Ye Olde Vow of Poverty Dilemma [Archive] - Wizards Community

Ye Olde Vow of Poverty Dilemma [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
PhantomTrain
03-22-07, 02:42 PM The title says it all, but I'm interested in how Vow of Poverty can be updated for 3.5 use without either leaving it overpowered (which it seems to be) or by underpowering it (which most GMs do). Any suggestions?
Nephlite
03-22-07, 02:49 PM The title says it all, but I'm interested in how Vow of Poverty can be updated for 3.5 use without either leaving it overpowered (which it seems to be) or by underpowering it (which most GMs do). Any suggestions?

Book of Exalted Deeds is 3.5.

Youi can change it. But it can only be updated to 4.0 (like everything else Version 3.5).
Darth Sephiroth
03-22-07, 02:49 PM It is a powerful feat choice but its limitations make it hard for most characters to handle it. Without a lot of houserules the Monk and Sorcerer are the only ones to be able to easily use it
FrostHammer
03-22-07, 03:32 PM Druids too. They get the bonuses while in wildshape.
PhantomTrain
03-22-07, 05:06 PM 3.5 already, eh? Well, that's...dumb on my part. Sorry for wasting the space.
Infinitum
03-22-07, 09:46 PM Sorry for asking, but what does it exactly *do*? I can't seem to find it.
Mystic Theurge
03-22-07, 09:52 PM Sorry for asking, but what does it exactly *do*? I can't seem to find it.
If you have the Book of Exalted Deeds, you wont find out the benefits of the feat on the page where the feat is located (dumb, huh?) It's actually in another chapter, but the feat directs you to the page you can find the benefits.

The monk benefits the most from the vow, but I have yet to find a character who takes the vow for role playing reasons (the way I believe it was meant for) as opposed to getting all the goodies that come with it. If you're playing the VoP for goodies, then I think it's being played wrong, but that's just me.
Dheran
03-23-07, 01:39 PM M.T. is right about the motivation of VoP players, to the extent that I've developed a nerf tactic to use against those who abuse the feat. Basically an opponent uses Bestow Curse to embed a 100 gp gem (which they must supply) somewhere inside the VoP character's body. The VoP nerf is in line with the power of other curses provided by the spell, and the effects are permanent. This situation leads to a need for Atonement and Remove Curse, and not-so-subtly reminds the player that Vow of Poverty requires some serious character motivation.
PhantomTrain
03-23-07, 06:00 PM M.T. is right about the motivation of VoP players, to the extent that I've developed a nerf tactic to use against those who abuse the feat. Basically an opponent uses Bestow Curse to embed a 100 gp gem (which they must supply) somewhere inside the VoP character's body. The VoP nerf is in line with the power of other curses provided by the spell, and the effects are permanent. This situation leads to a need for Atonement and Remove Curse, and not-so-subtly reminds the player that Vow of Poverty requires some serious character motivation.

Holy hell, that's just uncalled for. By my logic, it wouldn't even work. I mean, lets say a monk takes the Vow, and plays it well. During a fight, he gets grappled and an opponent forces a magical cloak onto him, holding it there for a single round. No more Vow? That seems utterly unreasonable. As we all seem to agree, we want our players taking the Vow because it fits their character and adds an interesting twist to roleplaying, not just so that they can get fantastic benefits. For me, the Vow (all of them, actually,) are all about intent. Your player that gets gem-raped isn't choosing to possess that wealth, nor is he benefitting from it in any way, so he hasn't violated the spirit or intention of his Vow.

Now, that isn't to say that there aren't really good ways of spanking PCs who abuse this feat, nor is it to say that abusive players shouldn't be spanked. However, our objection to the abuse of this feat is that players who take advantage of it are not engaging in roleplaying, rather, they are just using the statistics of the feat to minmax. Why stoop to their level?

There is no real guideline for how the Vow works, really. Promise to never own anything and you start getting magic? That power has to come from somewhere, and, by my reasoning, the origin of that power is both benevolent and wise, be it a god, some primal force of the universe, the characters own ancestors, hell, maybe even an enlightened manifestation of the character's own future self. It is fully capable of saying 'I don't think you're doing this for the right reasons', and, just like that, the power is gone until your player (through a roleplaying quest, perhaps?) begins to act in a non-abusive way.

Don't sink into the technicalities that minmaxers love to use. Force it to be about flavor and roleplaying.
GhostStepper
03-23-07, 06:12 PM The real question is what do you do when your PCs have recomended wealth per level and have better abilities than a VoP character?
enygmatic_me
03-23-07, 07:02 PM The real question is what do you do when your PCs have recomended wealth per level and have better abilities than a VoP character?

Unfortunately, the only thing to do is suck it up and deal.

The Monk is actually an OK choice for the feat, but not the best. The best, in my opinion, has already been stated. The Druid gets all the benefits while wild shaped and there really is no overlap with their class features (like there is with the monk).

They are good feats, but it is easy to lose them and then you find yourself at higher levels with two less feats (not including the bonus feats gained through Vow of Poverty that you also loose) and no magic items. As a Monk there is only one thing to do. Go on a Drinking binge and hope some Drunken Masters take you out to party.
Mystic Theurge
03-23-07, 07:11 PM I mean, lets say a monk takes the Vow, and plays it well.
The problem is, when players take the feat for the wrong motivation, they aren't playing the character well. And for the most part, I have found that I become instantly suspicious when a player says she wants to play a VoP monk because, by and large, they are doing it for power. So when I do allow them to play a VoP monk, I keep a very sharp eye on them. I don't put curses on the character, but I do continuously remind them of the sacrifice they have to make to maintain the vow. I might even be nitpicky.
Mystic Theurge
03-23-07, 07:15 PM The real question is what do you do when your PCs have recomended wealth per level and have better abilities than a VoP character?
That is the cost of having the VoP. The benefits of the VoP are not meant to replace equipment but to somewhat compensate for what a character loses for not having any equipment worth value. In the long run, a properly outfitted character should outstrip the benefits that come with the VoP. This, however, assumes that characters in a campaign are properly outfitted. I know alot of DMs that are afraid to outfit the characters and so the VoP becomes a very nice choice. Of course, as soon as the DM realizes the "mistake", he tends to ban the VoP. This is a reflection od shoddy DMing, not the VoP, in my opinion.
ravenshrike
03-23-07, 07:17 PM M.T. is right about the motivation of VoP players, to the extent that I've developed a nerf tactic to use against those who abuse the feat. Basically an opponent uses Bestow Curse to embed a 100 gp gem (which they must supply) somewhere inside the VoP character's body. The VoP nerf is in line with the power of other curses provided by the spell, and the effects are permanent. This situation leads to a need for Atonement and Remove Curse, and not-so-subtly reminds the player that Vow of Poverty requires some serious character motivation.

Wouldn't work, as once the gem joins with his body it CERTAINLY is no longer worth 100 gp. Not to him, and not to anyone who knows him. It becomes, essentially, monetarily null until it is either surgically removed or someone kills him and digs through his body to remove it.
philnicau
03-23-07, 10:17 PM M.T. is right about the motivation of VoP players, to the extent that I've developed a nerf tactic to use against those who abuse the feat. Basically an opponent uses Bestow Curse to embed a 100 gp gem (which they must supply) somewhere inside the VoP character's body. The VoP nerf is in line with the power of other curses provided by the spell, and the effects are permanent. This situation leads to a need for Atonement and Remove Curse, and not-so-subtly reminds the player that Vow of Poverty requires some serious character motivation.

You can't atone for breaking a VOP, if you willing break the conditions of the vow then you loose its benefits forever.
philnicau
03-23-07, 10:19 PM There is no real guideline for how the Vow works, really. Promise to never own anything and you start getting magic?

You must take the exalted feat Sacred Vow before taking VOP so you've taken a vow to a divine power.
sooperspook
03-23-07, 10:30 PM I don't see the point for this feat to begin with.

Taking a vow of any kind should be a roleplaying thing, not some game mechanic.

If a game mechanic is really needed then just have it as a ritual or something, I certainly wouldn't want to waste a non-refundable feat slot on it.

After all, aren't feats supposed to represent something a characters learns or develops? You don't "develop/learn" a limitation, you suffer from one!
runestar
03-23-07, 10:51 PM The problem is that it is near impossible to rollplay "being dirt poor".
In dnd, your eq is king. Players will sooner commit suicide and get resurrected than have their eq subjected to a disjunction. It is your eq that determines how powerful you are. Without it, you are almost nothing. Barring specific classes like spellcasters, you won't be able to take down anything with cr = your ECL-8 without your eq, barring dm fiat.

The player who wants to roleplay being a philanthropist and move around without eq is not going to last for a long time, if at all. It is more of a game balance issue to have the VOP feat mimic the benefits of using magic gear, rather than a RP one. Get over it.:)

Else, I can't imagine a player willingly running around butt naked in a game. Even if there were, they would unlikely be able to contribute meaningfully to the game.

I would say to just leave the VOP feat alone as is.
StruckingFuggle
03-24-07, 12:24 AM The problem is, when players take the feat for the wrong motivation, they aren't playing the character well. And for the most part, I have found that I become instantly suspicious when a player says she wants to play a VoP monk because, by and large, they are doing it for power. So when I do allow them to play a VoP monk, I keep a very sharp eye on them. I don't put curses on the character, but I do continuously remind them of the sacrifice they have to make to maintain the vow. I might even be nitpicky.

that's not necessarily true. They can take it for the power and then roleplay it, too. There's no reason for the two to be mutually exclusive. You've never did something with a character because you wanted the mechanics of it, and then incorporated it into your character to roleplay it, too?

Also, if you follow the WBLG, or even more, exceed them, VoP is NOT that powerful. Except, perhaps, in the hands of a Druid.
Mystic Theurge
03-24-07, 07:57 AM that's not necessarily true. They can take it for the power and then roleplay it, too. There's no reason for the two to be mutually exclusive. You've never did something with a character because you wanted the mechanics of it, and then incorporated it into your character to roleplay it, too?

Also, if you follow the WBLG, or even more, exceed them, VoP is NOT that powerful. Except, perhaps, in the hands of a Druid.
Most (but not all) of the players that I have encountered that want the VoP for their monk don't do it because their characters feel that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." Personally, I have never taken the VoP for the goodies it gives my character (I have yet to play a VoP monk), but I have taken it because it serves a purpose for the roleplaying side of my character. It is true that it doens't hurt that it comes with benefits. I don't think I would take the feat if it didn't. As someone else said, it is difficult in the extreme to forsake all wealth and expect to play a viable character without the benefits. But as a DM, I have always maintained that the benefits are secondary.

Your second paragragh sort of makes my point. IF the DM is doling out treasure properly, no one in their right mind would take the VoP simply for the goodies. The only cases I have seen otherwise are players who are short sighted and are looking for the instant payday, which is inherantly agianst the spirit of the VoP, IMO.
danielinthewolvesden
03-24-07, 03:13 PM Monk is not the best class, as one of the magor bonuses of the VoP is bonus Exalted feats- most of which require a high CHA. Monks are so MAD they need CHA as a dump stat.

Dheran: that's just plain cheating by the DM, the PC did not choose to do so willingly.

A cleric is not a bad choice either, assuming you have a DM that is OK (as Andy Collins is) with the VoP PC having a simple wooden Holy Symbol. But yes, Druid, that is the ticket.
Walls
03-24-07, 04:38 PM By claiming one class uses VoP properly and being that class just to make sure it's worth it... isn't that going straight against the roleplaying aspect of the feat anyhow?

Hell, I think a DM could talk to the player about taking it, regardless of class. All it takes is imagination.
StruckingFuggle
03-24-07, 07:34 PM Most (but not all) of the players that I have encountered that want the VoP for their monk don't do it because their characters feel that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." Personally, I have never taken the VoP for the goodies it gives my character (I have yet to play a VoP monk), but I have taken it because it serves a purpose for the roleplaying side of my character. It is true that it doens't hurt that it comes with benefits. I don't think I would take the feat if it didn't. As someone else said, it is difficult in the extreme to forsake all wealth and expect to play a viable character without the benefits. But as a DM, I have always maintained that the benefits are secondary.

Your second paragragh sort of makes my point. IF the DM is doling out treasure properly, no one in their right mind would take the VoP simply for the goodies. The only cases I have seen otherwise are players who are short sighted and are looking for the instant payday, which is inherantly agianst the spirit of the VoP, IMO.

I dunno. The spirit, maybe, but not the flavor. I - as a DM - made it an unexalted feat, and one of the villains is a vop monk/cleric (heh, who's holy symbol is his self) - who took it for the power, as a sort of "to prove I don't need magic items, only my self, to become strong" ... and so, it's possible to have a VoP flavor *and* roleplaying, while doing it for the power.

(.... frankly, I think that (so, IMO) a "proper" Vow of Powerty is pretty boring and lacking in flavor from a roleplaying perspective, anyway.)
Katana_Uno
03-25-07, 12:43 AM I've never played a character with VoP, but it seems interesting. After reading the posts on this thread, I had a thought. Please note, I have not read the actual feat descriptions so this may be covered already.

It seems that the consensus is that Druids are the best fit for the VoP, but from what I've read above, you cannot own or keep any possessions. I don't think an animal companion can be considered a possesion, but what about spell components? Or the spell component bag you have to keep to cast the spells?

Wouldn't that bar a druid from taking the Vow?

Just a thought.
enygmatic_me
03-25-07, 02:07 AM I've never played a character with VoP, but it seems interesting. After reading the posts on this thread, I had a thought. Please note, I have not read the actual feat descriptions so this may be covered already.

It seems that the consensus is that Druids are the best fit for the VoP, but from what I've read above, you cannot own or keep any possessions. I don't think an animal companion can be considered a possesion, but what about spell components? Or the spell component bag you have to keep to cast the spells?

Wouldn't that bar a druid from taking the Vow?

Just a thought.

The feat actually addresses this. Spell component pouches are one of several exceptions to the "own nothing" requirement.
StruckingFuggle
03-25-07, 02:39 AM And if not, you can take Eschew Mats.
Mystic Theurge
03-25-07, 02:52 AM I dunno. The spirit, maybe, but not the flavor. I - as a DM - made it an unexalted feat, and one of the villains is a vop monk/cleric (heh, who's holy symbol is his self) - who took it for the power, as a sort of "to prove I don't need magic items, only my self, to become strong" ... and so, it's possible to have a VoP flavor *and* roleplaying, while doing it for the power.

That goes well beyond the bounds of the rules as set forth in the book. If you want to make the feat based on power as a DM, that is certainly your perogative. My arguments have been based on what is found in the BoED, however, so I can't address anything outside of those bounds.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
PhantomTrain 03-22-07, 02:42 PM	The title says it all, but I'm interested in how Vow of Poverty can be updated for 3.5 use without either leaving it overpowered (which it seems to be) or by underpowering it (which most GMs do). Any suggestions?
Nephlite 03-22-07, 02:49 PM	The title says it all, but I'm interested in how Vow of Poverty can be updated for 3.5 use without either leaving it overpowered (which it seems to be) or by underpowering it (which most GMs do). Any suggestions? Book of Exalted Deeds is 3.5. Youi can change it. But it can only be updated to 4.0 (like everything else Version 3.5).
Darth Sephiroth 03-22-07, 02:49 PM	It is a powerful feat choice but its limitations make it hard for most characters to handle it. Without a lot of houserules the Monk and Sorcerer are the only ones to be able to easily use it
FrostHammer 03-22-07, 03:32 PM	Druids too. They get the bonuses while in wildshape.
PhantomTrain 03-22-07, 05:06 PM	3.5 already, eh? Well, that's...dumb on my part. Sorry for wasting the space.
Infinitum 03-22-07, 09:46 PM	Sorry for asking, but what does it exactly do? I can't seem to find it.
Mystic Theurge 03-22-07, 09:52 PM	Sorry for asking, but what does it exactly do? I can't seem to find it. If you have the Book of Exalted Deeds, you wont find out the benefits of the feat on the page where the feat is located (dumb, huh?) It's actually in another chapter, but the feat directs you to the page you can find the benefits. The monk benefits the most from the vow, but I have yet to find a character who takes the vow for role playing reasons (the way I believe it was meant for) as opposed to getting all the goodies that come with it. If you're playing the VoP for goodies, then I think it's being played wrong, but that's just me.
Dheran 03-23-07, 01:39 PM	M.T. is right about the motivation of VoP players, to the extent that I've developed a nerf tactic to use against those who abuse the feat. Basically an opponent uses Bestow Curse to embed a 100 gp gem (which they must supply) somewhere inside the VoP character's body. The VoP nerf is in line with the power of other curses provided by the spell, and the effects are permanent. This situation leads to a need for Atonement and Remove Curse, and not-so-subtly reminds the player that Vow of Poverty requires some serious character motivation.
PhantomTrain 03-23-07, 06:00 PM	M.T. is right about the motivation of VoP players, to the extent that I've developed a nerf tactic to use against those who abuse the feat. Basically an opponent uses Bestow Curse to embed a 100 gp gem (which they must supply) somewhere inside the VoP character's body. The VoP nerf is in line with the power of other curses provided by the spell, and the effects are permanent. This situation leads to a need for Atonement and Remove Curse, and not-so-subtly reminds the player that Vow of Poverty requires some serious character motivation. Holy hell, that's just uncalled for. By my logic, it wouldn't even work. I mean, lets say a monk takes the Vow, and plays it well. During a fight, he gets grappled and an opponent forces a magical cloak onto him, holding it there for a single round. No more Vow? That seems utterly unreasonable. As we all seem to agree, we want our players taking the Vow because it fits their character and adds an interesting twist to roleplaying, not just so that they can get fantastic benefits. For me, the Vow (all of them, actually,) are all about intent. Your player that gets gem-raped isn't choosing to possess that wealth, nor is he benefitting from it in any way, so he hasn't violated the spirit or intention of his Vow. Now, that isn't to say that there aren't really good ways of spanking PCs who abuse this feat, nor is it to say that abusive players shouldn't be spanked. However, our objection to the abuse of this feat is that players who take advantage of it are not engaging in roleplaying, rather, they are just using the statistics of the feat to minmax. Why stoop to their level? There is no real guideline for how the Vow works, really. Promise to never own anything and you start getting magic? That power has to come from somewhere, and, by my reasoning, the origin of that power is both benevolent and wise, be it a god, some primal force of the universe, the characters own ancestors, hell, maybe even an enlightened manifestation of the character's own future self. It is fully capable of saying 'I don't think you're doing this for the right reasons', and, just like that, the power is gone until your player (through a roleplaying quest, perhaps?) begins to act in a non-abusive way. Don't sink into the technicalities that minmaxers love to use. Force it to be about flavor and roleplaying.
GhostStepper 03-23-07, 06:12 PM	The real question is what do you do when your PCs have recomended wealth per level and have better abilities than a VoP character?
enygmatic_me 03-23-07, 07:02 PM	The real question is what do you do when your PCs have recomended wealth per level and have better abilities than a VoP character? Unfortunately, the only thing to do is suck it up and deal. The Monk is actually an OK choice for the feat, but not the best. The best, in my opinion, has already been stated. The Druid gets all the benefits while wild shaped and there really is no overlap with their class features (like there is with the monk). They are good feats, but it is easy to lose them and then you find yourself at higher levels with two less feats (not including the bonus feats gained through Vow of Poverty that you also loose) and no magic items. As a Monk there is only one thing to do. Go on a Drinking binge and hope some Drunken Masters take you out to party.
Mystic Theurge 03-23-07, 07:11 PM	I mean, lets say a monk takes the Vow, and plays it well. The problem is, when players take the feat for the wrong motivation, they aren't playing the character well. And for the most part, I have found that I become instantly suspicious when a player says she wants to play a VoP monk because, by and large, they are doing it for power. So when I do allow them to play a VoP monk, I keep a very sharp eye on them. I don't put curses on the character, but I do continuously remind them of the sacrifice they have to make to maintain the vow. I might even be nitpicky.
Mystic Theurge 03-23-07, 07:15 PM	The real question is what do you do when your PCs have recomended wealth per level and have better abilities than a VoP character? That is the cost of having the VoP. The benefits of the VoP are not meant to replace equipment but to somewhat compensate for what a character loses for not having any equipment worth value. In the long run, a properly outfitted character should outstrip the benefits that come with the VoP. This, however, assumes that characters in a campaign are properly outfitted. I know alot of DMs that are afraid to outfit the characters and so the VoP becomes a very nice choice. Of course, as soon as the DM realizes the "mistake", he tends to ban the VoP. This is a reflection od shoddy DMing, not the VoP, in my opinion.
ravenshrike 03-23-07, 07:17 PM	M.T. is right about the motivation of VoP players, to the extent that I've developed a nerf tactic to use against those who abuse the feat. Basically an opponent uses Bestow Curse to embed a 100 gp gem (which they must supply) somewhere inside the VoP character's body. The VoP nerf is in line with the power of other curses provided by the spell, and the effects are permanent. This situation leads to a need for Atonement and Remove Curse, and not-so-subtly reminds the player that Vow of Poverty requires some serious character motivation. Wouldn't work, as once the gem joins with his body it CERTAINLY is no longer worth 100 gp. Not to him, and not to anyone who knows him. It becomes, essentially, monetarily null until it is either surgically removed or someone kills him and digs through his body to remove it.
philnicau 03-23-07, 10:17 PM	M.T. is right about the motivation of VoP players, to the extent that I've developed a nerf tactic to use against those who abuse the feat. Basically an opponent uses Bestow Curse to embed a 100 gp gem (which they must supply) somewhere inside the VoP character's body. The VoP nerf is in line with the power of other curses provided by the spell, and the effects are permanent. This situation leads to a need for Atonement and Remove Curse, and not-so-subtly reminds the player that Vow of Poverty requires some serious character motivation. You can't atone for breaking a VOP, if you willing break the conditions of the vow then you loose its benefits forever.
philnicau 03-23-07, 10:19 PM	There is no real guideline for how the Vow works, really. Promise to never own anything and you start getting magic? You must take the exalted feat Sacred Vow before taking VOP so you've taken a vow to a divine power.
sooperspook 03-23-07, 10:30 PM	I don't see the point for this feat to begin with. Taking a vow of any kind should be a roleplaying thing, not some game mechanic. If a game mechanic is really needed then just have it as a ritual or something, I certainly wouldn't want to waste a non-refundable feat slot on it. After all, aren't feats supposed to represent something a characters learns or develops? You don't "develop/learn" a limitation, you suffer from one!
runestar 03-23-07, 10:51 PM	The problem is that it is near impossible to rollplay "being dirt poor". In dnd, your eq is king. Players will sooner commit suicide and get resurrected than have their eq subjected to a disjunction. It is your eq that determines how powerful you are. Without it, you are almost nothing. Barring specific classes like spellcasters, you won't be able to take down anything with cr = your ECL-8 without your eq, barring dm fiat. The player who wants to roleplay being a philanthropist and move around without eq is not going to last for a long time, if at all. It is more of a game balance issue to have the VOP feat mimic the benefits of using magic gear, rather than a RP one. Get over it.:) Else, I can't imagine a player willingly running around butt naked in a game. Even if there were, they would unlikely be able to contribute meaningfully to the game. I would say to just leave the VOP feat alone as is.
StruckingFuggle 03-24-07, 12:24 AM	The problem is, when players take the feat for the wrong motivation, they aren't playing the character well. And for the most part, I have found that I become instantly suspicious when a player says she wants to play a VoP monk because, by and large, they are doing it for power. So when I do allow them to play a VoP monk, I keep a very sharp eye on them. I don't put curses on the character, but I do continuously remind them of the sacrifice they have to make to maintain the vow. I might even be nitpicky. that's not necessarily true. They can take it for the power and then roleplay it, too. There's no reason for the two to be mutually exclusive. You've never did something with a character because you wanted the mechanics of it, and then incorporated it into your character to roleplay it, too? Also, if you follow the WBLG, or even more, exceed them, VoP is NOT that powerful. Except, perhaps, in the hands of a Druid.
Mystic Theurge 03-24-07, 07:57 AM	that's not necessarily true. They can take it for the power and then roleplay it, too. There's no reason for the two to be mutually exclusive. You've never did something with a character because you wanted the mechanics of it, and then incorporated it into your character to roleplay it, too? Also, if you follow the WBLG, or even more, exceed them, VoP is NOT that powerful. Except, perhaps, in the hands of a Druid. Most (but not all) of the players that I have encountered that want the VoP for their monk don't do it because their characters feel that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." Personally, I have never taken the VoP for the goodies it gives my character (I have yet to play a VoP monk), but I have taken it because it serves a purpose for the roleplaying side of my character. It is true that it doens't hurt that it comes with benefits. I don't think I would take the feat if it didn't. As someone else said, it is difficult in the extreme to forsake all wealth and expect to play a viable character without the benefits. But as a DM, I have always maintained that the benefits are secondary. Your second paragragh sort of makes my point. IF the DM is doling out treasure properly, no one in their right mind would take the VoP simply for the goodies. The only cases I have seen otherwise are players who are short sighted and are looking for the instant payday, which is inherantly agianst the spirit of the VoP, IMO.
danielinthewolvesden 03-24-07, 03:13 PM	Monk is not the best class, as one of the magor bonuses of the VoP is bonus Exalted feats- most of which require a high CHA. Monks are so MAD they need CHA as a dump stat. Dheran: that's just plain cheating by the DM, the PC did not choose to do so willingly. A cleric is not a bad choice either, assuming you have a DM that is OK (as Andy Collins is) with the VoP PC having a simple wooden Holy Symbol. But yes, Druid, that is the ticket.
Walls 03-24-07, 04:38 PM	By claiming one class uses VoP properly and being that class just to make sure it's worth it... isn't that going straight against the roleplaying aspect of the feat anyhow? Hell, I think a DM could talk to the player about taking it, regardless of class. All it takes is imagination.
StruckingFuggle 03-24-07, 07:34 PM	Most (but not all) of the players that I have encountered that want the VoP for their monk don't do it because their characters feel that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." Personally, I have never taken the VoP for the goodies it gives my character (I have yet to play a VoP monk), but I have taken it because it serves a purpose for the roleplaying side of my character. It is true that it doens't hurt that it comes with benefits. I don't think I would take the feat if it didn't. As someone else said, it is difficult in the extreme to forsake all wealth and expect to play a viable character without the benefits. But as a DM, I have always maintained that the benefits are secondary. Your second paragragh sort of makes my point. IF the DM is doling out treasure properly, no one in their right mind would take the VoP simply for the goodies. The only cases I have seen otherwise are players who are short sighted and are looking for the instant payday, which is inherantly agianst the spirit of the VoP, IMO. I dunno. The spirit, maybe, but not the flavor. I - as a DM - made it an unexalted feat, and one of the villains is a vop monk/cleric (heh, who's holy symbol is his self) - who took it for the power, as a sort of "to prove I don't need magic items, only my self, to become strong" ... and so, it's possible to have a VoP flavor and roleplaying, while doing it for the power. (.... frankly, I think that (so, IMO) a "proper" Vow of Powerty is pretty boring and lacking in flavor from a roleplaying perspective, anyway.)
Katana_Uno 03-25-07, 12:43 AM	I've never played a character with VoP, but it seems interesting. After reading the posts on this thread, I had a thought. Please note, I have not read the actual feat descriptions so this may be covered already. It seems that the consensus is that Druids are the best fit for the VoP, but from what I've read above, you cannot own or keep any possessions. I don't think an animal companion can be considered a possesion, but what about spell components? Or the spell component bag you have to keep to cast the spells? Wouldn't that bar a druid from taking the Vow? Just a thought.
enygmatic_me 03-25-07, 02:07 AM	I've never played a character with VoP, but it seems interesting. After reading the posts on this thread, I had a thought. Please note, I have not read the actual feat descriptions so this may be covered already. It seems that the consensus is that Druids are the best fit for the VoP, but from what I've read above, you cannot own or keep any possessions. I don't think an animal companion can be considered a possesion, but what about spell components? Or the spell component bag you have to keep to cast the spells? Wouldn't that bar a druid from taking the Vow? Just a thought. The feat actually addresses this. Spell component pouches are one of several exceptions to the "own nothing" requirement.
StruckingFuggle 03-25-07, 02:39 AM	And if not, you can take Eschew Mats.
Mystic Theurge 03-25-07, 02:52 AM	I dunno. The spirit, maybe, but not the flavor. I - as a DM - made it an unexalted feat, and one of the villains is a vop monk/cleric (heh, who's holy symbol is his self) - who took it for the power, as a sort of "to prove I don't need magic items, only my self, to become strong" ... and so, it's possible to have a VoP flavor and roleplaying, while doing it for the power. That goes well beyond the bounds of the rules as set forth in the book. If you want to make the feat based on power as a DM, that is certainly your perogative. My arguments have been based on what is found in the BoED, however, so I can't address anything outside of those bounds.