Post/Author/DateTime	Post
3nigma 04-02-05, 12:05 PM	I'm about to start a campaign, and I have a player who is going to be a druid. However, he read on some random post someone talk about a Druid taking a Vow of Poverty (from Book of Exalted Deeds), and it peaked his interest. He looked it up, and decided he wanted to do it. However, after I investigated, I found that Druids don't have the option of taking the exalted feat of Vow of Poverty (pre-req. Sacred Vow, non-Druid). Instead of saying "Shoot, oh well," he decides after some thought that he will start at level 1 as a human monk. With his two feats, he says he'll take "Sacred Vow" and then "Vow of Poverty," then at level two start taking levels in Druid (and then for the rest of his career, since all he wants to play is a druid anyway). My question is this. This situation is metagaming to the extreme. It is taking purely the game mechanics of Dungeons and Dragons and manipulating them to create a character that "has what I want." But really, he's just a druid. He never had any intent on being a monk, and moreover, he is reknown for his hatred of monks. (Seriously). So, what's a DM to do? Do I allow this metagaming even though he has a magnificent character biography twisted to make it viable, or do I disallow it because it is such an extreme case of BS? Also, he wasn't even gonna pick human, he even picked his RACE as a metagame to get both feats at level one. What's a DM to do?
Count Arioch the 28th 04-02-05, 12:16 PM	I'm about to start a campaign, and I have a player who is going to be a druid. However, he read on some random post someone talk about a Druid taking a Vow of Poverty (from Book of Exalted Deeds), and it peaked his interest. He looked it up, and decided he wanted to do it. However, after I investigated, I found that Druids don't have the option of taking the exalted feat of Vow of Poverty (pre-req. Sacred Vow, non-Druid). There is no "non-druid" prerequisite there. A druid can take Vow of Poverty. (And in fact, become frighteningly powerful with the feat. VoP monk has nothing on the VoP druid.) Instead of saying "Shoot, oh well," he decides after some thought that he will start at level 1 as a human monk. With his two feats, he says he'll take "Sacred Vow" and then "Vow of Poverty," then at level two start taking levels in Druid (and then for the rest of his career, since all he wants to play is a druid anyway). Aah, monk + druid + VoP. Even better. this guy will be owning everything come level 6 or so. Do I allow this metagaming even though he has a magnificent character biography twisted to make it viable, or do I disallow it because it is such an extreme case of BS? Also, he wasn't even gonna pick human, he even picked his RACE as a metagame to get both feats at level one. What's a DM to do? My opinion? I don't use VoP at all. It makes certain classes into gods (such as Druid), and makes other classes worthless. (Clerics and wizards.) That makes me think it's unbalanced. Now, I don't have a problem with feats that are better for certain characters, but VoP kinda stretches the extremes a long way, to the point it cripples certain characters. (A wizard with Power attack can still be a wizard. A wizard with VoP is pretty useless.) I would say that your bizarre ruling that druids can't take VoP is what's causing the meta-gaming in the. There's nothing in the rules that says that druids can't take vow feats. Instead of that, you should just say "NHo VoP in my game, it's disruptive, like it or lump it". But that's my opinion. and my opinions tend to be unpopular.
3nigma 04-02-05, 12:32 PM	THanks so much for the quick reply! Your input added a lot of insight into this situation. I'm fairly confident I'm not going to allow him to do this, but moreover, maybe now I won't allow the VoP ever at all. However, I do have one discrepency. In the Book of Exalted Deeds, each class is outlined as what it's like to be an EXALTED version of that class. Following each description is a list of "Exalted Feat Choices," and then "Prestige Class Options." These lists outline the options available to that class to choose from in the exalted feats (under which "Savred Vow" and "VoP" fall). But on this list, Sacred Vow isn't granted as an option for druids to take. However, minus this being the case, I still completely agree with everything you said. I think it's overpowered, and it makes classes even crazily stronger and others useless. Our group is very tank-heavy, and even a generic Druid will far overpower teh sword-swingers. Thanks again for the insight, I think you've tipped the scale for me not allowing this. Thanks =).
Count Arioch the 28th 04-02-05, 12:34 PM	In the Book of Exalted Deeds, each class is outlined as what it's like to be an EXALTED version of that class. Following each description is a list of "Exalted Feat Choices," and then "Prestige Class Options." These lists outline the options available to that class to choose from in the exalted feats (under which "Savred Vow" and "VoP" fall). But on this list, Sacred Vow isn't granted as an option for druids to take. Actually, that's only a suggestion for feats to choose. If the feat cannot be taken by druids, then it will say so in the feat description. It says nothing of the sort in the feat description. Edit: Actually, after looking at the book, there does in fact seem to be text to support your claim. I know from design intent that that's not correct, because there are several NPCs in the monsters section that ahve feats not on the list. (Example: Olyhartu, a barbarian, has two vow feats, and neither are on the list for barbarians in the chapter where the text exists. Check page 130, I'm sure I can find more.) I still insist that my interpretation is the correct one, but that text is misleading.
3nigma 04-02-05, 12:39 PM	Are you sure about this? None of the other feats exclude classes explicitly in their descriptions. Doesn't matter anyway, good enough ;)
Count Arioch the 28th 04-02-05, 12:41 PM	I edited my previous post while you were posting, just to let you know. I do see why you would think that it's limited by class.
3nigma 04-02-05, 12:49 PM	Thanks again for all your help, it's offered a lot of insight on this situation =)
Habronicus 04-02-05, 12:50 PM	Just want to add that, in my games, I never allow for something which is not "Core" unless the player is experienced (and has proved that is a good roleplayer) or has provided me with an logical background story which justifies his character. If the above isn't met, I simply don't allow it, and I won't take any lip from the player. PS: By "Core", I mean the 3 core books + any House Rule and Optional Rule I may have decided to apply before the start of campaign.
Megrim_Lord 04-02-05, 12:50 PM	if you feel like being evil, you could let him take VoP and then have the party find really cool magic items that only a druid would want
3nigma 04-02-05, 12:56 PM	I already thought of the druid item thing, hehe ;). But I am 100% identical to the post before that. I only allow stuff that's in the core rulebooks, as I tend to think that most supplements aren't very balanced. However, in the same respect, I will take things into consideration and see how I feel about them. This thread is basically my consideration process ;). Thanks again you guys, this has been a great help. -3nigma :)
Cold Napalm 04-03-05, 05:52 AM	VoP is either really broke...or really broke. If you don't enforce the RP aspects, it's broken as the player is really powerful as a monk/druid. If you do, they are pretty nerfed in the actions and as such, it's an easy feat to lose due to ethos violations. Let him take it and see if he can KEEP it hehe. I had a VoP monk almost make 2 sessions with that feat in tact...it doesn't help if everyone else in the groups likes neutral or evil characters either hehe.
Szat 04-03-05, 06:02 AM	You're aware that any character taking an Exalted Feat from the BoED needs to have been granted access of the feat from a POWERFUL, GOOD-ALIGNED OUTSIDER. "Only intelligent characters of good alignment and the highest moral standards can acquire exalted feats, and only as a gift from powerful agents of good - deities, celestials, or similar creatures." I've rarely ever heard of a 1st level character who's a favoured of a deity to the extent of being granted a supernatural feat because of how amazingly good the character. Just a thought.
snowlynx 04-03-05, 12:38 PM	I've rarely ever heard of a 1st level character who's a favoured of a deity to the extent of being granted a supernatural feat because of how amazingly good the character. Just a thought. How about a first-level Favored Soul (Complete Divine)? *g* I don't allow the exalted book in my games. I like the CONCEPT but I've never seen anything taken from it for the right reasons; the players who use the book always want to powergame (and often aren't very good at playing "good" characters.) CONCEPT is rarely a thought in these people's minds when they take the feat; they just want the feat for the abilities it gives. If I thought the players actually had a concept that worked for exalted, I would probably allow a lot from it (and encourage all characters to follow the exalted path, because it seems to be a good plot and storyline oppurtunity.)
Isran_Imrador 04-03-05, 01:28 PM	Well i do allow it! becouse it makes good characters.... ;) i have played a paladin and a wizard in FR with VoP. both where quite fun....
Fanatic-Templar 04-03-05, 02:34 PM	I personally only use Core, so I am not familiar with rules surrounding exalted feats. Still, it's nature suggests that the vowtaker need be good. A multiclass monk/druid must be Lawful Neutral.
trapspringer 04-03-05, 02:50 PM	This situation is metagaming to the extreme. It is taking purely the game mechanics of Dungeons and Dragons and manipulating them to create a character that "has what I want." But really, he's just a druid.... The broken-ness of VoP aside, what is wrong with this? On a fundamental level, why is it wrong to make a character you want to play? How is this any different from making an orc and explaining it in your back-story because you want to play an orc? These are not rhetorical questions, I am genuinly interested.
friggenni 04-03-05, 03:06 PM	I've actually allowed this kind of behavior on several occasions with my players, in fact I encourage it. People keep on forgetting that not every game in this world is fair and you don't HAVE to balance every stupid little thing in every game. If your even a fair DM you can completely own PC's who try to always use their uber characters to overcome every situation. There is SO much that you can put your players through that will challenge thier minds to make them have to completely overcome the next insane challange you've come up with for them. So explain to me how this VOP Druid/Monk is going to be any good at a diplomatic mission between two countries to resolve serious issues, or even how some uber powerful Dervish type character is going to handle a flying wizard that he can't even touch. Get my meaning, YOU as DM have to ultimately balance the game...NOT the players. If they want to metagame or such, then throw things at them that make their brains hurt...remember that YOU control the game, not them. And it's your responsibility to make the game fair and fun without getting vindictive towards your players...yet it's their job to put you through as much junk as they can possibly imagine...it's a fair trade! Lol
Sarge 04-03-05, 03:06 PM	If you look closely, the Vow of Poverty druid isn't broken at all. It's a seriously disadvantage for druids since it means they cannot wildshape into the majority of combat forms without breaking the vow. Some people are eager to believe this feat creates a great combo, and thus the VoP druid has created some minor stirs on the boards. It seems too good to be true. In fact it is. Many leave out the fact that the vow of poverty doesn't allow the character to possess armor. All he or she is allowed to wear are simple clothes. And if the druid transforms into most creatures, he will gain some kind of hide, and according to Sage Advice, that hide gained from wildshaping counts as real armor for the purposes of vow of poverty, instantly breaking the vow. The sage has stated that any natural armor bonus of +3 or better (the same bonus as hide armor) is considered enough to break the vow. Many disagree with this particular peice of sage advice, but nonetheless, if it's published, then it is considered official. I personally find the ruling to be a good one, which helps to bring balance to an otherwise overpowered class and feat combination. So as you can see, taking the vow of poverty as a druid is a significant restriction. I hope that helps you with your problem.
weasel fierce 04-03-05, 04:04 PM	How would the monastery or order that he likely belongs to, as a monk, feel by him wandering off to become a tree hugger ?
Vanamir 04-03-05, 04:32 PM	Well i do allow it! becouse it makes good characters.... ;) i have played a paladin and a wizard in FR with VoP. both where quite fun.... I don't have my book with me right now so i may be wrong but isn't a wizards spell book a sort of posession and as such not allowed under the VoP feat?
Elven Doritos 04-03-05, 10:55 PM	Not to mention the obvious, but.... To be a monk, you must be LAWFUL. (LG, LN, LE) To be a druid, you must be NEUTRAL (NG, LN, N, CN, NE) To be exalted, you must be GOOD (LG, NG, CG) None of those lists has a term that can be found on all three. In my opinion, no character should ever be allowed to change their alignments because of metagaming or multiclassing. Alignments should be a loose guide for the behavior of the character, and a change so fundamental as to merit that alignment difference should be a major roleplaying experiencing (redeeming an evil villian, or the fall of a paladin). That is all, The Almighty Doritos
Razoreface 04-03-05, 11:13 PM	Not to mention the obvious, but.... People should do that more often.. it's usually the thing that goes unnoticed. To be a monk, you must be LAWFUL. (LG, LN, LE) To be a druid, you must be NEUTRAL (NG, LN, N, CN, NE) To be exalted, you must be GOOD (LG, NG, CG) None of those lists has a term that can be found on all three. Oh yeah, slam that door! If he starts off as a monk, and wants to be exalted, he's LG. If you cease to be Good, can you remain exalted? Beyond that, anything not core is specifically noted in every non-core book, and the DMG, as being completely optional and under the discretion of the DM. Just because your player goes out and spends $40 on a new suppliment doesn't give them any kind of right to use it. If you want to let him be an exalted druid, he can be.. but he can't be an exalted druid monk. Woo for Doritos. And Chee-tos.
Steelborn86 04-03-05, 11:21 PM	The alignment isn't a problem. He might start as a LG monk but decide that the monastary is too confiding and want to leave to go help people in the world. So he just up and leaves his extremely lawful, orderful monastary to go to the closest city in which he thinks people might need help. BAM, alignment shift to NG.
magicchupacabra 04-04-05, 12:37 AM	If you look closely, the Vow of Poverty druid isn't broken at all. It's a seriously disadvantage for druids since it means they cannot wildshape into the majority of combat forms without breaking the vow. Some people are eager to believe this feat creates a great combo, and thus the VoP druid has created some minor stirs on the boards. It seems too good to be true. In fact it is. Many leave out the fact that the vow of poverty doesn't allow the character to possess armor. All he or she is allowed to wear are simple clothes. And if the druid transforms into most creatures, he will gain some kind of hide, and according to Sage Advice, that hide gained from wildshaping counts as real armor for the purposes of vow of poverty, instantly breaking the vow. The sage has stated that any natural armor bonus of +3 or better (the same bonus as hide armor) is considered enough to break the vow. Many disagree with this particular peice of sage advice, but nonetheless, if it's published, then it is considered official. I personally find the ruling to be a good one, which helps to bring balance to an otherwise overpowered class and feat combination. So as you can see, taking the vow of poverty as a druid is a significant restriction. I hope that helps you with your problem. Interesting, you have the entire VoP tree come falling down for a class ability, that dosnt really seem right there. Where is it you heard this from since when you say 'if its published' I'm sure that its not in the FAQ or elsewhere on the WoTC site.
Isran_Imrador 04-04-05, 04:23 AM	The point is he doesnt need to start as a monk that rules out the alignment question....
High Octane 04-04-05, 04:40 AM	Take the book of exhalted deeds. Pick it up. Put it in a pile along with unearthed arcana, and book of vile darkness. Cover with gasoline. Light.
allenchan 04-04-05, 05:09 AM	How is it metagaming? Any attempt to make a character that isnt complete crap is metagaming? What? Powergaming, yes. Metagaming, no. Unless you think people should play poorly made, underpowered, weakly designed characters because thats the only way to truly "roleplay". What level is your campaign at? Druids only get really good after level 5 or so, and VoP really looses power around level 15. So thats 10 levels where he'll be a beast, but everything else he should be managable. (besides the fact that a druid, of ANY kind, is extremely good) Sarge: Never, ever, ever have I heard this stated by the Sage or anyone else. Thats just rediculous. That means you couldnt have a kobold with VoPk. Oh no, they have a natural armor bonus! :rolleyes: Seriously now. Another thing: Your PC should learn that taking Monk isnt the best way to go. Monk 1/Druid 19 is inferior to Ninja 1/Druid 19. They still get Wisdom to AC, more skill points, can be the party trapfinder, and have no alignment conflictions at all.
MortalPlague 04-04-05, 08:08 AM	It's metagaming to take a level in monk first simply for the feat just because it makes no sense in character to take the level, it's purely an ooc decision. If the player can back up the change in their background, then it stops being metagaming, though if any of my players did that, I'd be fairly disappointed in them.
sambudak 04-04-05, 08:20 AM	Besides the various rules concerning this VoP thing, the whole metagaming thing is sort of moot where D&D is concerned. Metagaming seems to be encouraged by the way the ruleset works-- IMO you have to metagame if you want any kind of PrC published or get that cool feat. It just seems unvoidable.
LCD2YOU 04-04-05, 08:27 AM	Let them take it as a Monk. Their Sacred Vow is to the LG Monestary to which they belong. The Sacred Vow specifically states that they must stay as a Monk. If they want to change to NG and become a Druid, let them but show them that they lose their Sacred Vow and PoV. Once you lose either you can't get them back. Nobody will trust someone who turns and changes because he wants to do so just because. So, he gets to play a Monk with SV and VoP and a Druid with neither.
Mikal 04-04-05, 10:37 AM	I don't see the problem here. If he becomes a Druid after being a monk, he loses monkish abilities, thus wasting that one level. If he wants to take Sacred Vow and VoP, let him. While he'll be a great character due to the VoP, he won't be overbalancing. PLUS he'll have to walk the very tight line those two feats represent.
Arrowhen 04-04-05, 12:56 PM	How is it metagaming? Any attempt to make a character that isnt complete crap is metagaming? What? Powergaming, yes. Metagaming, no. It's metagaming because it's a choice made entirely on the basis of game mechanics, rather than stemming from the character's motivations... Summer. The tiny village of West Nowhere. Two young boys sit on the banks of the river, dangling their feet in the water and talking. MOGRID: When I grow up, I'm going to be a blacksmith like my father. THURMBION: Not me, I'm going to become a Vow of Poverty Druid! But to get the feats I need I'm going to have to take a level of Monk first. MOGRID: What's a "feat?" What do you mean, "level?" THUMRBION: Oh, bite me, you roleplaying elitist.
Mikal 04-04-05, 06:47 PM	It's metagaming because it's a choice made entirely on the basis of game mechanics, rather than stemming from the character's motivations...[/i] Almost all class choices are. Just as a characters class, feat, and skill choices can stem from his motivations, so too can a persons motivations stem from the class, feat, and skill choices he makes. It doesn't make it metagaming. Metagaming would be taking the monk as a class because he knows the DM loves monks, and, since he'll be a monk, he'll get a lot of bonuses from the DM
Arrowhen 04-04-05, 07:31 PM	Almost all class choices are. Just as a characters class, feat, and skill choices can stem from his motivations, so too can a persons motivations stem from the class, feat, and skill choices he makes. It doesn't make it metagaming. Metagaming would be taking the monk as a class because he knows the DM loves monks, and, since he'll be a monk, he'll get a lot of bonuses from the DM To quote from Trollbill's Dictionary of Terminology (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=46916)... "Metagame (verb): To make character decisions in an RPG based upon game knowledge rather than character knowledge." A character doesn't know what a "level" or a "feat" is. He might have some idea what a "class" is--it's fairly obvious that there are some sorts of people who can cast spells and other sorts of people who can cut you in half with an axe--but he certainly isn't going to know that if he "dips" into a "level" of a certain "class" he'll get the "feat" he needs for his kewl "build."
kliate 04-04-05, 08:09 PM	I think going Exalted Monk/Druid is really pushing the limits - lets look at some of the requirements: Exalted - not only good, but good beyond good. There's no question that the character in question must be good-aligned. Monk - Any lawful. So, you've got a Lawful Good character to meet these requirements. That seems to work, right? Druid - Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, Neutral Evil or just plain Neutral. There appears to be a problem - either this character becomes an ex-monk, an ex-druid, or ceases to be exalted at some point. As an Ex-druid, he'd lose all spells and druid abilities; as an ex-monk, he'd be forbidden from ever taking monk levels again (although due to the fact that the alignment shift is for multiclassing, this shouldn't be much of a problem). If losing exalted status, the character wouldn't benefit from Vow of Poverty at all. Personally, I tend to start frowning upon characters who shift alignments around in this manner to meet requirements for certain powerful combinations. While I have permitted VoP in the past, I tend to outline very clearly at the start of each campaign which material is always allowable, by-request or disallowed. I've found that VoP works well in campaigns where either the DM cares very little about the power curve for the party (such as some random dungeon crawls I've conducted in the past) or where roleplaying is not only encouraged - but practiced by everyone in the group. The usual in-between that most RP fit into will have DM's who see players trying to take the strongest feats to make their characters unbeatable - and refuse to allow it or approach these boards asking if they should allow it. So, here's what I suggest - speak with this player, as well as the others, and see what the group wants. Then, act in the best interest of the group. Finally, don't forget that the group also includes yourself. If your players simply want to throw around the most powerful characters ever to hit a D&D table, and you're game to DM for such a group, then there is no conflict. Allow the feat and get into the game. If some of your other players are concerned about this player trying to become extremely powerful, then try to find out what their specific concerns are; And whether they can be reasonably met while allowing VoP to be taken. If most or all of your players don't want this character to be running around with VoP, then it's in your best interest (as well as that of the group) to disallow the feat.
trapspringer 04-04-05, 09:39 PM	Ok, now that someone has pulled a definition for metagaming, we can ask ourselves: Is metagaming bad. Don't everyone shout yes at once, now. The definition goes, "any OOC knowledge." At what point have we gone too far with restricting metagaming? At what point are the rules an expression of the realities of the world? Is it metagaming to take the higher ground for a +2 to hit? Some would say that is metagaming. Others argue that as a combat-savy adventurer, you know a higher ground yields a distinct advantage, so is it wrong to use a tactic? Here is a better question: Is it possible to 'not metagame,' and why would one want to 'not metagame?' Obviously, some people feel that 'not metagaming' improves the experience. Others just want to be a friggin druid with the VoP feat. Can you honestly say there is something wrong with wanting to play a Druid with the VoP feat? So you are left saying, "It isn't ok because it is metagaming to select that feat for no reason other than you want to play that character." then how the hell is it OK to play a wizard with improved unarmed strike? _______________OR_______________ "It is not OK because it ruins the my fun and the fun of other player to have a person not as involved in the plot elements as we are." If you went with choice A, your arguement does not make sense to me, please explain it. If you went with choice B, I have to ask, what prevents that person from being as involved in the story when the OP has already said he came up with a very good backstory explaining why his PC is who he is?
Mikal 04-04-05, 09:41 PM	To quote from Trollbill's Dictionary of Terminology (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=46916)... "Metagame (verb): To make character decisions in an RPG based upon game knowledge rather than character knowledge." A character doesn't know what a "level" or a "feat" is. He might have some idea what a "class" is--it's fairly obvious that there are some sorts of people who can cast spells and other sorts of people who can cut you in half with an axe--but he certainly isn't going to know that if he "dips" into a "level" of a certain "class" he'll get the "feat" he needs for his kewl "build." So in this case, anyone who ever chooses a class or feat for any reason outside of 'roleplaying' is metagaming. In which case, every dnd player is a metagamer. In which case, who gives a damn, since everyone does it anyway? :rolleyes:
Veton 04-04-05, 10:06 PM	You know, it bugs me when people try to get around the rules in this manner, and instead of thinking of their character concept, think of the best "build." I was going to start up a solo campaign once, and a player wanted to be a Battle Sorcerer/Fighter (or something similiar.) I was going to have the campaign start at 1st level, but then decided to have him start at 2nd level instead. He was ready to be a Fighter first, but then decided to have his first level in BSorcerer. "Why?" I asked him. "So I'll get more skill points without having to wait a level. I'm going to milk this benifit for all it's worth." I haven't started that campaign up. [/:rant:] Anyway, I'd bring up the excellent point brought up by Elven Doritos. And if he decides to use another class in place of the monk, smack him on the head with the PHB :) Summer. The tiny village of West Nowhere. Two young boys sit on the banks of the river, dangling their feet in the water and talking. MOGRID: When I grow up, I'm going to be a blacksmith like my father. THURMBION: Not me, I'm going to become a Vow of Poverty Druid! But to get the feats I need I'm going to have to take a level of Monk first. MOGRID: What's a "feat?" What do you mean, "level?" THUMRBION: Oh, bite me, you roleplaying elitist. :rofl: I think I'm going to have to sig that :D
Mikal 04-04-05, 10:11 PM	You know, it bugs me when people try to get around the rules in this manner, and instead of thinking of their character concept, think of the best "build." Why? It's a perfectly viable way to play the game.
trapspringer 04-04-05, 10:19 PM	He ISN'T getting around the rules. He is using them to build a character he wants to play! There is an acute differecne. Getting around the rules is the hulking hurler who averages 2.5 mil on a bad day! A VoP druid isn't getting around any rules, he is just using a feat published by WOTC!
Norseman 04-04-05, 10:26 PM	I'm pretty sure it's best to let players do what they want, wish for what they want to wish for. However, if doing so would be exrremely unfair, then reciprocating unfairness is due. In this case, a VoP player cannot fight ranged attackers. Use archers, spellcasters, and make sure to put them on the other side of the canyon. Like in dealing with wish, most of the time if it can't be allowed it ends up going horribly wrong. In this case, let him be in poverty. Make sure all the other players have kick ass items. To do this, when giving out xp, give it out as though the monster were a CR lower. When giving out items, give as though it were a CR higher (if 1 act like it's 1/2). Since the players will all probably be a bit strong for their level, give them monsters that are about 1 CR higher than they would normally be facing. The result is that his comrades will be significantly stronger, and more or less the game should be balanced. Edit: If this is too harsh, and the druid cannot keep up with his allies, soften up a little.
Elven Doritos 04-04-05, 10:29 PM	The question really underlying the whole situation, though, is whether or not the player and the DM understand the roleplaying implications and the extra mile the character will have to go when dealing with the party to ensure that everyone, including the DM, is comfortable with the idea of an exalted character in a party. Roleplaying-wise, an exalted character is like a paladin (or other alignment-based character, take your pick) on steroids. The restrictions that make them more powerful are meant to be dealt with by mature players, hence the rating on the book (in addition to the mature-themed artwork and real-world references, of course). Having DMed a party with an exalted bard, I can say that the restrictions are an interesting, if challenging, experience. Please, remember, that exalted feats are heavenly gifts, and the archangels and good-aligned deities monitor exalted characters as closely as they do their foes. That is all, The Exalted Doritos
fractal 04-04-05, 10:31 PM	He ISN'T getting around the rules. He is using them to build a character he wants to play! There is an acute differecne. Getting around the rules is the hulking hurler who averages 2.5 mil on a bad day! A VoP druid isn't getting around any rules, he is just using a feat published by WOTC! Right, but a character changing alignment just to take levels in classes that would normally be mutually exclusive, that's metagaming in a bad way. Real people don't plan to change their personalities in a sequential way in order to gain exclusive benefits from each.
Christman 04-04-05, 10:48 PM	Ugh... First, he couldn't be a Monk. He would HAVE to be a Neutral Good druid for his idea to even work. Second off, he needs to find out what Druid's Grove, sect, cult etc. he made his vow too. I would reccomend he make his vow to a specific Druidic Grove near his home, and have it relate to the Druid's already defined code to uphold nature. As for the Vow of Poverty, again it's an easy one. Small town. He/she took the Vow of Poverty because they felt that Nature alone could support them and they had no need to "hoarde" useful resources that others in their town could use with more benefit. As for Natural Armor negating a Vow of Poverty, I don't think so. You cannot wear armor, so how is a creature's skin/fur/scales counting as wearing anything? In the end, it's a matter of planning out why he took those feats and tying them to a generally good storyline. Just because someone decides to start a game with Feats people think are unbalanced isn't a reason for others to go up in arms when taking Spell Focus (Conujuration) and Augment Summoning is the same thing.
kliate 04-04-05, 10:49 PM	Real people don't plan to change their personalities in a sequential way in order to gain exclusive benefits from each. True...but they do on occasion try to manipulate others by mimicking personalities that aren't genuinely their own. Then again, why are we comparing Thunko the barbarian to Bob down the street? (Or D&D characters to real people, if that analogy was just misinterpreted).
fractal 04-05-05, 12:04 AM	True...but they do on occasion try to manipulate others by mimicking personalities that aren't genuinely their own. Yes, but merely mimicking an alignment doesn't suffice to let you take levels in Monk or Druid. You have to actually be that alignment. Then again, why are we comparing Thunko the barbarian to Bob down the street? (Or D&D characters to real people, if that analogy was just misinterpreted). Because D&D characters are supposed to be "real" people, or facsimiles thereof, except for their extraordinary powers and heroic circumstances. As personality is neither a power nor a circumstance, I think that D&D characters should have to react in the same general way as a real person might.
Loren Pechtel 04-05-05, 01:01 AM	I suspect the problem is self-correcting. I rather suspect this character will bust the VoP or the exhalted status.
UltimateReality 04-05-05, 01:36 AM	*fails Will save vs. posting in a VoP/alignment thread* Yes, but merely mimicking an alignment doesn't suffice to let you take levels in Monk or Druid. You have to actually be that alignment. Because D&D characters are supposed to be "real" people, or facsimiles thereof, except for their extraordinary powers and heroic circumstances.Real people's personalities, outlooks, and beliefs can change on a startlingly frequent basis. People do have life-changing experiences that can significantly rewrite the way they look at the world, what they view as good and evil, how much they care about upholding society's standards (and which society they base that off of). If an alignment shift is written into a kick-arse backstory, I see no reason why it's metagaming. There's an in-character explanation for it. As long as the player can roleplay an exalted good druid, they're good to go. (And they better be willing to let me use those monks as a plot hook somehow. ;))
Arrowhen 04-05-05, 02:41 AM	*fails Will save vs. posting in a VoP/alignment thread* Real people's personalities, outlooks, and beliefs can change on a startlingly frequent basis. People do have life-changing experiences that can significantly rewrite the way they look at the world, what they view as good and evil, how much they care about upholding society's standards (and which society they base that off of). Real people don't, however, plan out their personality, outlook, and belief shifts in advance in order to get some kewl combination of feats and class features. If an alignment shift is written into a kick-arse backstory, I see no reason why it's metagaming. But in this case, "...he decides after some thought that he will start at level 1 as a human monk. With his two feats, he says he'll take "Sacred Vow" and then "Vow of Poverty," then at level two start taking levels in Druid..." It's not a "backstory" if he's starting a character at level 1 having already made the decision switch classes and alignments (which should be a major "story" event) later on.
tender branson 04-05-05, 04:23 AM	he wants to be a vop druid. fine, let him. but make him roleplay it. and enforce the rules strictly. he puts on one magic ring, bam, take it all away. he so much as holds someone's coat for them, hit him with a warning. but i don't see the point in restricting someone from going down a certain route because they want to play that character. of course, you have to draw the line somewhere. as in half-dragon, half-fiend, vampire, lycanthropic, feral rakshasas with 2 levels in just about every class, three prcs and a vow of poverty to top it off. i'd have to think about that one for a bit. i'd probably allow it, but i'm a pretty laid back guy.
dknight100 04-05-05, 05:45 AM	so is he starting at a higher level than 1st? because if so, then how can you have any problem with his character having had an alignment change in their past? its just backstory, because its a fairly safe assumption that a character has had some kind of life before joining the campaign. if he is starting at 1st level, as a monk, then have him rp the elements that lead him into the change. as for the post about how characters not knowing what a "feat" or a "skill point" is, then how can they even take classes? a character would not know them as a feat, or a skill point, but he would know of the talents and mechanics that they represent. No, a barbariann doesn't say "oh, i'm sorry, i can only rage 1/day at this level. and i can't rage for very long either, as my constitution modifier isn't very high", but he probably would say "oh, i'm sorry, i don't think i can handle going beserk like that more than once a day at the moment. I can't go beserk for very long before i get tired out either, i just don't have the endurance" and about: Summer. The tiny village of West Nowhere. Two young boys sit on the banks of the river, dangling their feet in the water and talking. MOGRID: When I grow up, I'm going to be a blacksmith like my father. THURMBION: Not me, I'm going to become a Vow of Poverty Druid! But to get the feats I need I'm going to have to take a level of Monk first. MOGRID: What's a "feat?" What do you mean, "level?" THUMRBION: Oh, bite me, you roleplaying elitist. this is a stupid comparision. It would be difficult to think up dumber reasoning for arguing against making class/feat choices to reach a desired build. Thumbrion might well like nature, and pushing his physical abilities, thus leading him into being a monk when he "grows up" however later decides to pursue the life of a druid, furthermore, wants to help society, and decides that there are many more people deserving of expensive material possessions than him, and forsakes wealth with a vow of poverty
Count Arioch the 28th 04-05-05, 08:18 AM	Exalted - not only good, but good beyond good. There's no question that the character in question must be good-aligned. Monk - Any lawful. So, you've got a Lawful Good character to meet these requirements. That seems to work, right? Druid - Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, Neutral Evil or just plain Neutral. :eek: You know what, I never thought about that. You can't be union (Monk, druid, exalted). It's impossible to pull off at all. I feel stupid for not picking that up earlier. :P
Ansidar 04-05-05, 08:43 AM	Why not just let him play the VOP druid? So he's a bit stronger than the rest. As a DM surely you can get around that ability somehow. the Vow is reliant on a strict set of rules for the PC, if he breaks them, he loses his abilities. It seems to me that you have seen this feat and Nerfed the PC for using his imagination. I think that you should Allow it, and if he manages to keep his abilities, Kudos to him. Exalted is extremely hard to play, and you should reward your PC's for using new feats and abilities. Or would everybody out there want to DM the same group, Half-Orc barbarian, halfling rouge, dwarven fighter, human paladin and elven wizard? Personally, I'd love to DM a game with a Halfling fighter, elven Barbarian, half-orc Paladin, dwarven wizard and human rouge.
Szat 04-05-05, 08:56 AM	I'd love to DM a rouge..................although I'd imagine getting the stains out of the couch would be a pain in the butt.
Andrew_980 04-05-05, 12:08 PM	if he really insist, let him have a vop druid OR monk. but warn him of the strict requirements of the vop and exalted status. If he still wants it, don't hesitate to bring the hammer down at the first infraction. Role-playing requirements must be upheld to allow the BoED without it being a munchkin-fest
Count Arioch the 28th 04-05-05, 12:24 PM	However, keep in mind that you're punishing actual infractions. For example, carrying wealth is not an infraction, as long as it's donated at the first reasonable opportunity. For example, helping carry the evil dragon's horde will not be an infraction. Using the coincs to buy a decent house for a homeless family is not an infraction. Using the coins to buy yourself something nice IS an infraction. Also, you'll find that most people take teh feat with the intention of folowing the vow, even power gamers. ESPECIALLY power gamers. (The myth that poweer gamers cannot roleplay is found only in hearsay and legend, very few powergamers would bat an eye about complex code of conduct.)
eRaz0r 04-05-05, 12:38 PM	I think most people are missing the real point - there's no need for him to take Monk at all. AFAICT, VoP is valid for Druids. So ditch the first level of monk and go NG Druid all the way. Of course, this completely avoids the question of whether you want to allow VoP at all... Oh - and whomever suggested that natural armor counts against VoP - care to back that up with a link somewhere? Until then, it's just your opinion.
LCD2YOU 04-05-05, 12:53 PM	I must agree with the posters who feel that this is a Munchkin's dream are half right. All nightmares are dreams as well. Make sure he know, the player, very well that any deviation will result in the loss of the feat and there is no way to get it back. Any excuse of, "Well if there is no returning then why ever be good?" is the sure sign of Munchkin activity and point that out to him. Let him know if he uses any object (wearing a magic cloak as it is easier to carry counts is an infraction) he loses the feat. I could see using a Bag of Holding or a Portable Hole to carry other magic (or the bodies of comrades to get raised) but never anything else. If they need to carry mundane things, a regular sack works just as well. I forget if losing the feat means losing everything the feat provided (an excellent idea given the power I would think comes from the good planes including the enhancements and free Feats) but I'd consider that very strongly. Just my $0.02 US, $4.04 Canadian
UltimateReality 04-05-05, 03:59 PM	Real people don't, however, plan out their personality, outlook, and belief shifts in advance in order to get some kewl combination of feats and class features.However, it's not the character himself making this decision -- it's the player. The players are authors and control their characters just as much as the DM is the author and controller of the NPCs and gameworld. They have as much right to have their characters develop however they want as the DM does. The houserules might make things difficult, or impose certain consequences, but they still have the ability to choose to face those things. It's not a "backstory" if he's starting a character at level 1 having already made the decision switch classes and alignments (which should be a major "story" event) later on. :confused: I thought I had read somewhere the DM was planning to start them at level 2? (At work right now, no time to check.) Even if they are starting at level one, there is no reason a good roleplayer couldn't portray that shift and breaking away from their old associations. Just work with the DM on it first. If the DM says no go, toss it out and try another concept. If the DM says yes, go for it. Anyway, as has been reiterated lots of times, the player doesn't even need that monk level. He can be a human first level druid and get the feats anyway. I've got nothing more to add that other posters haven't already said, so cheers to the OP. :tiphat:
Arrowhen 04-05-05, 04:18 PM	However, it's not the character himself making this decision -- it's the player. The players are authors and control their characters just as much as the DM is the author and controller of the NPCs and gameworld. They have as much right to have their characters develop however they want as the DM does. Of course they have the right to have their characters develop in the context of the story. Planning out major life-altering decisions in advance is saying "screw the story, I've got a kewl build in mind and I'm going to do whatever it takes to get it, whether it makes sense or not."
windquake 04-05-05, 04:38 PM	Forgive me if I missed this. I don't have the BOED and I was just wondering what does the Vow of Poverty do? Someone described it as "broke"... Help a fellow DM out? What makes it so bad that it needs 2 (well 3 now that I posted!) pages of debate on if a character should be allowed to take it. Thanks. -Windquake
UltimateReality 04-05-05, 06:02 PM	Of course they have the right to have their characters develop in the context of the story. Planning out major life-altering decisions in advance is saying "screw the story, I've got a kewl build in mind and I'm going to do whatever it takes to get it, whether it makes sense or not."...Why can't players help develop the context of the story with the DM? I'm of the mind that the whole thing is a cooperative activity, so the more interaction between players and DM about character planning, the better. And if they're explaining it in a backstory or in game terms, then doesn't it make sense after all? Why must a VoP druid "screw the story"? (Unless the OP has explicitly stated so somewhere and I missed it.) I must admit I've never planned out a character's developmental path in advance...well, beyond the usual feats/prestige classes. I do, however, have goals for all my characters.
Arrowhen 04-05-05, 06:15 PM	Why must a VoP druid "screw the story"? (Unless the OP has explicitly stated so somewhere and I missed it.) I wasn't saying that the VoP druid, in itself, screws the story. I was saying that deciding before the story starts that a major life event (such as an alignment change) will take place later on in the game regardless of what's going on with the plot at that time is, in essence, saying "screw the story as long as I get to play my kewl build."
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-05-05, 07:02 PM	Lets look at this form a purely mechcanical stand piont: The player orginally wanted to play a Druid with VOP, but the DM made a mistake (as since seen the error of hisw ays so we won't start that again) and ruled that Druids could not take VOP, so the player decided to go with Druid/monk to get VOP. Mechanically this is not possible. However it is mechanically possible to play VOP Druid. Play a human druid and at first level take the feat holy vow, and use your bonus human feat to take VOP. Now lets look at this from a role-playing stand point: "Meet Tom the Druid, as a long child Tom was always interested in nature and the animals. Tom came from a poor family in a small town. Becuase tom had spent his child hood in such utter poverty he never really new what it was like to have money, but he learned that you did not need it either. One night Tom herd his mother and father gravely discussing what to do about the family finiances. His father had just lost his job as a sholdier in the Kings army becuase he was now too old to be soldier. Tom decided that he would move out of home and go seek a life for himself in the forest. Tom left that night and took nothing with except the clothes on his back and his lucky walking stick. Tom spent much time in the woods, and their he learned to survive with nothing except the gifts of <Insert nature god here>. Becuase Tom was so grateful for the kindnness <insert natures god here>, he dedicated his life to the survatude of that god. He also does everything he can to spread the grace of his god by helping any in need and also protecting the forst." I fail too see how how it is metagaming to make a concept that is mechanically powerful so long as the player can work into a conhersive concept that makes sence. In this case why wouldn't a druid forsake material wealth? It would seem to me to be a every good chioce for a druid to do. (To UR: when i figure out what wealth and magic level my campaign is I'll consider allowing VOP. As it is though i think i most likely will allow the BOED :cool: .)
UltimateReality 04-05-05, 09:08 PM	deciding before the story starts that a major life event (such as an alignment change) will take place later on in the game regardless of what's going on with the plot at that time is, in essence, saying "screw the story as long as I get to play my kewl build."This is where the DM starts laying down the in-game consequences. If it's regardless of the plot, then yes, he should probably be asked to consider another concept. However, as has been pointed out, if the player will insist, regardless of plot, he probably won't be able to keep that exalted status very long... Unless the OP pops back in and lets us know more about his player, we can't really judge the situation further. 3nigma, where are you?
True Archon 04-05-05, 09:25 PM	Hmmm.... okay... Why can't a druid take vow of poverty? It's not in the feat description or the lengthy description under "Voluntary Poverty". Is it somewhere else in the book? In fact, why can't a 1st level Human not take it, despite whatever class that they pick? I can see the alignment issues, however, the changing from lawful good to neutral good doesn't do anything beyond forbidding the later advancement of monk levels. Roleplaying/storyline-wise, by not starting the players at 1st level, you more or less put background story control into the player's hands, and thus the alignment change. I also can't see why a wild shaped druid breaks the vow of poverty by gaining the natural armor of the new form (in fact, the natural armor bonuses do not stack with the ones given by the VoP....edit: actually, they do... my mistake, I was looking for "enhancement" bonuses). It's not a form of material wealth. It's a special ability. That would be like saying that a Saint can't take the VoP because of the template abilities (and wait until your player sees this! :P ). So, the real problem I'm seeing is whether you as a DM want to deal with the Vow of Poverty. True, the vow does give lots of bonuses, but it has it's drawbacks as well (otherwise it wouldn't exist). The biggest drawback is maintaining exalted status. Which, quite honestly, is truly a feat unto itself. As a DM, you need to go through the Book of Exalted Deeds if you decide to let the player keep their character with all it's benefits and drawbacks. If you're concerned about the VoP being abused, keep in mind the following: 1. A ascetic can't have anything beyond ordinary simple weapons, simple clothes, one day's worth of food, a simple sack or bag, and a spell component pouch. 2. Any portion of the character's wealth is not split with the party, but given away in charity to DM controlled NPCs (including magical items or their gold value in equivalency). Thus, the other PC's must either give up their magical items or the hard currency. This will make treasure splits very interesting for the party with the VoP character. Make sure that the VoP character doesn't make any treasure decisions for his own benefit. For example: VoP character: "Hey, hold onto those potions of cure light wounds. We may need them (meaning I may need them)." Not to mention, the party is going to start noticing that their portion of the wealth that they are using on the VoP character's behalf is cutting into their equal share portion and not the VoP character's. 3. Exalted status and their corresponding feats require the Exalted person to follow the exalted status quo, including the following found in Chapter 1 of the BoED: Helping others, charity, healing, personal sacrifice, worshiping good deities (if applicable), casting good spells (watch those largely neutral druid spells), mercy, forgiveness, bringing hope, and redeeming evil. Also, read throught the section "The Straight and Narrow". 4. Sticking out like a sore thumb, characters and creatures that follow the extremes of the alignment chart (good & evil, paladins, clerics, celestials, and fiends) tend to be readably noticeable. Especially since characters with exalted feats have an aura of good. On top of that, an exalted character wouldn't even think twice about performing something questionable in morality, and will probably sacrifice themselves before harm came to an innocent on their behalf. 5. Exalted characters should be counter-balanced with Vile opponents. Big drawback.... enough said. 6. Vow of Poverty is kinda boring to play IMHO. I began playing a VoP monk, and I thought the benefits were quite nice. However, unless the Vow's presence manifested itself in the game, I saw that my character quickly became a black and white sheet with plusses and minuses. It was easy to become a calculating robot verses a character with real depth. If I had seen how the wealth that my character donated affected the world around him, I probably would have been able to enjoy the character. However, in a game where an average four players needed to split the spotlight, it probably would have rarely presented itself. But anyways, I've gone on long enough, and I'll leave you with what I've already said, and will leave by departing with the following: The DM makes or breaks the game balance. If you think that the VoP (or anything for that matter) will upset the balance that you've put into place.... don't allow it. Otherwise, let the player's have fun.
3nigma 04-05-05, 09:47 PM	3nigma, where are you? I am just finally reading all of these posts, but I am here :) I have decided a ruling on the situation. In a short summary, I did not allow my player to take this route for his character. My reasons are as follows... 1) The VoP, I hadn't known, was questionable in its balance from the very beginning. I've always taken the stand that anything outside of the CORE is completely up to the discretion of the DM, and I've never thusfar allowed anything outside of the core rulebooks. It seems that any supplement is slightly unbalanced, as it has less playtesting and is just pushing a product out the door, in my opinion. The very fact that we have here 3 pages of debate is an illustration as to the questionability of this content. 2) The player never intended on ever being a monk, and actually hates monks. Our entire gaming group has always kind of considered monks as a pretty strong class in its own right, enough to make everyone bitter against them. 3) The player never intended on being a human. He did this to get the extra feat. 4) The player had no interest in roleplaying aspects of what it would be like to take a life of poverty, he was just interested in the benefits that came from it. He then, in turn, decided to roleplay it as a side-effect of the benefits. 5) The VoP benefits are just irrational. A person decides to be poor, and they all of a sudden have all these powers attributed to them. Where do they come from? 6) We are playing in the campaign setting of Eberron. VoP and Exalted material doesn't fit in Eberron as a whole. The ideas in BoED are that of streamlined, concrete values of GOOD. However, in Eberron, "good" is in the eyes of the beholder, and sometimes "good" can be just the lesser of two evils. Gods also do not interact in the world to grant powers such as these, etc. I talked to the player, and he figured it was eventually coming and didn't argue about the point. He retweaked his bio, and loves his character still and will enjoy it thoroughly. He's the only caster in a tank-heavy group anyway, and this fact alone will make him powerful enough. In all boiled down to a judgement call, and weighing it WITHIN A CONTEXT, and in our context, he shouldn't play the VoP. This debate has always circulated around the context surrounding the choosing of the feat, but these are our circumstances. Thanks again for all of the intense feedback! I love the people that post on these boards and all the great ideas that get thrown around. Thanks again guys, -3nigma :)
Elven Doritos 04-05-05, 10:00 PM	I am just finally reading all of these posts, but I am here :) I have decided a ruling on the situation. In a short summary, I did not allow my player to take this route for his character. My reasons are as follows... 1) The VoP, I hadn't known, was questionable in its balance from the very beginning. I've always taken the stand that anything outside of the CORE is completely up to the discretion of the DM, and I've never thusfar allowed anything outside of the core rulebooks. It seems that any supplement is slightly unbalanced, as it has less playtesting and is just pushing a product out the door, in my opinion. The very fact that we have here 3 pages of debate is an illustration as to the questionability of this content. The fact that we have a debate here doesn't question its balance, it merely suggests that a number of people are interested in the topic. Besides, many people in the past have said that it is underpowered at high levels. EDIT: Also, it is always the DM's privelage to disallow material. Even core stuff. 2) The player never intended on ever being a monk, and actually hates monks. Our entire gaming group has always kind of considered monks as a pretty strong class in its own right, enough to make everyone bitter against them. It being a strong class seems a little irrational to dislike it in my opinion, but c'est la vie. 3) The player never intended on being a human. He did this to get the extra feat. Well, these last two just suggest that the player decided to build his character around a statistic idea, then to write up a history and context. And if he didn't plan to do the latter, then it qualifies as bad gaming. 4) The player had no interest in roleplaying aspects of what it would be like to take a life of poverty, he was just interested in the benefits that came from it. He then, in turn, decided to roleplay it as a side-effect of the benefits. Ah. Well, as I said earlier, that is a perfectly legitimate course of action. It just depends on the player's style, really. 5) The VoP benefits are just irrational. A person decides to be poor, and they all of a sudden have all these powers attributed to them. Where do they come from? The power comes from their devotion to the greater powers. It isn't that they "decide to be poor", it's that the give their posessions to the needy as a sign of faith and they are rewarded for it. "Being a preacher" may seem an irrational way to gain powers, as may "reading a book". Fantasy, mon ami. 6) We are playing in the campaign setting of Eberron. VoP and Exalted material doesn't fit in Eberron as a whole. The ideas in BoED are that of streamlined, concrete values of GOOD. However, in Eberron, "good" is in the eyes of the beholder, and sometimes "good" can be just the lesser of two evils. Gods also do not interact in the world to grant powers such as these, etc. Agreed, although it is still possible to play an exalted character in Eberron, it becomes increasingly difficult due to the "fuzziness" of alignments there. I talked to the player, and he figured it was eventually coming and didn't argue about the point. He retweaked his bio, and loves his character still and will enjoy it thoroughly. He's the only caster in a tank-heavy group anyway, and this fact alone will make him powerful enough. In all boiled down to a judgement call, and weighing it WITHIN A CONTEXT, and in our context, he shouldn't play the VoP. This debate has always circulated around the context surrounding the choosing of the feat, but these are our circumstances. Thanks again for all of the intense feedback! I love the people that post on these boards and all the great ideas that get thrown around. Of course. Your call, and from what I've seen, I would have done the same. Thanks again guys, -3nigma :) Yer welcome.
Moon-Lancer 04-05-05, 10:36 PM	Right now (not this very moment in space time) i am playing a vop druid. it is one of my most favorit original charicters. They way i think of exalted is that its a uphill battle. if your not striveing for the top of the hill your not exalted, even though you may never make it to the top The story for my vop druid is that he started with a racial hitdice (of an elf) and was in a thieves guild called the cloak and dagger. He was sent to steal a druid rock with magic powers. While he made an attempt to steal it, there was a ceremony going on. The druid king was awakened. at the moment the rock was charging to empower the druid king with all the powers of nature, however my character grabbed the stone and was thrown across the room and blacked out. When the character came to, he realized that the device had fallen from the ceiling and crushed the druid king, or something to that effect. hours before his death sentence, he blacked out, and awoke a mile or two from the druid temple. After this day he found much love in nature, and slowly became a druid. To add to this he swore he would never let greed consume him like the day he acadentaly killed the druid king. This is how The character became a druid and how he has vop. I think its a ok story. There is alot more back story working at the strands of what i have posted, but you get the point I guess? Natural armor from vop stacks with wildshape because its a bonus, not actual natural armor. Just like a amulet of natural armor stacking with wildshape. All natural armor bonuses add to the natural armor. I am highly skeptical that wildshape forms with more natural armor then 3 breaks a vop druid. Weather or not the sage said it, I don’t care. He also said a vop cleric could not have a holy symbol, even a 1gp wooden one. I guess they could craft one. But that’s besides the point. The point is the writer (a long way off post) talk about how its silly to take away a clerics. (I think he said this next part but not sure. I forget). He said the feat should be taken in spirit. Not as a rigid rule. The rules were written rigidly so that it was very clear that a vop character can have no possessions. I think a lot of people stretch what a possession is. Its really just meant to restrict the character to simple weapons, all armor, and utilities, and every magic items of every sort. They can still walk through a magic mirror though, in my opinion. I think why a lot of dms dislike vop is because it takes away from their control. If a dm loves shafting players in gold and magic items. If a vop is too powerful it might be because you undercut the rest of the players loot. This is not always the truth but in some cases it is. If the vop character is having a hard time that may be that the dm is giving away too much loot. A vop druid is very powerful only because of there wildshape. Everything is kept in wildshape, in every form. In fact a vop druid is less munchkin because your players might actually play a druid that wildshapes into more forms then just ones with opposable thumbs…. Sorry little jab at the legendary ape. But in all honesty a vop druid is really powerful not that they get a lot in whildshape form, its that all the other normal druids loose a lot in wildshape.
Loren Pechtel 04-05-05, 11:30 PM	Let him know if he uses any object (wearing a magic cloak as it is easier to carry counts is an infraction) he loses the feat. I could see using a Bag of Holding or a Portable Hole to carry other magic (or the bodies of comrades to get raised) but never anything else. If they need to carry mundane things, a regular sack works just as well. Yeah--I'm inclined to say that non-consumed magical transport used to accomplish a purpose that's valid for the VoP should be ok. I don't think what's hauled off needs to be magical. If you find a portable hole amongst the dragon's pile of copper pieces you can dump the copper in the hole and haul it back to town to donate. You can't haul their loot in it, though, unless you're hauling them back in it also. It seems to me that the spirit of the vow is more that you can't benefit from something of value. It seems to me that the use of other's magic for the benefit of others should be ok, though. ("I see you possess divine power. Please help me--my husband is dying, I have a wand of remove disease but I can't operate it." It seems to me that refusing--and not providing the spell from some other source--busts exhalted status. Thus we have a situation where a mere request of the character busts something. Since that's unreasonable, the rule is wrong.)
Loren Pechtel 04-05-05, 11:47 PM	Forgive me if I missed this. I don't have the BOED and I was just wondering what does the Vow of Poverty do? Someone described it as "broke"... Help a fellow DM out? What makes it so bad that it needs 2 (well 3 now that I posted!) pages of debate on if a character should be allowed to take it. Thanks. -Windquake Basically you get *NO* equipment beyond some el-cheapo stuff, but in exchange you get a bunch of bonuses. Bust the vow and all the bonuses (including a lot of bonus feats) are gone. It also requires exhalted status, which is basically good good. The whole thing is much too complex to sum up in a post. Don't consider using anything from that book until you've read the whole thing carefully.
Moon-Lancer 04-06-05, 12:41 AM	Yeah. I still don’t understand the full implementation of exalted feats being super natural in nature. I wish they would explain exactly what they mean by that and how that works. ( know what supernatural is i just dont know what they mean by makeing the feats super natural in nature.) About wands... So if you were a dm, would you let a player use another persons wand or one that you found but did not intend to keep, in the explicit act of serving another. Like healing a poor person who is sick. If so, where should the line be stopped? Could a vop character then use a wand of cure light wands on their party, as long as they don’t heal themselves? There is a logic error about vop and exalted in the act of helping others. I started to read one of the above posts and it got me think. I also starting thinking of asking my dm about this and see what they have to say.
Szat 04-06-05, 02:46 AM	They're supernatural in nature because they need to be granted by a higher (good aligned) power. Additionally, it's not up to the DM whether you can use the wand or not. It specifically states, and I quote. "You may not sue any magic item of any sort, though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf - you can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friends 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." Seems pretty clear cut to me.
fractal 04-06-05, 03:31 AM	If so, where should the line be stopped? Could a vop character then use a wand of cure light wands on their party, as long as they don?t heal themselves? There is a logic error about vop and exalted in the act of helping others. I started to read one of the above posts and it got me think. I also starting thinking of asking my dm about this and see what they have to say. The character benefits personally from the well-being of the party. The same is not the case of some random sick person. Does that logic work?
True Archon 04-06-05, 07:14 AM	...It seems to me that the spirit of the vow is more that you can't benefit from something of value. It seems to me that the use of other's magic for the benefit of others should be ok, though. ("I see you possess divine power. Please help me--my husband is dying, I have a wand of remove disease but I can't operate it." It seems to me that refusing--and not providing the spell from some other source--busts exhalted status. Thus we have a situation where a mere request of the character busts something. Since that's unreasonable, the rule is wrong.) Hmmm.... That's an interesting example. I like the "spirit" behind the meaning of the vow, but this example is one of those times when things get muddled. I guess if you wanted to play a technicality game, the VoP character could say that they used the wand as the charitable act involving the wealth that a single wand's charge represents in the first place. The VoP character could do it for the sole benefit of helping others, just so long as there isn't any deep down agenda. For example, with the hope that the charitable act will later be returned. Of course, there can be other examples, with other items, with other circumstances, that can twist this away from the orginal "spirit" involved with the VoP. Unfortunately, like most issues involving exalted acts and paladin-type issues, the rules just cannot cover all the instances that can be brought up. In the end, for this case, it would all probably fall to the character/player's intentions with the acts performed and how the DM views those acts and intentions. Game mechanic-wise, that would be one of those situations that if a player asked me if it was ok, I would give them an honest answer. Of course, there are other ways that a player can be given help in these tough situations (a la phylactery of faithfulness ).
Moon-Lancer 04-06-05, 09:32 AM	What I meant about the exalted feats is do they work in anti magic fields. are they suppressible? These are all things that are tagged with something that is supernatural. I understand it could have been just flavor and describing the origin of the feats, but i wasn’t sure. "Additionally, it's not up to the DM whether you can use the wand or not." About the wand use, a dm could let the player do anything. It goes back to rule 0... As most things do. Vop is very clear in a vacuum, but not so clear when you actually play it.
arrianna 04-06-05, 11:38 AM	Take the book of exhalted deeds. Pick it up. Put it in a pile along with unearthed arcana, and book of vile darkness. Cover with gasoline. Light. Huzzah!!
Andrew_980 04-06-05, 04:35 PM	good call
Szat 04-06-05, 06:25 PM	Well yeah, the DM can Rule 0 ANYTHING. However, if you're rp'ing the feat and your DM is following it as it's described then no, you cannot use the wand. Personally if I were DMing this I'd want the player to play the feat the way it's written. A person with Vow Of Poverty SHUNS all material possessions beyond what they need to live. It's not just an inconvienience like "Awww shucks I GUESS I can use that item, I just really don't want to". They believe material possessions are unecessary.
Moon-Lancer 04-06-05, 08:06 PM	yeah szat, your probably right. vop is a very frail thing. It better be as broken as possible if its that fragile. :P anyone know the meaning of the feats and the ramifications of them being supernatural.
Count Arioch the 28th 04-06-05, 09:06 PM	Personally, I would allow someone with VoP to use a wand on someone else, as he's not benefitting from it. However, I beleive in good being forgiving, and if something doesn't break the intent and spirit of the vow, it doesn't break it. I don't rule by letter when it comes to exalted good, because it breaks it. (I do such unspeakable things like letting a cleric have a wooden holy symbol, and letting the wizard have a battered, second-hand book to scribe spells in! Ooh, how rebellious!)
3nigma 04-07-05, 02:20 AM	Someone earlier posted that the rules explicitly state that a VoP character "cannot use a wand or any magical item for any purposes."
Szat 04-07-05, 02:30 AM	3nigma - That was me. Moon-Lancer - Uhhhh, no it better not be as broken as possible. Just because it's frail doesn't mean that it has to be super powerful. Exalted and Vile feats are examples of feats that aren't SUPPOSED to be totally balanced, as they are not VIABLE nor ACCESSIBLE options for the masses. Additionally, the feats are not actually supernatural. The reference to supernatural pertains to the origins of the feat *celestials, deities & such* not to the actual bonuses or abilities the feat confers. :P
Szat 04-07-05, 02:33 AM	Count Arioch - I'm with you on this one, I'd argue that Holy Symbols and Spellbooks are such integral parts of their respective classes that they would be similar to the quarterstaff that the vow allows the character to have.
3nigma 04-07-05, 02:39 AM	3nigma - That was me. Szat = :bow:
Szat 04-07-05, 03:14 AM	3nigma - If I could sig that I would!!!!!!!!!
3nigma 04-07-05, 03:16 AM	LoL
RPGDudeNYC 04-08-05, 02:30 PM	Someone just sent me this link (http://www.inktank.com/SWO/index.cfm?nav=44). I thought it was appropriate for this thread.
Maerdash 04-08-05, 02:53 PM	NO NO NO NO!!!! Run dont walk and burn any pages that mention the vow of poverty its evil,broken,player abusing dm hating nastiness written by a game designer who wanted to make life hell for anyone trying to mantain balance. No really trust me any feat that everyone and their grandmother at leasts considers taking is broken and with all the nifty cool i dont need to eat/breath/drink/own anything to beat the crap out of the fighter even though im a wizard the feat makes challenges less dangerous/fun for the players. NOTE: This is based only on my personal experience, but when the players who are using the feat ask to have it banned so they can take something else because VoP is to strong then you gotta stop and think Edit: Sorry for the rant i just have strong feelings about VoP as it came close to ruining my game by itself, thanfully i have loyal players who are willing to forgive a mistake......or ten :D