also includes "borrowing" from enemies, pets, friends, lovers, class mates, acquaintances or whatever. Also, it singles out what you may or may not carry.
Slagger the Chuul 04-10-07, 05:11 PM	The thing about using magical items for just a little while is really a slippery slope. Every time you grab the opponent's weapon (or other item) and use it, you're relying on that power, and that reliance is what goes against the vow. Given time, you (as a character) might easily come to think that it might be best to hold a particular item "just for a little longer" so that you can help the next segment of the downtrodden, and before long you're not acting like a character with a vow of poverty at all. Deliberately tempting yourself and nudging the borderline on your ideals isn't what an ascetic charatcer (or any exalted character) should be about. In order to deal with some of these problems, I've previously devised a variant where an ascetic's devotion to non-use of such items is so strong that they cannot make personal use of magical items at all. The item technically remains magical, but its effects simply do not apply to the ascetic.
starfire311 04-10-07, 07:07 PM	In order to deal with some of these problems, I've previously devised a variant where an ascetic's devotion to non-use of such items is so strong that they cannot make personal use of magical items at all. The item technically remains magical, but its effects simply do not apply to the ascetic. I have thought about doing this aswell, perhaps the magic that imbues his vow somehow overrides any magic item that he holds and he can no longer make us of them, but then it would not be a vow. Kinda like the vow of chasitity, you can be well, this doesn't really count, or it was necessay to overcome evil, if you want to keep your vow you must remain chaste. IMO inorder for the to be a vow it must be a conscious decision by the character to adhere to it and he must overcome temptation.
Staple 04-11-07, 01:07 PM	Interesting that there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut answer. The Paladin/Monk in question is actually an NPC in a campaign I'm running. As a DM, I like to check on rules before I implement them, just to make sure that players can reasonably expect what I'm throwing at them--no Halfling grapplers with Powerful Build, etc. My interpretation (at least how I would use it in my game) is that Saint Luxor (the Paladin/Monk in question) could disarm an opponent and use the weapon, but only against that opponent--the flavor aspect of this action is that he is showing the opponent what it's like to be on the receiving end of such a weapon. It is meant as a taunt to show the opponent the folly of his ways, how using magical weapons is needless and usually cruel and unfair. Using the weapon against another foe would be doing what he is condemning the first for. Saint Luxor would be explicitly informing the disarmed foe of his reasoning as well, rattling off a litany of reasons why such a device is unnecessary and uncivilized, essentially asking him how he likes the sting of a magic blade, and doesn't this make him want to renounce their use. After this was accomplished, Luxor could leave off of striking the foe with his own weapon further, either discarding the weapon or holding it out of that particular foe's reach. I would not constitute this as a violation of the vow. Essentially, I would say that using a disarmed foe's weapon while under Vow of Poverty is acceptable as long as the player can justify it and the use of said weapon does not extend beyond the current encounter. I posted this thread to see if there was any sanctioned answer to the question; as there is not, I would say it is up to a DM to decide. The fine line here is that the character is not "borrowing" but instead "taking." He is not asking for the item from a willing compatriot, but rather taking the item in order to educate another in superfluousness. As long as the stolen weapon is used for this purpose, I see no problem. Incidentally, using the weapon beyond the current encounter is incompatible with this reasoning.
Witch 04-11-07, 05:14 PM	In order to deal with some of these problems, I've previously devised a variant where an ascetic's devotion to non-use of such items is so strong that they cannot make personal use of magical items at all. The item technically remains magical, but its effects simply do not apply to the ascetic. Sounds like the best way out.