Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Deckinhand 01-04-08, 03:37 PM	Happy New Year. I'm wondering about the possessions limitations for Vow of Poverty from the Book of Exalted Deeds. I'm trying to get a sense of the consensus on the limitations. The language RAW on page 48 are quite broad: "To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions: You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic or masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick. You may wear simple clothes (usually just a homespun robe, possibly also including a hat and sandals) with no magical properties. You may carry enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag. You may carry and use a spell component pouch. You may not use any magic items of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf--you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly. You may not, however 'borrow' a cloak of resistance or any other magic item froma companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff." It strikes me that this description can be interpreted in a variety of ways. It seems that notions of possession and use can be very tricky. I'd like to pose a few scenarios along these lines—some clearer, it seems, than others. I realize that some of these scenarios might beg the same or similar questions/game rules as others. I’m sure we’ll come up with better hair-splitting examples, but here is where I’ve started. A. The language on page 48 of BoEDis quite broad: subject to some exceptions, “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions . . ..” If VoP character carries something, does she possess it, breaching the vow? If she moves it, does she possess it in a way that violates the vow? B. A VoP character certainly could not take ownership of a castle. Is she using a castle that happens to be protecting her from the storm outside? When invited to dinner with the King, can she even attend attend? Can she use the King’s material possessions associated with the dinner such as the chair, utensils, plate, bowl, mug, etc.? If invited to stay the night, may she sleep in (use) the bed? Are these types of restrictions intended by the rules? C. Similarly, if the VoP character finds a key in a dungeon, may she use it in the lock in which it was found? May she even hold the key and, if so, could she take it for possible later use? D. Also similarly, can she tip over a table and use it as cover in battle? Can she use a chair she finds as a makeshift shield? Is this different than picking up the shield of a slain opponent and using that for the duration of the battle? Does it make a difference if that shield happens to be magical? (It seems that it might.) E. Suppose the party is dividing up the treasure and the VoP character wishes to take her share so that she may donate it (as described on page 30-31 of BoED). Can she carry (but not use) the gold, magic items, and other useful items that are her share? The rules clearly intend this use. F. Can the VoP character carry (but not use) the possessions of a fallen comrade to return them to his people? The rules clearly say “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions . . .” of which the above is not one listed. Does this violate the vow? If yes, Is the difference here merely that one use is listed on pages 30-31 as acceptable and the other use is not listed specified? G. Can a VoP character ride another party member's horse? Is there a difference between riding the horse alone or riding with another party member? Clearly, the rules permit the VoP character to ride someone's Ebony Fly. But is riding someone's horse different? H. Can a VoP spellcaster cast Mount, Phantom Steed, or Valiant Steed? (Sanctified 6, page 110 BoED)? These spells summon a mount for various durations. Does the duration make a difference? Valiant Steed puts a Unicorn or Pegasus into the caster’s service for up to a year. I. Can a VoP character even handle (in the skill sense) an animal? Animals are often considered possessions as they can be owned and purchased. Is handling an animal the same using a material possession? It seems unlikely that the rules are intended to let the VoP character purchase an animal. What about taming a wild animal or traveling or working with one? J. Can a VoP druid call an animal companion? Animals are often considered material possessions in the game. They can be purchased and owned. Would calling an animal companion be using a material possession? K Can a VoP character’s animal companion wear armor? If so, can the it only wear “found” armor, or can the party buy armor for the companion? It seems likely that the VoP character cannot buy armor for her animal companion. L. Can a VoP character bind an adversary with rope she finds in the room? Can she bind the adversary with vines? Would conjuring the rope or vines make a differen Thanks for your consideration. ---Deckinhand
Esgay 01-04-08, 04:10 PM	Ultimately it's the DMs call, personally I would allow the a VoP character to carry someones possessions on their behalf with no penalty so long as they get no benefit, for example they could carry a friends umbrella if their friend asked them to so long as they don't use it to shelter from the rain. As for the animal issue I'd allow a VoP character to have an animal companion so long as they didn't pay anything for it, essentially the creature must accompany them of their own free will.
dman11235 01-04-08, 11:31 PM	Yay! Nice and ordered! A: Not necessarily (will be answered in later answers). B: Yes, those are not owning the item. If someone invites you in for a drink, do you claim ownership of their house? C: I don't see why not. It's not like you own the key or the house/dungeon it's in. Think of it like a manager in a dinner or a cafe. The opener/closer needs keys to lock/unlock the shop. That doesn't mean they own it. D: No, you can't, but only because of balance issues. Shield is definitely out. There is a pretty specific list of things you can have. E: Yes, you said yourself, the rules intend this. Now, you may not carry a luck stone or something similar to donate later, as you gain the benefits while carrying it. F: See E. G: Why would it be different? H: Why not? They aren't material possessions. I: Animals are not possessions! Any animal rights advocate will tell you that, and even though they can be bought and sold, they are not possessions. It's not like you use that weasel familiar as a bat. You don't do that, right? J: See I. And this one is even more clearly a 'yes'. K: No. Even though your animal wears it, it's your armor. L: Depends. I say yes, as long as you don't claim the rope. And vines are a definite yes, and spells even more so.
Tsuul 01-05-08, 04:19 AM	You are missing all the fun of the feat. Try it and find out.
Deckinhand 01-05-08, 03:41 PM	You are missing all the fun of the feat. Try it and find out. Not sure I agree with that assessment. The fun is in the roleplaying that accompanies the feat, if players don't have some sense of the lines, it will be difficult to roleplay properly AND once it's gone it's gone and no one will be roleplaying it. I actually think it's worth dissecting the feat a bit. Especially since RAW it says that you may not "own or use".
archerpwr 01-05-08, 06:35 PM	The way I interpret it is that your wealth must be practically nothing. Say, a total wealth of less than 10 gp. Unless you are in ownership of something it wouldn't count against your 10 gp limit.
Tedronai 01-05-08, 06:50 PM	Technically, purely by RAW, if a VoP character ever even picks up a Luckstone, even without knowing what it is, they lose the benefit of the feat FOREVER. If you plan on using this feat in a game, make sure such loopholes are thoroughly closed, first. Make sure you and the DM (or you and the player) are as clear as possible about what will be allowed, and what will not be, and/or have the DM warn the player that an action would violate the Vow during the game, before that player's character actually goes through with it (allowing them to change their proposed course of action appropriately).
Tsuul 01-05-08, 06:50 PM	What exactly are you looking for? RAW or common adjudications? You and your DM need to exercise common sense when using this feat. It is POORLY written. If you want to run it through a computer then these are the following answers. A. The language on page 48 of BoEDis quite broad: subject to some exceptions, “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions . . ..” If VoP character carries something, does she possess it, breaching the vow? ***It's not broad, its explicit. Carry = possession (the two are used interchangeably), it would breach. If she moves it, does she possess it in a way that violates the vow?***Move an object = carry = breach. B. A VoP character certainly could not take ownership of a castle. Is she using a castle that happens to be protecting her from the storm outside?***A computer would say you are using the castle. When invited to dinner with the King, can she even attend attend?***Yes, up until you mentioned the whole using the castle thing, so no. Can she use the King’s material possessions associated with the dinner such as the chair, utensils, plate, bowl, mug, etc.?No. If invited to stay the night, may she sleep in (use) the bed?No. Are these types of restrictions intended by the rules?Computer says "Define "intent", unknown quantity". I say yes and no. C. Similarly, if the VoP character finds a key in a dungeon, may she use it in the lock in which it was found?***"To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions:..." Is that one of the exceptions? No. May she even hold the key and, if so, could she take it for possible later use?***Again, no. D. Also similarly, can she tip over a table and use it as cover in battle? Can she use a chair she finds as a makeshift shield?***No. Is this different than picking up the shield of a slain opponent and using that for the duration of the battle?***No. Does it make a difference if that shield happens to be magical? (It seems that it might.)***No. E. Suppose the party is dividing up the treasure and the VoP character wishes to take her share so that she may donate it (as described on page 30-31 of BoED). Can she carry (but not use) the gold, magic items, and other useful items that are her share? No. The rules clearly intend this use.Intend? Someone else needs to carry it. F. Can the VoP character carry (but not use) the possessions of a fallen comrade to return them to his people?The rules clearly say “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions . . .” of which the above is not one listed. Does this violate the vow?It would violate. If yes, Is the difference here merely that one use is listed on pages 30-31 as acceptable and the other use is not listed specified? There is no acceptable use listed on 30-31. It is another dilemma the VoP needs to overcome. G. Can a VoP character ride another party member's horse?No. Is there a difference between riding the horse alone or riding with another party member? No.Clearly, the rules permit the VoP character to ride someone's Ebony Fly. But is riding someone's horse different?Yes, go figure. H. Can a VoP spellcaster cast Mount, Phantom Steed, or Valiant Steed? (Sanctified 6, page 110 BoED)? Sure.These spells summon a mount for various durations. Does the duration make a difference? Valiant Steed puts a Unicorn or Pegasus into the caster’s service for up to a year.Anything mention a time limit? I. Can a VoP character even handle (in the skill sense) an animal? Animals are often considered possessions as they can be owned and purchased. Is handling an animal the same using a material possession? Yes. It seems unlikely that the rules are intended to let the VoP character purchase an animal. What about taming a wild animal or traveling or working with one?Working with, as in a mule is plowing the field and your going to help? No on all accounts. J. Can a VoP druid call an animal companion? Animals are often considered material possessions in the game. They can be purchased and owned. Would calling an animal companion be using a material possession?FAQ answer. A familiar, special mount, or animal companion isn’t a material possession, and thus a character with Vow of Poverty isn’t restricted from gaining the benefits of such creatures. K Can a VoP character’s animal companion wear armor? If so, can the it only wear “found” armor, or can the party buy armor for the companion? It seems likely that the VoP character cannot buy armor for her animal companion.Despite what anime shows. Animals don't like armor. But yes it can wear armor if it choses to do so. The VoP character can not make such decisions for the animal. L. Can a VoP character bind an adversary with rope she finds in the room? ***No. Can she bind the adversary with vines?***No. Would conjuring the rope or vines make a differen***Does the spell bind the character or must the VoP "use" the item" If you want to play it the way it was intended then do the following: Use common sense. (Which, btw, would make most of the answers I gave above wrong. All answers with *** are most likely reversed.) Here is some excellent advice from the FAQ: Remember that the Vow of Poverty feat, like most of the material found in Book of Exalted Deeds, is intended for mature campaigns that are capable of handling difficult role-playing issues—it’s not intended for most hack-and-slash games. A cleric who must give up his holy symbol (effectively preventing him from turning undead or casting any spell that requires a divine focus) could be a very interesting challenge for a player who’s “done it all” and wants to try something unusual.
Kapalen 01-05-08, 07:05 PM	Just say everything you have is a weapon, and then use them that way. That's not a key, it's a small sickle, and I'm attacking that lock with it. It's not a chair it's a club that I'm wielding with my butt and attacking the floor with. Also, I can't see how you could be penalized for a table giving you cover, RAW or intended, it just happens to be between you and the guy attacking you.
runestar 01-05-08, 09:00 PM	The idea of the feat is simply to serve as an alternative source of magic eq. As such, you effectively forswear the use of normal gear in exchange for the benefits of said feat. I think this would be a suitable guideline to follow. Basically anything you can access using gold (barring the small list of eq you are allowed), you are disallowed under VOP.
Red_Wizards_Rock 01-07-08, 03:03 PM	Technically, purely by RAW, if a VoP character ever even picks up a Luckstone, even without knowing what it is, they lose the benefit of the feat FOREVER. No, BoED says you still can take your part of the treasure and than disperse it out to the needy and to charity. So picking up a magical item and putting it in your pocket isn't going to take the feat away. Only if you keep the magical item or use it instead of selling it first chance you get, and maybe second chance if it slips your mind. A. The language on page 48 of BoEDis quite broad: subject to some exceptions, “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions . . ..” If VoP character carries something, does she possess it, breaching the vow? If she moves it, does she possess it in a way that violates the vow? No because you can still take your part of the treasure for charity only if you claim it and use it would you lose the vow. B. A VoP character certainly could not take ownership of a castle. Is she using a castle that happens to be protecting her from the storm outside? When invited to dinner with the King, can she even attend attend? Can she use the King’s material possessions associated with the dinner such as the chair, utensils, plate, bowl, mug, etc.? If invited to stay the night, may she sleep in (use) the bed? Are these types of restrictions intended by the rules? No, Going into a castle for dinner or sleeping in a castle you were invited into is not against your Vow of Poverity it's not your castle. Using someone elses chair utensils, plate, bowl and mug is not goint to take it away. If the king says you may sleep the night in one of my rooms than sure it's ok. He's offering you lodging for the night. He's not making you pay for it. C. Similarly, if the VoP character finds a key in a dungeon, may she use it in the lock in which it was found? May she even hold the key and, if so, could she take it for possible later use? Yes, you could hold the key and carry the key. A key is valueless and if it does turn out to be worth something than sell it, for charity or the needy. D. Also similarly, can she tip over a table and use it as cover in battle? Can she use a chair she finds as a makeshift shield? Is this different than picking up the shield of a slain opponent and using that for the duration of the battle? Does it make a difference if that shield happens to be magical? (It seems that it might.) Yes, you can do those things also. Picking up a shield (not knowing it's magical) isn't going to take it away as far as you know it's a regular shield. E. Suppose the party is dividing up the treasure and the VoP character wishes to take her share so that she may donate it (as described on page 30-31 of BoED). Can she carry (but not use) the gold, magic items, and other useful items that are her share? The rules clearly intend this use. Yes, you may carry the loot just not use it F. Can the VoP character carry (but not use) the possessions of a fallen comrade to return them to his people? The rules clearly say “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions . . .” of which the above is not one listed. Does this violate the vow? If yes, Is the difference here merely that one use is listed on pages 30-31 as acceptable and the other use is not listed specified? Yes, it's because you aren't using or claiming the items. I'm just going to assume you have a good aligned god, and assume he's not an A**. G. Can a VoP character ride another party member's horse? Is there a difference between riding the horse alone or riding with another party member? Clearly, the rules permit the VoP character to ride someone's Ebony Fly. But is riding someone's horse different? Yes, you can ride someone elses mount with or without someone. No, you can't own one because that is an amount of wealth. Although should you get a mount through class feature that mount doesn't have a value or if the mount is intelligent such as a Unicorn. Than you could ride it alone without fear. H. Can a VoP spellcaster cast Mount, Phantom Steed, or Valiant Steed? (Sanctified 6, page 110 BoED)? These spells summon a mount for various durations. Does the duration make a difference? Valiant Steed puts a Unicorn or Pegasus into the caster’s service for up to a year. Yes, you could use those, but Valiant Steed sounds like an awful spell for a good guy to have. Sense you are pretty much forcing the animal to serve you. I. Can a VoP character even handle (in the skill sense) an animal? Animals are often considered possessions as they can be owned and purchased. Is handling an animal the same using a material possession? It seems unlikely that the rules are intended to let the VoP character purchase an animal. What about taming a wild animal or traveling or working with one? I'd say the moment you tie your pet up or say "my (insert pet here)" than it becomes a material possession if you caught it in the wild. Also tying it up assumes you don't want your pet to run away. As long as the animal can leave whenever it wants to it'd be ok. J. Can a VoP druid call an animal companion? Animals are often considered material possessions in the game. They can be purchased and owned. Would calling an animal companion be using a material possession? Yes, Druid pet is a class feature, and it's still wild it wants to be with you. K Can a VoP character’s animal companion wear armor? If so, can the it only wear “found” armor, or can the party buy armor for the companion? It seems likely that the VoP character cannot buy armor for her animal companion. No, it can not wear armor, because the animal companion can't claim the armor and put it on. I'd be considered your armor even if you got another party member to put it on for you. L. Can a VoP character bind an adversary with rope she finds in the room? Can she bind the adversary with vines? Would conjuring the rope or vines make a differen Yes, you could use stuff you find to restrain someone, because it's not yours. ----- These questions seemed over the top for someone who wanted to play the Vow of Poverty character.
Legdiwena 01-07-08, 09:43 PM	One thing I noticed, you talked about using a shield. Aren't shields restricted, regardless of their magical-ness?
dman11235 01-07-08, 10:53 PM	Yes, they are.
cthuluspawn 01-07-08, 11:42 PM	I have similar questions on the VoP. Sorry if im hijacking your thread, but I thought they where along the same lines. Specifically I was thinking about the tried and true VoP Monk with a twist, Tatooed Monks and Drunken Masters. If you can only carry one days drink, how much does a drunken master drink in one day? (I just thought it would be funny to have to constantly be begging people for drinks.) If only simple weapons are allowed, what about improvised weapons? Theoreticly an improvised weapon would have even less value than a simple one. (i.e. a broken bottle) Are Tatoos Possessions? Is there a cost associated in getting tatooed? On one hand they are merely physical manifestiations of class abilities. On the other, logic ditcates that they didnt just appear overnight, someone had to incribe them. Assuming they are and you take the VoP after taking the class, would you have to have them flayed off your skin first?
dman11235 01-08-08, 12:37 AM	1: That's up to interpretation. 2: Sure. And it's a +x ad possibly holy improvised weapon. I'd say a rock you pick up or a broken bottle is worth nothing. 3: They have no cost. Does it say they do? Because if it does, I must have missed it.
Burdell 01-09-08, 03:28 PM	C: I don't see why not. It's not like you own the key or the house/dungeon it's in. Think of it like a manager in a dinner or a cafe. The opener/closer needs keys to lock/unlock the shop. That doesn't mean they own it. D: No, you can't, but only because of balance issues. Shield is definitely out. There is a pretty specific list of things you can have. I agree with most of your assessments, but I would add a caveat to C and quibble a bit with D. C: While there is obviously possibility here to "abuse" this by carrying a jewel covered key through the whole dungeon, I don't really see a lot of problem with this since (1) you are in fact allowed to carry wealth around to donate later, and (2) you are obeying the spirit of the Vow because frankly, carrying money around in the dungeon doesn't do a heck of a lot for you. Wealth is meaningful only when you can exchange it for something useful/decadant/etc., i.e. back at town. At that point, I'd expect the VoP character to either be making tracks towards the temple for a donation or turning it over to a fellow party member or something. Tsuul, however, did make an interesting argument that you would have to get someone else to carry things for you, including prospective donations. D: I'd allow them to hide behind a table, and even pick up a chair to use as an improvised shield because the VoP *does* allow "simple" weapons like a quarterstaff. I'd put most improvised weapons into that category, as you usually take penalties using them and they do low damage. I'd agree shield use is out. In fact, I'd go a bit beyond the strict interpretation of the VoP rules. If the party has to cross a desert and has to carry 5 days food with them, I'd say the VoP character should cheerfully volunteer to carry their share. If the party is making a speed run over the mountains with packs full of magic broadswords to save the village from oncoming orcs, I'd allow the VoP monk to carry a pack like the rest, though I wouldn't penalize him if he asks to rearrange the loads so he has the camp gear instead. Even this fairly generous interpretation, though, should not have him routinely carrying a bunch of the parties gear, even though he may benefit from them catching food, making camp, buying passage on a ship, etc. This makes the arrangement unequal enough that IMHO there must be a certain amount of party consensus on having such a character in the group. In general, though, you don't see the penniless-but-honorable monks this concept is based on shirking obligations and trying to get others to do all the work, which is what the Tsuul-computer interpretation would require. While I think he is correct in his literal interpretations of the RAW, I think (and I believe he would agree) that those interpretations would be both impractical in play and go against the intent of the VoP concept.
Legdiwena 01-09-08, 03:38 PM	From my interpretation, the vow doesn't prevent him from reimbursing the party if he has to bum food from them or pay for them to stow items too heavy for him in their Bags of Holding for transport to town.
JooceBocks 01-11-08, 10:58 AM	A. The language on page 48 of BoEDis quite broad: subject to some exceptions, “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions . . ..” If VoP character carries something, does she possess it, breaching the vow? If she moves it, does she possess it in a way that violates the vow? -I find Tsuul to be correct in that it is explicit. I feel everything else stated about it to be incorrect though, even by a computer standpoint. It says, "To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use". It does not say you may not carry. To own means "to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full claim, authority, power, dominion." To use means "to avail oneself of; apply to one's own purposes." To carry means "to take or support from one place to another; convey; transport". While possession and carry may be used interchangeably by people, they are in fact 2 different words with different definitions(even though "possess" was not one of the words used, only "own or use"). B. A VoP character certainly could not take ownership of a castle. Is she using a castle that happens to be protecting her from the storm outside? When invited to dinner with the King, can she even attend attend? Can she use the King’s material possessions associated with the dinner such as the chair, utensils, plate, bowl, mug, etc.? If invited to stay the night, may she sleep in (use) the bed? Are these types of restrictions intended by the rules? -The rules give a specific example of an exception, "you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you". Since this is an example and not the only item limited to this rule, then you just need to swap out the item in question with another. This allows the benefit of a castle if another person(s) is offering its use(but not ownership, since "to own" said item is not a valid exception). This also applies to use of utensils and the such inside said castle. C. Similarly, if the VoP character finds a key in a dungeon, may she use it in the lock in which it was found? May she even hold the key and, if so, could she take it for possible later use? -This is one tough example. As long as you do not "own or use" said key, then you should be fine. Using the key, however, may cause problems. You would technically have to have somebody open it for you since you may only benefit from items used on your behalf, not use them yourself. D. Also similarly, can she tip over a table and use it as cover in battle? Can she use a chair she finds as a makeshift shield? Is this different than picking up the shield of a slain opponent and using that for the duration of the battle? Does it make a difference if that shield happens to be magical? (It seems that it might.) -Technically, standing behind an object does not qualify as "using" said object. If it did, then any time you were behind any person/object you would use your vow. You can hide behind something for cover. This is assuming you did not have to use some sort of magic item to create said cover; although you still could hide behind cover created by an ally, even by magical means, since you would be benefiting from a magic item used on your behalf. She cannot use a chair as a makeshift shield nor the shield of a slain enemy. This would be considered using said item. E. Suppose the party is dividing up the treasure and the VoP character wishes to take her share so that she may donate it (as described on page 30-31 of BoED). Can she carry (but not use) the gold, magic items, and other useful items that are her share? The rules clearly intend this use. -She can carry, but not own or use, said items. Read my first statement for explanation. F. Can the VoP character carry (but not use) the possessions of a fallen comrade to return them to his people? The rules clearly say “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions . . .” of which the above is not one listed. Does this violate the vow? If yes, Is the difference here merely that one use is listed on pages 30-31 as acceptable and the other use is not listed specified? -Yes, carrying is, by all means, allowed by the vow. It states nothing about carrying; only using/owning are mentioned. G. Can a VoP character ride another party member's horse? Is there a difference between riding the horse alone or riding with another party member? Clearly, the rules permit the VoP character to ride someone's Ebony Fly. But is riding someone's horse different? -Yes, you may ride another party member's horse. You are benefiting from something used for your benefit from an ally, which a specific example of such is stated as permitted in the RAW. This means you may ride it alone or with the other party member(s), as long as said mount is not in any way being given ownership to you. You may only be given a benefit from it by use of another person. H. Can a VoP spellcaster cast Mount, Phantom Steed, or Valiant Steed? (Sanctified 6, page 110 BoED)? These spells summon a mount for various durations. Does the duration make a difference? Valiant Steed puts a Unicorn or Pegasus into the caster’s service for up to a year. -As long as said spellcaster does not have to use a magical item for said spells, then yes. There are no restrictions on spell use or how you may benefit from a spell. I. Can a VoP character even handle (in the skill sense) an animal? Animals are often considered possessions as they can be owned and purchased. Is handling an animal the same using a material possession? It seems unlikely that the rules are intended to let the VoP character purchase an animal. What about taming a wild animal or traveling or working with one? -You may handle an animal at any time. You may not "own" an animal. You may not purchase an animal. You may have an animal companion as long as it is not forced to do so. If you handle an animal well and it stays by your side per its own will, then you are not owning or using said animal; it is merely staying by your side as a party member would. Once you restrict said animal from leaving so you may maintain ownership you are breaking the vow. J. Can a VoP druid call an animal companion? Animals are often considered material possessions in the game. They can be purchased and owned. Would calling an animal companion be using a material possession? -As I recall, an animal companion is gained by befriending said animal, not owning or using it. It still has its own free will and is not in any way breaking the vow. K Can a VoP character’s animal companion wear armor? If so, can the it only wear “found” armor, or can the party buy armor for the companion? It seems likely that the VoP character cannot buy armor for her animal companion. -As long as full ownership is granted to the animal companion then it does not technically go against the character's vow. The character is not the one using or owning the item, the animal is. Technically, the VoP character may not buy the armor. Purchasing something grants you full ownership at time of purchase, even if it is as a gift for another; though the DM may use their own discretion for that one and say it was purchased as a free service for another living creature and not for use/ownership. L. Can a VoP character bind an adversary with rope she finds in the room? Can she bind the adversary with vines? Would conjuring the rope or vines make a differen -The character cannot bind an adversary with rope found in a room. This would involve a Use Rope check which involves "use" of the rope. The character may, however, use a simple, nonmagical, non-masterwork rope -like weapon to try to bind an enemy, since the use/ownership of said item would be allowed. The vine concept is an interesting one. This raises the question of whether or not the character is allowed to even pick up a rock and throw it; this one is left up to the perceptions of the DM. While being material, said things could likely just be viewed as aspects of nature and not actual "possessions". I can pick up a rock and throw it; that does not mean I own it. Conjuring the ropes and/or vines would make a difference. Since these would be spell effects there is technically no ruling against them. Well there's my 5 cents. This is my first post, quoting at that, so I hope I didn't mess anything up.
Legdiwena 01-11-08, 11:40 AM	I would say you can freely use anything that does not cost 1 gold or more. Simple weapons being an explicit exception to this rule.
Deckinhand 01-11-08, 09:09 PM	In many cases it really comes down, it seems, to whether "use" is any and all uses of things that can be possessions and whether possess=use.
JooceBocks 01-12-08, 12:27 AM	In many cases it really comes down, it seems, to whether "use" is any and all uses of things that can be possessions and whether possess=use. To possess is "to have as belonging to one; have as property; own". By definition possess is to own, not to use; however, this has little to do with this feat. The word possess is not used at all in the explanation for this feat. The feat states "To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions". The word "possessions" is used, not "possess". Possessions, in this context, means "property or wealth". So by defining that word the initial statement in this feat is as follows: "To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material property or wealth, with the following exceptions:". As you can see the statement does not state anything about the ability to "carry", which is then balanced out by prohibiting "borrowing" later into the explanation. The word "use" could probably use some better explaining if you want to be completely technical with the feat; however, through using common sense this should be easily manageable in 99.9% of cases. Like in the key example you stated, it seems to me that you would have to have one hell of a douche of a DM to assume that vowing to poverty would in any way prevent you from using a single key to open a door with good intentions.
Tsuul 01-12-08, 01:24 AM	[This is a side argument, and not necessarily how I believe VoP should be played. It is an interpretation of RAW] What form of the word being used was actually my first struggle in creating a reply to Deckinhand. VoP just does not play well with dissection. I believe the author to be using the following definition for "carry" Merriam Webster dictionary http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/carry 5: to get possession or control of What I did to come up with that reasoning was to substitute both definitions in for the word "carry" and see what works best throughout. Note that the second+ sentences all are exceptions to the first one, and should draw their meanings from it and vice versa. To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions: You may [move while supporting] and use ordinary (neither magic or masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick. You may wear simple clothes (usually just a homespun robe, possibly also including a hat and sandals) with no magical properties. You may [move while supporting] enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag. You may [move while supporting] and use a spell component pouch. You may not use any magic items of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf--you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly. You may not, however 'borrow' a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff. To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions: You may [get possession or control of] and use ordinary (neither magic or masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick. You may wear simple clothes (usually just a homespun robe, possibly also including a hat and sandals) with no magical properties. You may [get possession or control of] enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag. You may [get possession or control of] and use a spell component pouch. You may not use any magic items of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf--you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly. You may not, however 'borrow' a cloak of resistance or any other magic item from a companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff.
Red_Wizards_Rock 01-12-08, 01:43 AM	-The character cannot bind an adversary with rope found in a room. This would involve a Use Rope check which involves "use" of the rope. The character may, however, use a simple, nonmagical, non-masterwork rope -like weapon to try to bind an enemy, since the use/ownership of said item would be allowed. The vine concept is an interesting one. This raises the question of whether or not the character is allowed to even pick up a rock and throw it; this one is left up to the perceptions of the DM. While being material, said things could likely just be viewed as aspects of nature and not actual "possessions". I can pick up a rock and throw it; that does not mean I own it. Conjuring the ropes and/or vines would make a difference. Since these would be spell effects there is technically no ruling against them.. This is obviously wrong, because finding a rope doesn't make it your rope, and tying up a bad guy with a rope you found still doesn't make it your rope. Leting a VoP character tie someone up with a rope they found in a room would not break your vow.
JooceBocks 01-12-08, 11:21 AM	This is obviously wrong, because finding a rope doesn't make it your rope, and tying up a bad guy with a rope you found still doesn't make it your rope. Leting a VoP character tie someone up with a rope they found in a room would not break your vow. I know finding the rope does not make it yours, but the vow states "To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions". The rope may not be yours but you are still "using" it to tie up an adversary. Seeing as how such an item or use of an item is not indicated as one of the feats exceptions, doing so would violate the RAW.
CryoSilver 01-12-08, 11:28 AM	You could, however, use your belt to bind the enemy (and crappily made simple clothing does tend to include a belt, often as not, a piece of rope in itself) and then replace said belt with a bit more rope, use that rope since it is now part of your clothing... It may violate RAI, but it works. It doesn't necessariy even violate RAI if you just use the belt you are already wearing, presuming you have previously noted that you have a belt in the first place.
JooceBocks 01-12-08, 11:54 AM	[This is a side argument, and not necessarily how I believe VoP should be played. It is an interpretation of RAW] What form of the word being used was actually my first struggle in creating a reply to Deckinhand. VoP just does not play well with dissection. I believe the author to be using the following definition for "carry" Merriam Webster dictionary http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/carry 5: to get possession or control of What I did to come up with that reasoning was to substitute both definitions in for the word "carry" and see what works best throughout. Note that the second+ sentences all are exceptions to the first one, and should draw their meanings from it and vice versa. I find that changing the word "carry" in the definition to have a slightly less impact for this reason - even though the feat tells you that you may "carry" specific things, nowhere in the description does it tell you that you may not "carry" anything else. Despite using the words "use" and "carry" for nearly all of the listed exceptions the truly important sentence is the first, "To fulfill your vow, you may not OWN or USE any material possessions, with the following exceptions:". They state nothing about carrying. This means that even if I do use your second example, "get possession or control of", with possession equaling own in this context, the examples that say carry would simply be allowing me to own these things and use them instead of just transporting them and using them(either way I am using them so it is the same effect). This makes me laugh at the example stating, "You may carry enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag." Since the feat still has not put any limitations on what you are allowed to "carry"(still only own or use), this sentence does nothing because it does not tell you that you are actually allowed to "USE" or even "OWN" the food that you carry (unless I use the "get possession or control of" definition, then I am allowed to "own" it but still not technically allowed to "use" it). Luckily, following a later example in the description, you are allowed to benefit from items (in this case food) used on your behalf instead of starving to death at level 1. Every other example uses the word "use" and not just the word "carry" (even though they still for some reason do say "carry"). I am having fun with this feat discussion so lets keep it going.
JooceBocks 01-12-08, 12:04 PM	You could, however, use your belt to bind the enemy (and crappily made simple clothing does tend to include a belt, often as not, a piece of rope in itself) and then replace said belt with a bit more rope, use that rope since it is now part of your clothing... It may violate RAI, but it works. It doesn't necessariy even violate RAI if you just use the belt you are already wearing, presuming you have previously noted that you have a belt in the first place. The problem with this is that the RAW would still be technically violated. The RAW only allows you to "wear" simple clothing, it doesn't say anything about "using" or, funny enough, even "owning" your clothing. You could wear a rope as a simple belt, since the wearing of simple, nonmagical clothing is allowed, but you could not "use" that rope for any other purpose, since the "use" of rope is not stated in the exceptions. This is an example of where I would say "common sense">"technicality".
Ikyotojin 01-12-08, 12:07 PM	Wow... I've never seen a thread where people show what great lawyers they could be. A vow of poverty is based on similar vows in the real world. "You cannot own" means that you cannot claim as a personal possession, not that you can't use a key! That's hair splitting and you all know it. Using an item like a table or chair is not the same as claiming it. Wow. It's amazing the lengths people will go to to us a written rule rather than learn the intent behind it and just play a game. If I had to play with people who would argue rules like this I'd stop playing all together. You people would make sex depressing and so complicated no one would ever want to do it again!
CryoSilver 01-12-08, 12:13 PM	The problem with this is that the RAW would still be technically violated. The RAW only allows you to "wear" simple clothing, it doesn't say anything about "using" or, funny enough, even "owning" your clothing. You could wear a rope as a simple belt, since the wearing of simple, nonmagical clothing is allowed, but you could not "use" that rope for any other purpose, since the "use" of rope is not stated in the exceptions. This is an example of where I would say "common sense">"technicality". Don't the RAW also only say you can "carry" food, not eat it?
JooceBocks 01-12-08, 12:30 PM	Don't the RAW also only say you can "carry" food, not eat it? Yup. I actually discussed that in my post before the one responding to yours. It says you may "carry" food, which is unnecessary because the feat itself does not restrict the carrying of anything, only "use" and "own" are mentioned. This means that you are already allowed to carry food, the feat then unnecessarily mentions that you are allowed to carry food, but the feat never mentions that you are allowed to "own" or "use" the food. Luckily, using a later example in the feat, you are allowed to benefit from an item (this case food) used on your behalf. I guess you would need a party member to provide you food to prevent the RAW from starving you to death at the low levels.
CryoSilver 01-12-08, 12:32 PM	By Pelor, that may be the stupidest thing I have ever read. It's the feat's fault, not yours, but it blows my mind how amazingly DUMB that is.
JooceBocks 01-12-08, 12:41 PM	Wow... I've never seen a thread where people show what great lawyers they could be. A vow of poverty is based on similar vows in the real world. "You cannot own" means that you cannot claim as a personal possession, not that you can't use a key! That's hair splitting and you all know it. Using an item like a table or chair is not the same as claiming it. Wow. It's amazing the lengths people will go to to us a written rule rather than learn the intent behind it and just play a game. If I had to play with people who would argue rules like this I'd stop playing all together. You people would make sex depressing and so complicated no one would ever want to do it again! Well it's better to fully understand the limitations of an in-game rule before you start to process realism into it. We are pretty much discussing what is allowed for "use", not ownership. The rules state pretty clearly what you are allowed to "own". In a real life vow of poverty you should be allowed to use whatever you wish, as long as you do not own it. This would obviously be a broken game mechanic in which everyone would probably want this vow as long as they were in a party. Famous quote would be, "I don't own it, [party member A] owns it, I am just using it." Also, I just enjoy discussing technicality; I would personally use common sense in-game for this discussion. Here, however, I am going to attempt to use technicality to break down the RAW in a way that allows common sense to make full, accurate use of the feat.
JooceBocks 01-12-08, 12:50 PM	By Pelor, that may be the stupidest thing I have ever read. It's the feat's fault, not yours, but it blows my mind how amazingly DUMB that is. First, I have to say that I laughed at the, "By Pelor, that may be the stupidest thing I have ever read." comment. Secondly, I agree. The feat tells you that, "you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions:", but these exceptions seem to be stuck on informing you of what you are allowed to "carry", which has not been limited by the feat. If they simply took out the word "carry" in the examples and just stuck to "own" and "use" that were use in the limitation statement then they could have prevented so much of the confusion I have encountered with this feat.
CryoSilver 01-12-08, 01:01 PM	I don't really like Vow of Pverty; for all the words they used in it, it isn't very clear and requires a lot of DM adjucation for a very complicated feat.
JooceBocks 01-12-08, 01:22 PM	I don't really like Vow of Pverty; for all the words they used in it, it isn't very clear and requires a lot of DM adjucation for a very complicated feat. As for the Vow of Poverty, I really like the feat, but I agree it could use better wording. Most people will think of the word "carry" as "to move or transport"; however, using the lesser thought about definition, "get possession or control of", mentioned by Tsuul, gives much better meaning to the exceptions, seeing as how "possession" would be an equivalent of "own" in the given context. So using a lesser used, alternative definition to the word "carry" is the only way for most of the stated exceptions to actually have any meaning. Also, they should tell you that you own your clothing and not just permitted to wear it :P .
Deckinhand 01-12-08, 02:25 PM	First, I have to say that I laughed at the, "By Pelor, that may be the stupidest thing I have ever read." comment. Secondly, I agree. The feat tells you that, "you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions:", but these exceptions seem to be stuck on informing you of what you are allowed to "carry", which has not been limited by the feat. If they simply took out the word "carry" in the examples and just stuck to "own" and "use" that were use in the limitation statement then they could have prevented so much of the confusion I have encountered with this feat. Yes, but isn't it possible that the reason the exceptions list what other items the character may "carry" is because the rule assumes that "carrying" is a subsumed by "use." That is, the rule has to explicitly allow carrying because it's otherwise prohibited. This is one of the fundamental questions posed my examples and it, I think, has to be reckoned with before we can answer some of these questions.
JooceBocks 01-12-08, 03:23 PM	Yes, but isn't possible that the reason the exceptions list what other items the character may "carry" is because the rule assumes that "carrying" is a subsumed by "use." That is, the rule has to explicitly allow carrying because it's otherwise prohibited. This is one of the fundamental questions posed my examples and it, I think, has to be reckoned with before we can answer some of these questions. Well the rules explicitly state that it only affects what you can "own" or "use". This will only change in the RAW if an errata is created doing so. The word "use", by definition, does not appear to have any relation with the word "carry". The closest match appears to be defining "carry" as "possess" and then defining "possess" as "own". This would translate into everything on the exceptions list that you are allowed to "carry" actually being referred to as possessions you may "own". If they were intending to incorporate "carry" with "use" then every example where they state that you may "carry and use" said item would be pure redundancy. This all leads to the conclusion that to carry, in the sense of transporting without use or ownership, is not restricted by this feat. As a funny side note this means you can only transport what you can carry in your hands and fit into your one allowed food sack and spell component pouch, since the use or ownership of any other carrying tools (such as a bag, sack or pouch) are restricted by the feat.
DracoPhoenix 01-14-08, 12:00 PM	my £0.02: The key bits on "own or use": Own - to possess. It is open to debate if genuinly temporary possesion. Use - to interact with. Now the exceptions list seems to imply simple mundane / every day items are acceptable for use, though some ownership is tolerated. I think common sense would need to be applied. But you have to be honest with the nature of the feat - you effectively shun anything of significant fiscal value. Those expensive cutlery for example, you could make do with chopsticks (soup course excepting), so they're out. That said, the host's hospitality can be accepted - just point out you have dietry requirements (i.e. brown rice & bread etc). Bed room wise, can't really go sleep in the stables (ok, you can but if they put up a fuss...), but you can sleep on a simple pallet or bed roll and not the 4 poster bed. I think the easiest decider is: can you normally carry out said action using simple tools? If so, use them, otherwise you're in violation. At work atm, but will try to answer the examples later. Hmmm. How would a Kender with VoP work? :D
Selgard 01-14-08, 12:24 PM	I am going to go out on a limb here, and probably be labeled as Wrong by most of you. But here goes. the VoP is to be used by mature players. It's in a mature player book. It's Not a feat for the "How can i pull the wool over the Feat's wording, to screw it around" type of feat. That being said- lets please use some common sense. If the bad guy ties up the VoP'er and loops a Luckstone around his neck the player does Not instantly lose the benefits of VoP. If the player hefts his dead buddy over a shoulder and the buddy happened to have a Luckstone on him, the VoP does not lose the benefit of the feat. If the player stuffs a dead squirrel with a luckstone and then "carries the corpse" the player is CLEARLY violating VoP. Entering into someone else's house and using their silverware, partaking of their dinner, is Not violating VoP. (stealing the silverware though- is). Hopping on back of a friend on a horse, is ok The group having a "6th horse" who's only purpose is for your butt to ride on- is Not ok. Generally speaking- if the character is attempting to slick and slide around the spirit of VoP then the character fails. It doesn't require a rules lawyer to read the feat and know what it means. Just step back, read it, and stop trying to pick it apart.
DracoPhoenix 01-14-08, 01:08 PM	A. The language on page 48 of BoEDis quite broad: subject to some exceptions, “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions . . ..” If VoP character carries something, does she possess it, breaching the vow? If she moves it, does she possess it in a way that violates the vow? Carries = possesses = "owns" temporarily by the given standards. Moves = interact = use. The question is "if she move's it telekenectically..." B. A VoP character certainly could not take ownership of a castle. Is she using a castle that happens to be protecting her from the storm outside? When invited to dinner with the King, can she even attend attend? Can she use the King’s material possessions associated with the dinner such as the chair, utensils, plate, bowl, mug, etc.? If invited to stay the night, may she sleep in (use) the bed? Are these types of restrictions intended by the rules? Use of the castle for the purposes of shelter from a storm - provided no other suitable shelter is available (e.g. psychoportive shelter) could be acceptable. Dinner with a king - ask for dietry requirements and identify you beliefs prevent you from using anything beyond simple table ware. The king should be able to provide. If not, politely refrain from eating. Staying the night - technically, you should be on the floor, perhaps in a bedroll or simple pallet. Though weather permitting, you may be allowed to use a bed cover for insulation. (Though a true hitch hiker should have a towel and thus not need a blanket) These restrictions are intended for roleplay rules. Also, consider they Vow is a sacred one, not entered into lightly - you can't ignore it's precepts because they inconvenience you. (missing a meal, sleeping on the floor are not life or death situations and can be accommodated) C. Similarly, if the VoP character finds a key in a dungeon, may she use it in the lock in which it was found? May she even hold the key and, if so, could she take it for possible later use? A simple iron one, probably. Though you may want to declare to your providing power that you will not knowingly remove the key from the dungeon, or carry it more than is strictly needed. This is going to be one of those "Only if you're the only one" situations A fancy ornate one will probably be a no go. D. Also similarly, can she tip over a table and use it as cover in battle? Can she use a chair she finds as a makeshift shield? Is this different than picking up the shield of a slain opponent and using that for the duration of the battle? Does it make a difference if that shield happens to be magical? (It seems that it might.) Again, quality of the table might be a factor - a simple tavern table would probably be acceptable. Though you might want to move away from it as soon as possible. The shield, simple, MW or magical no - this bit's pretty clear. The shield has a pretty hefty value. Technically it's stealing (It clearly belonged to someone else - you just killed him). But that one just opens up a whole can of worms. In terms of value, consider most commoners get a few gold a year if they are incredibly lucky. You want to be working to a wealth value below that. So much more than a wooden buckler may not be good for your karma. E. Suppose the party is dividing up the treasure and the VoP character wishes to take her share so that she may donate it (as described on page 30-31 of BoED). Can she carry (but not use) the gold, magic items, and other useful items that are her share? The rules clearly intend this use. Magic items no - pretty clear on that too. I'd be inclined to ask them to make the donation for you. But the VoP frowns on ownership by proxy. I'd probably ask before the quest / campaign begins that they do so - negating direct acceptance of any value, even temporarily. F. Can the VoP character carry (but not use) the possessions of a fallen comrade to return them to his people? The rules clearly say “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions . . .” of which the above is not one listed. Does this violate the vow? If yes, Is the difference here merely that one use is listed on pages 30-31 as acceptable and the other use is not listed specified? I'd probably allow it on the sole condition that there was no one else in the party capable of carrying it. Otherwise, you should endevour to return the items to the appropriate host in the shortest possible time. "Praying for guidance" before hand wouldn't hurt as technically, you could probably get away with burying the items and bring someone back with you. G. Can a VoP character ride another party member's horse? Is there a difference between riding the horse alone or riding with another party member? Clearly, the rules permit the VoP character to ride someone's Ebony Fly. But is riding someone's horse different? Depends on the nature of the use. Ownership by proxy not withstanding. Overland travel would suggest walk. 2 per horse possibly, but only if lives are dependent on it. Other wise walk. Distance & speed are irrelevant. You took the vow, convenience is no excuse. H. Can a VoP spellcaster cast Mount, Phantom Steed, or Valiant Steed? (Sanctified 6, page 110 BoED)? These spells summon a mount for various durations. Does the duration make a difference? Valiant Steed puts a Unicorn or Pegasus into the caster’s service for up to a year. Yes - these magic "items" are conjured so they have no monetary value. Like soulmelds and mindblades, they are ~part of you. Considered class abilities with no cost. The better question is : Can I plane shift and cast genesis to create my own demi-plane. Technically it has no value (use the power if the spell has a costly material component). I. Can a VoP character even handle (in the skill sense) an animal? Animals are often considered possessions as they can be owned and purchased. Is handling an animal the same using a material possession? It seems unlikely that the rules are intended to let the VoP character purchase an animal. What about taming a wild animal or traveling or working with one? Tamed animals, probably not - once domesticated they have financial value. Wild animals probably - they are effectively they are their own creatures and own themselves. J. Can a VoP druid call an animal companion? Animals are often considered material possessions in the game. They can be purchased and owned. Would calling an animal companion be using a material possession? This is a class feature, magical or otherwise, unless there is a financial cost in acquiring one, I'd say it is acceptable. K Can a VoP character’s animal companion wear armor? If so, can the it only wear “found” armor, or can the party buy armor for the companion? It seems likely that the VoP character cannot buy armor for her animal companion. No. The animal is your responsibility. It was bestowed by nature due to your path in life. VoP is part of that life. The animal effectively belongs to you (but has no cost). So any barding (fancy term for animal armour) would belong to you. Re party buying - ownership by proxy not allowed. Though I think you may be pushing your luck to get VoP extended to it :) L. Can a VoP character bind an adversary with rope she finds in the room? Can she bind the adversary with vines? Would conjuring the rope or vines make a different? Rope may well fall under the simple mundane items (how else do you hold your trousers up?) Though I doubt magical (except spell base) or silk or anything better than hemp would be acceptable. Thanks for your consideration. ---Deckinhand[/QUOTE] Remember: Monetary value is allowed, but not beyond a very small value. Keep it simple. Ownership by proxy isn't allowed. Comfort & convenience make poor excuses. Only when solo - if the item is of use to the party, get someone to carry it. If it's just for your benefit, no. Unless no one else can carry it and it's vital to the quest.
Legdiwena 01-14-08, 01:26 PM	If you carry your friend's robe for him, do you own the robe? No, it's still your friend's robe, albeit in your possession at the moment. Carry, possess, and own are not synonymous in all cases, though they are similar. I don't see how eating at the King's table with same tools as everyone else or being put up in a bed in the castle would violate the feat. If it is something you would be charged for it would violate, but not if you are a guest. Carrying something with the intent of donating at first opportunity and not using it in any manner would not violate VoP IMO.
DracoPhoenix 01-14-08, 01:47 PM	If you carry your friend's robe for him, do you own the robe? No, it's still your friend's robe, albeit in your possession at the moment. Carry, possess, and own are not synonymous in all cases, though they are similar. I don't see how eating at the King's table with same tools as everyone else or being put up in a bed in the castle would violate the feat. If it is something you would be charged for it would violate, but not if you are a guest. Carrying something with the intent of donating at first opportunity and not using it in any manner would not violate VoP IMO. Re the robe - the example of "borrowing" wink wink, your friends cloak is given. While there's a difference between carrying and owning. You have to be really careful the powers that be don't interpret your actions otherwise. VoP is a lifestyle. You could no more refuse to use those nice silver forks as you could your friends horse. Especially if it meant you slowed the party up. You'll note the word "or" before "use" indicating ownership does not need to be yours before using it violates the code. The problem with carrying something to donate later is technically, even if only temporarily, you are in ownership of the treasure. The VoP allows no violation, not even temporary ones. While I agree common sense must be applied. I also think the feat is not for the feint of heart, especially when it's a case of simply "getting in the way" of the campaign.
Legdiwena 01-14-08, 04:08 PM	Wouldn't a moderate level monk move as fast as a horse and not slow the party down?
DracoPhoenix 01-14-08, 06:03 PM	Wouldn't a moderate level monk move as fast as a horse and not slow the party down? The point was more you can't use the horse even if it meant you all had to move at a walking pace. Think how tight some DMs get about the Paladins code and their interpretation of it. VoP is like that, only more strict. It's not intended for munchkindom and the DM is probably within his rights to come down hard on anyone trying. That said, doesn't mean the DM should roll a natural 20 for his profession(bar steward) check. A genuine mistake or unavoidable situation, while having a penalty, perhaps shouldn't be as terminal as you lose all your feats.
Chicago Gamer 01-14-08, 06:12 PM	Why is it everyone tries to find any way possible to break this feat? Try it out and use common sense as for what you can/can't use/carry. It's actually very simple. It's called vow of POVERTY!
DracoPhoenix 01-14-08, 06:29 PM	Why is it everyone tries to find any way possible to break this feat? Try it out and use common sense as for what you can/can't use/carry. It's actually very simple. It's called vow of POVERTY! Irony. Quite literally people (munchins to varying degrees) trying to get something for nothing. Generalising, it's from roll players seeing the benefits of the feat chain and trying to minimise the impact it has on their character's actions. Sorry if that was rhetorical.....
Deckinhand 01-14-08, 10:27 PM	Why is it everyone tries to find any way possible to break this feat? Try it out and use common sense as for what you can/can't use/carry. It's actually very simple. It's called vow of POVERTY! For the record, I did not start this thread with the purpose of breaking the feat. My set of questions were not designed misuse the feat, but rather to understand it in game terms. It's actually NOT very simple. It's a complicated feat, as many have suggested, that is for mature audiences. My hope was to have a discussion (the purpose of boards) about how it might be appropriate for players/DMs to include/use this feat. Because the feat is poorly/incompletely/confusingly/inconsistently/challengingly (take your pick) drafted, how people might appropriately play/DM this feat is not clear. This is a good place to discuss it. As we've seen, some people think you can "use" the key, someone else's horse, a table as concealment, etc. and others think you may not make these uses. Some people think that to "carry" is to "use" and others do not. Discussing these kinds game related questions neither makes you a munchkin or someone trying to break the feat. It does however, make you a part of a gaming community in which benefits from thoughtful discussion about game play, nuances of the game, complexity in the game, and fun.
JooceBocks 01-14-08, 11:56 PM	Well based on the direction things are going now I will only use a little more technicality for the sake of the raw then go into some more common sense. For technicality: While the word "carry" may appear associable to the words "own" and "use", you may only actually replace the word under the assumption that you are using a commonly shared definition. While "carry"="possess"="own", this means that "own" may be translated into the word "carry" when using the definition relating to "possess". You may not replace the word "own" and use the definition for "carry" that only implies the moving or transportation of an object, since that is not a solid definition of the initially used word. Now to be less technical and use a passage from the book combined with only slight technicality and more common sense. "Having a character in the party who has taken a vow of poverty should not necessarily mean that the other party members get bigger shares of treasure! An ascetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial. The majority of her share of party treasure (or the profits from the sale thereof) should be donated to the needy, either directly or indirectly (making a large donation to a temple noted for its work among the poor). While taken upon herself 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." Pages 30-31, Book of Exalted Deeds Based on this passage even common sense should conclude that the VoP character DOES in fact get a share of the treasure that the character may transport. If this were not the case then the character would be unable to make any donations no matter how much material wealth it deserved. Since the VoP must be "extreme" in her works of charity then I would also say she would not have to let another character transfer her hereby known as "donation funds" unless she knew with 100% certainty that the goods would be donated. This is the main reason why I was using the RAW to defend the VoP characters ability to "carry" items. I wanted to portray that the ability to carry items is not prevented by the feat, either being true to the RAW or using common sense. I will also apply that concept to carrying the robe of an ally. To carry the robe of another individual does not have to imply that I am using or owning it. The definition of carry that is being used here, "to take or support from one place to another", cannot be translated into "own" or "use". Also, through common sense, the difference between "carry" and "borrow" should be quite evident (transporting and temporary ownership are quite different indeed). You are neither owning or using anything in that instance, merely providing a service to an ally. I am quite sure being helpful is not prevented by the VoP. Now if this were a magic robe that gave you benefits merely by having it in your possession and you knew of this, then that would be a different story. Now I will try to defend the mount part of the discussion. It already says that you may benefit from items used on your behalf. It also states that the VoP character is knowing of her vow towards poverty and understands that others may be burdened by poverty without choice. Even if your character chooses to forsaken the use of items, it seems she is capable and willing, based on given examples, to benefit from items used by party members on her behalf. If a party member buys a Wand that grants the VoP character Fly, or a magical mount for the day, or anything else like that, the VoP character is allowed to accept the character's generosity(this does not imply allowed use or ownership through generosity, merely benefits provided by ally items). I fail to see how this would not work if a party member bought an extra mount, said they were shipping off to the next town and told you to get on. While you may not wish to use material possessions for yourself (which most would probably debate any living creature being a "material possession" anyway), it does not seem in any way that the VoP character should want to force this belief upon anyone else by refusing such a standard activity. If this were the case then it would also mean it to be impossible to sail overseas since you could never get onto a boat. A vow to poverty just does not seem like the type of thing to restrict a person in such a way. It's so hard to hold back on being technical with the feat that my explanations are probably lacking this time around. I would continue discussing this in more detail but I got to go to bed for school tomorrow and don't really even have time as of now to read back through this mess or revise anything.
DracoPhoenix 01-15-08, 03:58 AM	Well based on the direction things are going now I will only use a little more technicality for the sake of the raw then go into some more common sense. For technicality: While the word "carry" may appear associable to the words "own" and "use", you may only actually replace the word under the assumption that you are using a commonly shared definition. While "carry"="possess"="own", this means that "own" may be translated into the word "carry" when using the definition relating to "possess". You may not replace the word "own" and use the definition for "carry" that only implies the moving or transportation of an object, since that is not a solid definition of the initially used word. Now to be less technical and use a passage from the book combined with only slight technicality and more common sense. "Having a character in the party who has taken a vow of poverty should not necessarily mean that the other party members get bigger shares of treasure! An ascetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial. The majority of her share of party treasure (or the profits from the sale thereof) should be donated to the needy, either directly or indirectly (making a large donation to a temple noted for its work among the poor). While taken upon herself 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." Pages 30-31, Book of Exalted Deeds Based on this passage even common sense should conclude that the VoP character DOES in fact get a share of the treasure that the character may transport. If this were not the case then the character would be unable to make any donations no matter how much material wealth it deserved. Since the VoP must be "extreme" in her works of charity then I would also say she would not have to let another character transfer her hereby known as "donation funds" unless she knew with 100% certainty that the goods would be donated. This is the main reason why I was using the RAW to defend the VoP characters ability to "carry" items. I wanted to portray that the ability to carry items is not prevented by the feat, either being true to the RAW or using common sense. I will also apply that concept to carrying the robe of an ally. To carry the robe of another individual does not have to imply that I am using or owning it. The definition of carry that is being used here, "to take or support from one place to another", cannot be translated into "own" or "use". Also, through common sense, the difference between "carry" and "borrow" should be quite evident (transporting and temporary ownership are quite different indeed). You are neither owning or using anything in that instance, merely providing a service to an ally. I am quite sure being helpful is not prevented by the VoP. Now if this were a magic robe that gave you benefits merely by having it in your possession and you knew of this, then that would be a different story. Now I will try to defend the mount part of the discussion. It already says that you may benefit from items used on your behalf. It also states that the VoP character is knowing of her vow towards poverty and understands that others may be burdened by poverty without choice. Even if your character chooses to forsaken the use of items, it seems she is capable and willing, based on given examples, to benefit from items used by party members on her behalf. If a party member buys a Wand that grants the VoP character Fly, or a magical mount for the day, or anything else like that, the VoP character is allowed to accept the character's generosity(this does not imply allowed use or ownership through generosity, merely benefits provided by ally items). I fail to see how this would not work if a party member bought an extra mount, said they were shipping off to the next town and told you to get on. While you may not wish to use material possessions for yourself (which most would probably debate any living creature being a "material possession" anyway), it does not seem in any way that the VoP character should want to force this belief upon anyone else by refusing such a standard activity. If this were the case then it would also mean it to be impossible to sail overseas since you could never get onto a boat. A vow to poverty just does not seem like the type of thing to restrict a person in such a way. It's so hard to hold back on being technical with the feat that my explanations are probably lacking this time around. I would continue discussing this in more detail but I got to go to bed for school tomorrow and don't really even have time as of now to read back through this mess or revise anything. Personally, I think that while carrying may likely come down to the DM disposition, use is a slippery slope. In your case the mount spell is a clearly temporary effect - creating an item with no gp value. The horse however isn't. Once you've got a horse, you could think "Well, a wagon would really help the party out", a noble act of charity no doubt. Then could you think, "Well, some sort of covering on this for when it's raining" would also be nice for the party. No you, you understand, but the party as a whole. Now, you didn't buy the horse, the wagon or the covering. It's just you have the best handle animal and ride skills. So it makes sense for you to control the horse. So, you don't own any of that, ok it has a relatively high gp value, but it's not yours. And ok, you're the one who can best use them, so it makes sense that you be the one who leads the horse. After all you don't want your fellow party members property to bolt on you do you? Maybe an extreme example, maybe not. But being in control of an expensive item for an prolonged period seems to be bending the spirit of the rules. Carrying is questionable partly owning and using, but not completely either. Owning and using are pretty clear, anything beyond simple or a few other exceptions are a no no. I think a key factor is how long must you possess something to "own" it? Also intent. If you deliberately pick something up to give it to someone, or move it across the room (for reasons other than aesthetics), you could argue in favour of being allowed to. Carrying your friend's gear because he has no more space may be more questionable. Though perhaps wrapping it up and binding it in some way so you physically couldn't make use of it might be acceptable. The feat is voluntary poverty - you willingly forego material possessions. I think the book even says party members may not own things and permi-loan them to you. Which would be the case of the horse. (I think their example was a cloak) Loot wise, I may have been a little harsh in my original assessment, but that was because I was erring on the side of "may not own", there is a ownership difference between returning a fallen comrades possessions and "just holding on to" items for future donation. Namely that until you donate, it belongs to you. Hence the need for an initial declaration of proceeds to be donated being suggested. Consider: Lil Lisa's Recycling plant. Mr Burns genuinely thought he was doing the right thing. Lisa didn't agree with him, for various reasons. Who did you side with? :)
JooceBocks 01-15-08, 03:42 PM	Personally, I think that while carrying may likely come down to the DM disposition, use is a slippery slope. I still do not see why carrying of an object would be seen as prohibited by this feat in any way, as long as you are not using or in ownership of the object. Carrying items with this character could be a serious risk with no real benefits. Assume that a Monk in your party has been rewarded new items, but the items have no current use for that character. If that Monk, who is now burdened with too much weight to make use of necessary class features, asks the VoP character to provide assistance and carry these objects(not use) until they either reach town (or something happens to some of the Monk's current items) then this really does not go against the concepts of poverty nor does it go against the RAW(as carrying is still not indicated as forbidden). This also does not provide any material benefit to the VoP character. The VoP character would also need to carry her own share of treasure for later donations (unless a truly trustworthy ally offers to do so). The risk involved is how your character would react in certain situations. Since you are using features of this book I am assuming your character has a strong sense of righteousness. Now lets say that you were asked to only carry a Wand that had the ability to remove poison, disease, curse, or whatever. We'll assume now that a fellow player or a random NPC is in intense pain and dying from an effect this wand can cure. You realize you are out of spells that could assist in this situation. Your character, with her strong sense of righteousness, must now decide to either A) Allow this NPC or player to die in order to protect her own powers or B) Break the vow in order to save the life of a comrade or innocent traveler. Depending on your class/character, either choice may have negative repercussions that a DM needs to consider. Either way, the DM, in my opinion, should later consider possible atonement, since even a divine power should understand the complexity of a character's conflicting beliefs. This may be only one example of such a situation, and maybe an extreme one at that, but there are many more similar situations that could arise simply because your character is "carrying" items. While difficult situations may arise like this for your character, there is no real benefit from simply "carrying" an item, either as a service or for future donation. In your case the mount spell is a clearly temporary effect - creating an item with no gp value. The horse however isn't. Once you've got a horse, you could think "Well, a wagon would really help the party out", a noble act of charity no doubt. Then could you think, "Well, some sort of covering on this for when it's raining" would also be nice for the party. No you, you understand, but the party as a whole. Whether or not the creation of a mount through such means could be considered having no GP value is also debatable. A wand casts using charges. Charges can be created, bought, sold, traded, and, in a sense, be "used" and "owned". However, the example provided in the RAW, "you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you", seems to be more similar to using a horse than my previous example provided. A Potion of Cure Serious Wounds is far more material than a charge or magical effect like stated previously. As a side note I am quite sure the example, "or ride on your companion's ebony fly", is indicating you are allowed to use a companion's mount. I am not 100% sure, so correct me if I am wrong, but I am going to go out on a limb here and say that an ebony fly is a mount. Your example for the rest of the part seems to follow a different path than I was indicating. In your examples the VoP character seems to be coming up with her own ideas on how to provide material items and services to help with the travels of herself and her party. A VoP character should not really be having such a mind set and should only provide ideas like this if asked by another party (I am quite sure that answering questions about how the character thinks material possessions should be used is not against the vow). The VoP character should not have a material outlook on how to do things, but the rest of the party are allowed, and most likely will. If the party already has a few horses and a wagon then this is different than if the VoP character decided it would be wise to invest in such to provide assistance for her (and her comrades) travels. This is also different than if the rest of the party is broke and stranded, requiring money before being able to continue forward. The VoP character may give some of her "donation funds" to her current comrades, as they are in need (They are being restricted by involuntary poverty, which is something a VoP character disregards material possessions in order to provide against). What I am essentially stating is that if a VoP character can accept a potion given on her behalf and drink it (which is probably more expensive than mount service and just as material), then it makes sense for said character to be allowed to sit upon another individuals mount. Now, you didn't buy the horse, the wagon or the covering. It's just you have the best handle animal and ride skills. So it makes sense for you to control the horse. This actually technically seems fine. Given the nature of this book a DM would need to leave oneself open to the spiritual beliefs of the character. A truly good character may most likely not even believe living creatures of any sort to be possibly viewed as possessions. This could make much sense as to why a character of sorts would have Handle Animal. While the character does not believe in animals as possessions, she may believe that this does not prevent creatures of different species from benefiting from one another. The character may wish to handle the animal by herself to assure that it is treated with utmost respect and courtesy and that the party is making sure it is well fed and protected from hazardous weather and dangers. Also remember, as per the example in the RAW with the ebony fly, it is allowed to ride the mount of a comrade. (Unless ebony fly is some kind of non-mount that you ride that I am unaware of) So, you don't own any of that, ok it has a relatively high gp value, but it's not yours. And ok, you're the one who can best use them, so it makes sense that you be the one who leads the horse. After all you don't want your fellow party members property to bolt on you do you? As stated in the RAW, you are allowed to benefit from a companion's mount. So that part of the example already seems alright. If you are already allowed to ride a companion's mount then you are most likely allowed to do Ride and Handle Animal checks associated with said mount (since those are how you ride animals in D&D). If the DM really wants to be more strict to the RAW and say you cannot ride in the wagon then fine; you are still allowed by that used standard to just ride the horse(s) guiding it. Maybe an extreme example, maybe not. But being in control of an expensive item for an prolonged period seems to be bending the spirit of the rules. It doesn't seem as extreme as it does one of the few situations where this is a problem. The main detail is that you may simply ride by horseback, meaning you do not have to go into the wagon. Your party members, however, are free to do so. Your character would then only technically have control in which direction the horse(s) are going, if that (she is not owning or using the wagon). If they want to strap a wagon onto their horses before letting you on then that is their decision, not the VoP characters. The VoP character, while not in need of material possessions but respecting others need for such, would most likely respect their need of a wagon. Carrying is questionable partly owning and using, but not completely either. Owning and using are pretty clear, anything beyond simple or a few other exceptions are a no no. Carrying, while being partly owning, is only such if you are using a single definition of the word. Since the restrictions of VoP are only aimed towards "own" and "use", the only definition of carry you could use in this situation is "to get possession or control of". This is because "possess"="own"; however, the use of carry in the sense of transporting is in no way touched by the feat. The only place you may use the transporting definition is in the exception list, since it explicitly uses the word "carry", which then can make any use of that actual word (both transporting and possessing, which based on the initial sentence the context implies only the "possession" definition makes any actual sense). I think a key factor is how long must you possess something to "own" it? Also intent. If you deliberately pick something up to give it to someone, or move it across the room (for reasons other than aesthetics), you could argue in favour of being allowed to. Carrying your friend's gear because he has no more space may be more questionable. Though perhaps wrapping it up and binding it in some way so you physically couldn't make use of it might be acceptable. Simply transporting an object will NEVER make it yours, even if it takes you a year to get it to its destination; however, once you claim it as your property or attempt to use the item in question, unless it is a stated exception, you are breaking the vow. Intent is essential. If someone hands you a robe and tells you to transport it to the other side of the world, you never actually "own" or "use" it until you have such intentions. Taking the robe with no intention to bring it to its destination would be claiming ownership and equipping the robe would be using it. Carrying an allies' gear still shows no signs of being restricted by this feat. The feat is voluntary poverty - you willingly forego material possessions. I think the book even says party members may not own things and permi-loan them to you. Which would be the case of the horse. (I think their example was a cloak) One thing that needs to be considered is "Why" the character chooses to forgo material possessions. That, however, has too many variables to possibly discuss here. Borrow and carry are two distinctly different words. The cloak is an example of how you may not borrow. A party member may ask you to carry a cloak until it is needed. Carrying the cloak insinuates no use or ownership(since it still belongs to the party member). Borrow suggests temporary ownership/use. If the party member states, "You seem quite susceptible to the magics of these enemies. You can have this Cloak of Resistance(+1) until we return to town.", then you would be accepting temporary ownership (borrowing) AND making use of the item. Either action in this example breaks the vow, whereas transporting the cloak has no effect (You are not using and it still belongs to initial member). Loot wise, I may have been a little harsh in my original assessment, but that was because I was erring on the side of "may not own", there is a ownership difference between returning a fallen comrades possessions and "just holding on to" items for future donation. Namely that until you donate, it belongs to you. Hence the need for an initial declaration of proceeds to be donated being suggested. It is possible for items to have no current owner. When this is the case the VoP character may take it into her responsibility to assure that these items make their way to those in need. The character does not need to claim ownership in order to do this, the character can simply carry the item(s) until someone claims ownership. If this never happens she may either donate it or attempt to seek out the original owner. The action chosen would depend on the scenario and/or object(s) in question. While it may be possible to find the owner of a lost sword with a name, abbreviation, or personal symbol on the hilt/sheath it would be nearly impossible to find the owner of a lost sack of gold (too many people would attempt to claim it). Now, for the hell of it, I want to make a final comment for the use of a table for cover. If a VoP character was communicating with someone in a castle and all of a sudden enemies appeared in the room firing arrows, but directly in front of the character is a large, platinum table embedded with diamonds (extreme example of wealth to achieve point), would the character be allowed to duck down? That is essentially what it means to use something as cover. It seems kind of out there to assume a VoP character would risk her own life because she doesn't want to benefit from her surrounding environment. Yay! I'm done for now! Time to go do some Psychology homework. Getting harder to reply to this post since the semester began.
DracoPhoenix 01-15-08, 06:25 PM	Yay! I'm done for now! Time to go do some Psychology homework. Getting harder to reply to this post since the semester began. Good luck on your course. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think my position is based in a hard line simply because it is all too easy to mean well or move "just" an inch at a time. But before you know it, you're half way down the street. But consider; "why" may not matter much to your deity (AKA DM). Break the rules when you know the consequences and you get what you deserve. (Something about roads, abyss' and good intentions?)
JooceBocks 01-15-08, 09:21 PM	Good luck on your course. Thanks. I tend to need luck to help maintain a high GPA on Semesters where I have these "in-the-way" classes that I have to take for the sake of taking. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think my position is based in a hard line simply because it is all too easy to mean well or move "just" an inch at a time. But before you know it, you're half way down the street. Agreement to disagree acknowledged. Now for responsive statement since I like these posts: Once you're half-way down the street, stop moving. For the most part I like to keep my statements towards solid rules stated and implied by the book. I probably did, however, post a few examples that may be "inching" on down. Despite this I tried to keep them towards solid examples. In case all of the examples used were not summed up in my previous post (do not feel like reading the whole thing again) I will state the explicit examples from the book. These out of book examples included permission to benefit from items used on your behalf, to drink a companion's potion, permission to ride a companion's "ebony fly"(assumed mount based on context). These all support the ability to benefit from the items of your party, along with explicitly allowing the use of potions and mounts. Important book example for "carry" discussion is a desire to donate (give as charity) material possessions that is as extreme as the desire to self-deny. (<For exact reference from book>) "An ascetic character MUST be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial." Since you MUST be as extreme in your charity as to self-deny it is actually explicitly AGAINST the vow to toss out items for the sake of the vow (you do NOT completely forsaken material possessions, you MUST donate them). This becomes an impossibility, therefore eventually guaranteeing the removal of your vow, if you are not able to transport(carry) material goods. But consider; "why" may not matter much to your deity (AKA DM). Break the rules when you know the consequences and you get what you deserve. I just feel like responding to this for the sake of discussion. For a good deity, as often as not, "Why?" must be used to determine blessings. For example, Pelor would NOT grant divine power to an Evil Cleric pretending to be good for the sake of falsely gaining the trust of the people (even if she spent years healing and protecting the people) for some evil intent. Pelor also, on the other hand, would not grant divine power to even a Lawful Good Cleric who kills innocent people and attempts to use items to raise the undead in order to find a greater enemy. Evil Deities, however, usually don't care either way, as long as you are infesting, slaying and raising destruction/hordes of undead in their name. I don't intend to use this argument to defend senses of item use, I just wanted to give examples of how it would HAVE to matter.
TifRhal 01-16-08, 11:23 AM	the hole having to carry food ends at 5th lvl when you gain Sustenance. as for the items it says you may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterworked) simple weapons. to my understanding you are not limited to the amount of weapons you carry, just that usally its a qaurterstaff. I have seen the vow of poverty played a few times a halfling with a sling and a dagger was a 9 level rogue. I have all so seen a human 4 level mind blade and 5 level fighter his dm allowed him to form his mind blade into a dagger with the same stats and to specialize in mindblade all he carried was a sack and wore a pair of hores hair pants hemp shirt a hat and some sandals. he did not need to carry food since he had sustenance.
JooceBocks 01-16-08, 05:32 PM	the hole having to carry food ends at 5th lvl when you gain Sustenance. That we already know; this is why I only stated you would need to worry about it killing you at the really low levels (I believe I mentioned Sustenance in one of those cases I was mentioning food). The only problem concerning the food is that it only says you may "carry" food; it doesn't say you may eat it or "own" it. The only truly restricting statement uses only the words "use" and "own"; "carry" is never in any way mentioned. as for the items it says you may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterworked) simple weapons. to my understanding you are not limited to the amount of weapons you carry, just that usally its a qaurterstaff. I have seen the vow of poverty played a few times a halfling with a sling and a dagger was a 9 level rogue. I have all so seen a human 4 level mind blade and 5 level fighter his dm allowed him to form his mind blade into a dagger with the same stats and to specialize in mindblade all he carried was a sack and wore a pair of hores hair pants hemp shirt a hat and some sandals. he did not need to carry food since he had sustenance. I actually responded to a different VoP post similar to what you mentioned. They were asking if a Crossbow would be allowed in addition to another weapon. Since a crossbow (and bolts) is listed in the "Simple Weapon" list, and the RAW ruling states you may carry and use ordinary weapon"S", you are obviously not limited in how many you may carry. The only reason food would be a problem is not all players start at level 5+. Almost every new game I have taken place in starts at level 1 or 2; without the ability to eat you would not be making it to level 5 before dying of starvation (or giving in and breaking the vow). In the end, however, common sense should kick in and your DM allows you to eat.
TifRhal 01-16-08, 05:52 PM	ok i thought this was hased out about food here is what the book stats "You may carry enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag." This to me mean you may carry and eat it since it sustains you. If i am reading this wrong let me know. here is the definition of Sustain as givin to food nourish: provide with nourishment; "We sustained ourselves on bread and water";
Tsuul 01-16-08, 07:08 PM	It's a technicality TifRhal. Where I live, you must be 21 to be able to legally consume alcohol. But an underage waiter is allowed to carry it from the bar to the table for you. We all know what was implied, and how to play it though.
Deckinhand 03-22-08, 10:46 PM	:bump:
Deckinhand 06-03-08, 07:35 PM	Since it's been a while. :bump:
Lancer_Bloodlust 06-04-08, 04:07 PM	uh this is relevant but different. I'd allow a VoP paladin or cleric to use a holy symbol they themselves carved out of wood or rock, or if it was a family heirloom of insignificant monetary value. I've seen plenty of bums walking around with crosses around their necks. My interpretation of possesions would include: 1 spun robe 1 pair sandals 1 leather cap 1 rope belt 1 melee simple weapon 1 ranged simple weapon and at max 20-40 rounds of ammo 1 crude holy symbol (really for any class if they want it, D&D is religion heavy) 1 ruck sack that is not near the size of a backpack 1 days worth of food assortment of adventuring gear for party's use If they have an animal companion: 1 days worth of food for animal companion if they have a special mount from class ability: 1 simple mounted weapon that never leaves the mount and resides in a basic holster 1 old, worn pad attached with rope to mount for mount's comfort, not his own 1 days worth of food for mount I see no problem allowing VoP PC's to carry keys or hide behind tables. Although if one was invited to a castle, I'd agree that he wouldn't eat the more extravagant meals or would just take smaller portions and eat more of the simpler stuff. He would also rather take the equivalent of a servant's quarters than a guest room. Dealing with another party member should be based on goodwill. A party member may get more potions out of some loot because the VoP PC cannot use them, but he is under no obligation to give one to the VoP PC. Likewise, the fellow PC is under no obligation to let the VoP PC ride his horse. While VoP is strict, they are still adventurers and thus need basic equipment. Whoever, I forget now, posted the gold piece limits uses a good system for what the VoP PC can use or claim. As to claims, a VoP PC is perfectly within his rights to say he would like an item that could benefit a charitable group or group in need. He could claim the Decanter of Endless Water because he knows of an orphanage that could really use a clean water source. The VoP should not care about himself, but knows that he needs to be effective enough to aid others and be a champion for those who cannot aid themselves. I read somewhere that a special mount is of high enough intelligence to take VoP on its own. That would eliminate some of the barding issues and the mount is usually far enough behind in hit dice that it will not recieve enough benefits to be able to replace what a PC could purchase for it. Is this a valid assumption?
ShriekingDrake 06-04-08, 11:59 PM	Seeing one of Deckinhand's other threads, I began to wonder whether the VOP characther can attract a cohort or followers. Any thoughts?
AaronDireBear 06-05-08, 12:02 PM	Technically, purely by RAW, if a VoP character ever even picks up a Luckstone, even without knowing what it is, they lose the benefit of the feat FOREVER. If you plan on using this feat in a game, make sure such loopholes are thoroughly closed, first. Make sure you and the DM (or you and the player) are as clear as possible about what will be allowed, and what will not be, and/or have the DM warn the player that an action would violate the Vow during the game, before that player's character actually goes through with it (allowing them to change their proposed course of action appropriately). Ugh I think the celestials have the common sense to notice when someone is doing something unwittingly. You should never lose your powers for something you didn't do on purpose. ESPECIALLY if you were charmed or dominated or duped somehow.
GalaGalaxia 06-05-08, 01:36 PM	Carries = possesses = "owns" temporarily by the given standards. Moves = interact = use. The question is "if she move's it telekenectically..." Just promise me you stay away from BoED and BoVD. :rolleyes: You can carry and use things. You just can't benefit from them outside of what your vow already allows you to do. Invited for dinner? Fine. You are allowed to eat. Seek shelter in someone's house? Fine. You are allowed to be indoors. Carry the gear for someone in the party? Fine. You're not using it yourself. Hold on to said gear for extended periods of time? Not fine. "Using" only becomes a problem when you benefit from mundane items (not explicitly allowed by your vow) for extended periods of time. Occasional use of what may be seen as "normal" (eating, shelter, etc) is not wrong. Repeated or regular use, however, may be an issue. Always sleeping in someone's house = violation. Occasionally, due to bad weather etc = okay. The feat description is not what's important. The spirit of the feat is. I mean, how can you possibly word it any different than: "you have taken a vow of poverty ... as such, you can't own or use any material possessions, other than X, Y, and Z". And then logic needs to take over from there. Anyone incapable of using logic should simply stop posting their incorrect views, and should (for the love of Loki), never ever play with BoVD or BoED material.
Tytalus 06-06-08, 08:49 AM	Hold on to said gear for extended periods of time? Not fine. I agree with the rest of your post, but I also think this is ok. For example, a VoP character should be allowed to carry the remains and equipment of a dead friend for as long as it takes him to reach a temple or the friends family/clan/etc. The key of the issue is whether the VoP guy has a benefit from the item (which is explicitly forbidden). Using common sense, I would also not see it as a violation of a vow if the character picks up a cursed weapon or accidentally picks up (i.e., activates) an ioun stone.
ikki 06-06-08, 09:16 AM	I think we could use the practice of real world monks sworn to poverty. In other words, they could ride.. the orders horses, even have the saddle and such plated in gold and studded with gems. Afterall it wasnt theirs, it belonged to the order. So it would be perfectly fine to use any and all equipment, if its clear its not your property, but belongs to someone else.. such as a knightly order.
GalaGalaxia 06-06-08, 03:34 PM	I agree with the rest of your post, but I also think this is ok. For example, a VoP character should be allowed to carry the remains and equipment of a dead friend for as long as it takes him to reach a temple or the friends family/clan/etc. The key of the issue is whether the VoP guy has a benefit from the item (which is explicitly forbidden). Using common sense, I would also not see it as a violation of a vow if the character picks up a cursed weapon or accidentally picks up (i.e., activates) an ioun stone. I think we are saying the same thing. Yes, it may take a while before the gear can be disposed of properly. What I mean is "gear watching" ... or holding on to the gear longer than necessary.
Deckinhand 09-06-08, 10:50 PM	:bump:
Snorkasaurous 09-28-08, 11:26 PM	Happy New Year. I'm wondering about the possessions limitations for Vow of Poverty from the Book of Exalted Deeds. I'm trying to get a sense of the consensus on the limitations. Our group has wrestled with these questions for some time now. I'll give you our take below. We put our heads together to arrive at answers to similar questions and hope that you'll find our conclusions useful. The language RAW on page 48 are quite broad: "To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions: You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic or masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick. You may wear simple clothes (usually just a homespun robe, possibly also including a hat and sandals) with no magical properties. You may carry enough food to sustain you for one day in a simple (nonmagic) sack or bag. You may carry and use a spell component pouch. You may not use any magic items of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf--you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your companion's ebony fly. You may not, however 'borrow' a cloak of resistance or any other magic item froma companion for even a single round, nor may you yourself cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff." It strikes me that this description can be interpreted in a variety of ways. It seems that notions of possession and use can be very tricky. I'd like to pose a few scenarios along these lines—some clearer, it seems, than others. I realize that some of these scenarios might beg the same or similar questions/game rules as others. I’m sure we’ll come up with better hair-splitting examples, but here is where I’ve started. A. The language on page 48 of BoEDis quite broad: subject to some exceptions, “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions . . ..” If VoP character carries something, does she possess it, breaching the vow? If she moves it, does she possess it in a way that violates the vow? While I think this vow is all about the role-playing, I don't think it should be interpreted in an absolute sense because it is quite poorly drafted. A broad, literal interpretation of the text would not only be a drag on the game, it would make VoP completely unplayable. B. A VoP character certainly could not take ownership of a castle. No doubt. Is she using a castle that happens to be protecting her from the storm outside? Not in a way that would violate the vow. Being in any owned property would be a problem otherwise. It seems to me that the vow was not intended to prohibit this. When invited to dinner with the King, can she even attend attend? Can she use the King’s material possessions associated with the dinner such as the chair, utensils, plate, bowl, mug, etc.? If invited to stay the night, may she sleep in (use) the bed? Are these types of restrictions intended by the rules? Yes, yes, yes, and no. Now, if a VoP character took up residence in the castle, I'd be more concerned with the role-playing. If sleeping in the castle became a regular event, I'd say the character was violating the vow. But, after a battle, there would certainly be no problem with staying in the castle a couple of days. There would also be no problem with having a meal there, etc. Generally, these uses (in question B above) are not what the Vow is trying to prevent. C. Similarly, if the VoP character finds a key in a dungeon, may she use it in the lock in which it was found? Absolutely. The vow is not about failing to interact in the world. It's about not having money, fancy equipment, cool armor, nifty weapons, and magic items. You know, the kinds of things that most players value in the game. May she even hold the key and, if so, could she take it for possible later use? She can definitely hold and use the key. The second question is tougher, but I'd say yes. It's a qualified yes. She can keep this kind of object for the duration of the adventure, but not in perpetuity. To the extent that it might enable her to proceed in the adventure, it's harmful to the game if she can't hold the key for safe keeping. I'd certainly recommend, that if she has colleagues, that she consider not holding it for long. It's up to the DM to help shape VoP behavior outlining reasonable limits. The game is meant to be fun. VoP is a fun notion. But taken to the ridiculous, it undermines the game. VoP is a great feat, but it's neither optimized nor broken. D. Also similarly, can she tip over a table and use it as cover in battle? Yes. Can she use a chair she finds as a makeshift shield? Yes Is this different than picking up the shield of a slain opponent and using that for the duration of the battle? VoP characters are not supposed to be using shields as shields. If she wanted to use it to drag a wounded party member to safety, no problem. But if she wants to use DnD equipment for its ordinary purpose, I'd say, she's running up against the vow. Does it make a difference if that shield happens to be magical? (It seems that it might.) No and yes. If a VoP character uses an object she thinks is permissible and it happens to be magical--and she doesn't know it--I don't think she loses the vow. But, I don't think she should be using a shield. E. Suppose the party is dividing up the treasure and the VoP character wishes to take her share so that she may donate it (as described on page 30-31 of BoED). Can she carry (but not use) the gold, magic items, and other useful items that are her share? The rules clearly intend this use. Yes, the rules do intend this. She just can't keep them when she has the opportunity to put them to good, charitable donation. F. Can the VoP character carry (but not use) the possessions of a fallen comrade to return them to his people? The rules clearly say “To fulfill your vow, you may not own or use any material possessions, with the following exceptions . . .” of which the above is not one listed. Does this violate the vow? If yes, Is the difference here merely that one use is listed on pages 30-31 as acceptable and the other use is not listed specified? It's really the same as E above. G. Can a VoP character ride another party member's horse? Is there a difference between riding the horse alone or riding with another party member? Clearly, the rules permit the VoP character to ride someone's Ebony Fly. But is riding someone's horse different? I think the VoP character should not ride another's steed for longer than a transitory period, if she's riding alone. I think she should be able to ride as a second rider as long as someone else is willing to take her--but it should never be in direct trade for something. H. Can a VoP spellcaster cast Mount, Phantom Steed, or Valiant Steed? (Sanctified 6, page 110 BoED)? These spells summon a mount for various durations. Does the duration make a difference? Valiant Steed puts a Unicorn or Pegasus into the caster’s service for up to a year. She can use any steed pursuant to a spell she casts. I. Can a VoP character even handle (in the skill sense) an animal? Animals are often considered possessions as they can be owned and purchased. Is handling an animal the same using a material possession? It seems unlikely that the rules are intended to let the VoP character purchase an animal. What about taming a wild animal or traveling or working with one? She can definitely handle animals. She can't purchase an animal. She can work with an animal, but not tame one. J. Can a VoP druid call an animal companion? Animals are often considered material possessions in the game. They can be purchased and owned. Would calling an animal companion be using a material possession? She can definitely call a companion. K Can a VoP character’s animal companion wear armor? If so, can the it only wear “found” armor, or can the party buy armor for the companion? It seems likely that the VoP character cannot buy armor for her animal companion. No armor on the animal companion--period. L. Can a VoP character bind an adversary with rope she finds in the room? Can she bind the adversary with vines? Would conjuring the rope or vines make a difference? Yes, yes, no. She can do and use both. Thanks for your consideration. ---Deckinhand And thanks for your excellent thread.
ShriekingDrake 10-10-08, 09:00 AM	It strikes me that one of the best "meta-game" approaches to take to address the complexities (and possibilities for misunderstanding between DM and player) associated with VoP is to make Gift of Discernment one of the exalted feats you take. This feat seems to have been crafted for just the purpose of assuring that you don't lose your VoP status and your DM can/should let you know if some action would violate your vow. There are not enough good exalted feats, so adding this one up front can only smooth things over with essentially no cost. I kind of like that WoTC actually introduced a feat that makes play better. -- ShriekingDrake
hobdes 10-16-08, 11:51 PM	I wonder if this would be a useful rule of thumb to help decide when it's ok to use/borrow stuff? How about: "If you're not depriving anybody else of the item then it can be used within the context of the VoP." For example, it's ok to stay at a castle or share the King's dinner if it's too late to make arrangements for some other poor soul to take advantage of the opportunity. The bed or food would just go to waste if you didn't use them. But you can't stay at the castle for a month because you could have arranged for that warm bed to go to somebody more needy. What do you all think of that? Does it make sense? (Trolling: By this definition copyright infringement would not break the VoP. :D )
Deckinhand 10-24-08, 02:30 PM	Thanks for the continued insight on this thread people. I am falling somewhere in the neighborhood of Sorkasaurous' group, myself. @ Shrieking Drake--an excellent suggestion. Deckinhand
ShriekingDrake 12-24-08, 01:28 PM	Note that VoP creates certain problems for material components and focuses. There's a nice thread on the subject here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1115996. You'll note that I don't seem like the brightest bulb in this engagement, but it seemed relevant to this topic, so I thought I'd mention it. ShriekingDrake