Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed?

in rec.games.frp.dnd, quester DeleteThis @infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote in
news:4652f9ab.44662796@news.earthlink.net:

> The wording in the Book of Exalted Deeds goes like this:
>
> "You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple
> weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick."
>
> It also mentions that "You may not use 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 that a friend gives you, receive
> a spell cast from a wand, scroll or staff or ride on your companion's
> EBONY FLY. You may not, however, "borrow" a CLOAK OF RESISTANCE or
> any other magic item for even a single round, nor may you yourself
> cast a spell from a wand, scroll or staff."

<snip> Don't forget the phrase that comes at the very beginning of the
feat: You have taken a sacred vow to forswear material posessions.

> Let's explore what is possible within the RAW and what the intent of
> the rules might have been aimed at.
>
> Let's start with cost. Simple weapons get as expensive as 50 gp for a
> ranged weapon (heavy crossbow) or 12 gp for a melee weapon (heavy
> mace). By the RAW they are allowed (though apparently frowned upon).

If I were the DM and someone came up to me with this, the only weapon
that they would be getting is a quarterstaff or other ordinary simple
weapons. By my interpretation, that (ordinary simple weapon) covers club,
quarterstaff or sling. No armour, no other goodies. Just an ordinary,
simple weapon. By the spirit of the feat, you are giving *everything*
else up. All you get is some simple homespun robes (plus possibly hat and
sandles). A simple bag to carry one days worth of food.

> If we think cost is the main limit and these weapons are at the far
> edge, could be allow some other simple weapons that fall within these
> cost limits? For example: A longspear costs 5 gp normally and it is
> a simple weapon. Suppose we wanted a longspear with a speartip made of
> cold iron. The definition above seemed to indicate that
> "non-ordinary" weapons were those that were either magic or masterwork
> and this is neither. Since cold iron weapons cost twice as much as
> regular weapons, the cost (10 gp) is still less than the cost of the
> standard heavy mace. But cold iron DOES have a special property - it
> overcomes Damage Resistance in certain cases. Should the
> "non-ordinary" definition be expanded to be "magic, masterwork or
> special materials"?

No need to reach that far. If it has a label that can be applied to it 0-
Cold Iron, Adamantium, MW, magical, etc - then it is not simple *or*
ordinary.

> A sling is no more expensive than a quarterstaff if one uses stones
> instead of bullets. Both weapons are essentially "no cost". Should a
> sling be frowned upon? If the intent of the rule is that the
> quarterstaff is OK because it has a non-weapon use (walking stick),
> then almost all of the other simple weapons should be frowned upon.
> But a sling could be used as a headband to tie up hair or as a belt to
> keep one's trousers up. Does that make it acceptable?

For me, a sling is a simple, ordinary weapon.

> What do you think is the intent? Is it in having non-violent uses or
> presenting a non-provocative/non-violent aspect to the casual
> observer? Is it in the total cost of the weapon? Is it in the
> "ordinary-ness" of the weapon?

I would go for ordinariness of the weapon as my deciding factor.
Remember. A person who has taken a vow of poverty is one step away from
total destitution. If it can be sold for money, then it will be sold for
money to give to a worthy cause.

> With regard to magic - a person with a Vow of Poverty can have spells
> placed on him. A CONTINUAL FLAME spell could be placed on, say, his
> hand and no objection would be raised. Likewise a MAGIC FANG spell
> could be cast on him to boost his unarmed strike attacks. But is the
> same thing not allowed if the weapon bears the spell?

Much like you cannot "borrow" another character's Cloak of resistance (to
use an example), I wouldn't allow it. As soon as the object has a spell
cast upon it, even if temporary, it becomes a magical item. Thus not
useable by the character. And no fair doing the trick from the A-Team to
get around this either.

> Can a person
> with a Vow of Poverty have a quarterstaff with a CONTINUAL FLAME on
> it? As a separate object that would make the quarterstaff worth 50 gp
> or so as a light source, the same as a mundane heavy crossbow. How
> about a temporary spell such as MAGIC WEAPON?

Again, no. I would say this makes the weapon magical, so therefore no go.

> A normal magical weapon
> can't have the magic portion be permanently destroyed by a DISPEL
> MAGIC spell, but a mundane quarterstaff with MAGIC WEAPON on it can go
> right back to being a mundane quarterstaff. (Perhaps that's a bad
> example since the Exalted Weapon bonus usually takes the place of
> normal Enhancement bonuses. How about something else to boost the
> weapon. Would you allow someone to cast KEEN EDGE on a dagger, or
> does that make it a "magic weapon" for the duration of the spell?)

Again, no. I would say this makes the weapon magical, so therefore no go.

> I haven't spotted a glossary definition for "magic item", so it
> appears that the wording on page 211 of the DMG (3.5) is the best
> resource. It describes "magic item" categories and there doesn't seem
> to be a category of "normal items with a temporary spell on them".

I don't think that there is a need for a definition. A magic item is an
item that has magical properties. Whether it is temporary or not is
besides the point. If it will be detected by "detect magic", it is a
magic item.

> But is such an item allowed to a person with a Vow of Poverty?

No.

--
Marcel
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:30:33 GMT, quester.DeleteThis@infionline.net (Harold Groot)
scribed into the ether:

>The wording in the Book of Exalted Deeds goes like this:
>
>"You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple
>weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick."
>
>It also mentions that "You may not use 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 that a friend gives you, receive
>a spell cast from a wand, scroll or staff or ride on your companion's
>EBONY FLY. You may not, however, "borrow" a CLOAK OF RESISTANCE or
>any other magic item for even a single round, nor may you yourself
>cast a spell from a wand, scroll or staff."

>If we think cost is the main limit and these weapons are at the far
>edge, could be allow some other simple weapons that fall within these
>cost limits? For example: A longspear costs 5 gp normally and it is
>a simple weapon. Suppose we wanted a longspear with a speartip made of
>cold iron. The definition above seemed to indicate that
>"non-ordinary" weapons were those that were either magic or masterwork
>and this is neither. Since cold iron weapons cost twice as much as
>regular weapons, the cost (10 gp) is still less than the cost of the
>standard heavy mace. But cold iron DOES have a special property - it
>overcomes Damage Resistance in certain cases. Should the
>"non-ordinary" definition be expanded to be "magic, masterwork or
>special materials"?

This is more an issue of game preference. Where mithril and adamantine
would seem to go against the spirit of the vow of poverty, cold iron seems
far less so. I'd allow it. However, according to the part of the RAW you
quote, there is no problem here. Cold iron is not masterwork, and it is not
magical. It's cost increase does not raise the spear above the critical
threshhold.


>A sling is no more expensive than a quarterstaff if one uses stones
>instead of bullets. Both weapons are essentially "no cost". Should a
>sling be frowned upon? If the intent of the rule is that the
>quarterstaff is OK because it has a non-weapon use (walking stick),
>then almost all of the other simple weapons should be frowned upon.
>But a sling could be used as a headband to tie up hair or as a belt to
>keep one's trousers up. Does that make it acceptable?

According to the RAW, any simple weapon is acceptable. VoP is not Vow Of No
Weapons Without Other Function. The quarterstaff is mentioned because it is
the canonical poor man's weapon that can also be used for other things. If
the vow was meant to restrict the character to a quarterstaff, then it
would specifically mention this. Why say "simple weapons" when you don't
mean all of them?

>With regard to magic - a person with a Vow of Poverty can have spells
>placed on him. A CONTINUAL FLAME spell could be placed on, say, his
>hand and no objection would be raised.

Since continual flame is (relatively) permenant, I'd not allow it. The
rules are in place to prevent VoP from benefiting from magical effects that
were not expressly limited in duration.

> Likewise a MAGIC FANG spell
>could be cast on him to boost his unarmed strike attacks. But is the
>same thing not allowed if the weapon bears the spell? Can a person
>with a Vow of Poverty have a quarterstaff with a CONTINUAL FLAME on
>it?

No, they could not.

> How about a temporary spell such as MAGIC WEAPON?

This is acceptable due to the temporary nature of it. VoP characters are
not prohibited from benefiting from magic entirely.

When the spell wears off, the weapon goes back to its old state. Hell, if
VoP characters couldn't use a temporarily boosted weapon, then this could
be a powerful offensive tool for their enemies...cast magic weapon on the
VoP'd character's weapon and force him to waste time getting rid of it or
suffer penalties from violating his vow.

> How about something else to boost the
>weapon. Would you allow someone to cast KEEN EDGE on a dagger, or
>does that make it a "magic weapon" for the duration of the spell?)

Keen Edge would be fine.

You can't draw the line too broadly of which benefits VoP prohibits you
from, otherwise you would have to ban the character from traveling on a
paved road, since it took a bunch of money to build the thing.
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

in rec.games.frp.dnd, Matt Frisch <matuse73.TakeThisOut@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
news:8gh653p3nn879k7sqftgcrhhbch864tds9@4ax.com:

> Hell, if
> VoP characters couldn't use a temporarily boosted weapon, then this could
> be a powerful offensive tool for their enemies...cast magic weapon on the
> VoP'd character's weapon and force him to waste time getting rid of it or
> suffer penalties from violating his vow.

Most of the other Sacred Vows seem to have an "...if you knowingly break
this vow..." in it that seems to me to be missing from the VoP entry. If
only because of the nasty things that happen if you break one of the sacred
vows - Feat lost, no getting back, ne replacement feat.

--
Marcel
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

Matt Frisch wrote:

>>With regard to magic - a person with a Vow of Poverty can have spells
>>placed on him.  A CONTINUAL FLAME spell could be placed on, say, his
>>hand and no objection would be raised.
>
> Since continual flame is (relatively) permenant, I'd not allow it. The
> rules are in place to prevent VoP from benefiting from magical effects
> that were not expressly limited in duration.

From just reading the little in the thread so far, I'd lean toward allowing
continual flame, if cast by a party member, and if it were sold, proceeds
going to the poor, at the earliest reasonable opportunity. And if it were
cast due to a need for continual flame (going into a dungeon or something).
And if the VoP character was the most reasonable person to carry the light
source, e.g., the only character without infravision/darkvision, or the
character taking lead (not necessarily point), etc.

Lots of ifs, but it sounds like it would meet the spirit of the
requirements, even if not quite the letter.
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
<matuse73.RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:

>>With regard to magic - a person with a Vow of Poverty can have spells
>>placed on him. A CONTINUAL FLAME spell could be placed on, say, his
>>hand and no objection would be raised.
>
>Since continual flame is (relatively) permenant, I'd not allow it.

I'd never allow it, VoP or not. Continual Flame's Target line reads
"Object touched", which precludes casting on a person.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

Darin McBride <dmcbride.DeleteThis@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>
>>>With regard to magic - a person with a Vow of Poverty can have spells
>>>placed on him.  A CONTINUAL FLAME spell could be placed on, say, his
>>>hand and no objection would be raised.
>>
>> Since continual flame is (relatively) permenant, I'd not allow it. The
>> rules are in place to prevent VoP from benefiting from magical effects
>> that were not expressly limited in duration.
>
>From just reading the little in the thread so far, I'd lean toward allowing
>continual flame, if cast by a party member, and if it were sold, proceeds
>going to the poor, at the earliest reasonable opportunity. And if it were
>cast due to a need for continual flame (going into a dungeon or something).
>And if the VoP character was the most reasonable person to carry the light
>source, e.g., the only character without infravision/darkvision, or the
>character taking lead (not necessarily point), etc.
>
>Lots of ifs, but it sounds like it would meet the spirit of the
>requirements, even if not quite the letter.

It seems to me that the best way to play a vow of poverty involves
giving things away to those in need. I'd let the VOP player use the
staff for part of an adventure if they agreed to donate it to someone
who needed it at the end. I would be more lenient to a player with a
VOP if they handled things this way. Maintain an attitude that there
are always others who are more needy than you are and give selflessly
to them. Done right, the VOP player could have use of an item for a
short time, but as soon as a town is reached, the item gets donated to
a cause that needs help. Even the value of a crossbow could feed a
small family for awhile. This could generate some interesting
campaign dynamics as the player winds up needing to borrow items from
those he has helped previously in order to take care of business going
forward. Not quite RAW, but probably more interesting in the hands of
a player who isn't trying to optimax things.
--

Kyle Wilson
email: mynameasoneword at wilson.mv.com
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

On May 22, 1:54 pm, Marcel Beaudoin <marcel.beaud....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> in rec.games.frp.dnd, Matt Frisch <matus....RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote innews:8gh653p3nn879k7sqftgcrhhbch864tds9@4ax.com:
>
> > Hell, if
> > VoP characters couldn't use a temporarily boosted weapon, then this could
> > be a powerful offensive tool for their enemies...cast magic weapon on the
> > VoP'd character's weapon and force him to waste time getting rid of it or
> > suffer penalties from violating his vow.
>
> Most of the other Sacred Vows seem to have an "...if you knowingly break
> this vow..." in it that seems to me to be missing from the VoP entry. If
> only because of the nasty things that happen if you break one of the sacred
> vows - Feat lost, no getting back, ne replacement feat.

I think that there are real world examples (Knights Templar) of how
while *individuals* in a group might be poor the group as a whole
might be fantasticly wealthy. Even the Franciscan Orders started out
on vows of *total* poverty had to give in to reality when they went
monastic and many Orders owned land (a major source of income under
the feudal system)

No RGP I have seen handles wealth very well even when there are rules
govering it. In D&D where the economic system is a total train wreck
such limits on wealth are doomed to failure.
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:16:09 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edcfour.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
><matuse73.DeleteThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>
>>>With regard to magic - a person with a Vow of Poverty can have spells
>>>placed on him. A CONTINUAL FLAME spell could be placed on, say, his
>>>hand and no objection would be raised.
>>
>>Since continual flame is (relatively) permenant, I'd not allow it.
>
>I'd never allow it, VoP or not. Continual Flame's Target line reads
>"Object touched", which precludes casting on a person.

Also true. Maybe he meant the VoP's glove or something.
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
<matuse73 RemoveThis @yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:16:09 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edcfour RemoveThis @gmail.com>
>scribed into the ether:
>
>>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
>><matuse73 RemoveThis @yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>>
>>>>With regard to magic - a person with a Vow of Poverty can have spells
>>>>placed on him. A CONTINUAL FLAME spell could be placed on, say, his
>>>>hand and no objection would be raised.
>>>
>>>Since continual flame is (relatively) permenant, I'd not allow it.
>>
>>I'd never allow it, VoP or not. Continual Flame's Target line reads
>>"Object touched", which precludes casting on a person.
>
>Also true. Maybe he meant the VoP's glove or something.

Which would then mean the glove is no longer a simple clothes with no
magical properties and he'd lose the use of the feat.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:25:26 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edcfour DeleteThis @gmail.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
><matuse73 DeleteThis @yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>
>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:16:09 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edcfour DeleteThis @gmail.com>
>>scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
>>><matuse73 DeleteThis @yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>>>
>>>>>With regard to magic - a person with a Vow of Poverty can have spells
>>>>>placed on him. A CONTINUAL FLAME spell could be placed on, say, his
>>>>>hand and no objection would be raised.
>>>>
>>>>Since continual flame is (relatively) permenant, I'd not allow it.
>>>
>>>I'd never allow it, VoP or not. Continual Flame's Target line reads
>>>"Object touched", which precludes casting on a person.
>>
>>Also true. Maybe he meant the VoP's glove or something.
>
>Which would then mean the glove is no longer a simple clothes with no
>magical properties and he'd lose the use of the feat.

Cast your gaze up a few lines where I mentioned this.
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
<matuse73.DeleteThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:

>On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:25:26 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edcfour.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
>scribed into the ether:
>
>>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
>><matuse73.DeleteThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:16:09 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edcfour.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
>>>scribed into the ether:
>>>
>>>>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
>>>><matuse73.DeleteThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>>>>
>>>>>>With regard to magic - a person with a Vow of Poverty can have spells
>>>>>>placed on him. A CONTINUAL FLAME spell could be placed on, say, his
>>>>>>hand and no objection would be raised.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since continual flame is (relatively) permenant, I'd not allow it.
>>>>
>>>>I'd never allow it, VoP or not. Continual Flame's Target line reads
>>>>"Object touched", which precludes casting on a person.
>>>
>>>Also true. Maybe he meant the VoP's glove or something.
>>
>>Which would then mean the glove is no longer a simple clothes with no
>>magical properties and he'd lose the use of the feat.
>
>Cast your gaze up a few lines where I mentioned this.

No Matt, that's *me* mentioning it.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

ok. i've been playing a vow of pverty monk for going on three years
now. Started at first. Just hit 15'th the other day.

Please note that this is how I've been playing it, and how me, and my
GM have deemed it "suitable" for playing.

also, FYI, we're playing under the ebberon setting, so this missive
may be somewhat "flavored" by that.

Your actual millage may vary, and i'm sure that i'll probably upset
someone with my take on it.

Firstly, the rules allow for a simple set of clothing, a simple (non
special ability) weapon, enough food for a day, and a few other minor
items (like wooden cuttlery, etc)

under the ebberon setting, all Citizens are expected to carry
identification papers. Ok. they're listed as costing 5 gold, which
tecnically is a violation of the VOP, (no possesions with real
monitary value), however as the rules of the land say that i've got to
carry them, then i carry them. as a bit of flavor, most people
have some form of case to keep them in, to prevent every day wear and
tear. the Very rich, and or austentatios (SP) have bejeweled
wallets, or other similar items to keep them in. the "not so
extremely rich" use a scroll case, or similar. The Very poor tend
to either not have them (they're poor after all) and if they do, they
keep them between two bits of wood.

Right now i'm onto my 9th? 10th? "two bits of wood and some twine".
i keep giving it away to people who need it more than i do.

ACtually, after #10, the rest of the party started nominating one of
them to carry my papers for me. seems they finally cottened on to
the fact that i just didnt see the need.


When i first started playing, the simple weapon i started with was a
crossbow. and no more than 12 bolts.

under the ebberon setting the soverign host has 12 deities. i
carried one bolt for each. if possible i tried to recover ones that
were recoverable. if they weren't, then i'd replace them once we got
somewhere where i could.

after a while, the rest of the party had ranged combat pretty well
taken care of, so i stopped using it. one one particular
adventure we were holled up in a small village, that was beset by some
form of undead. i ended up giving it away to a farmer, who, i
figured, needed it more than i do. (he actually manageed to tag a
vampire with it, some time later, and last we heard, was being treated
as some form of artifact by the village. they've gone and built a
shrine to it and everything. Fortunatly the party memebers who found
this out have seen fit NOT to tell Brother Justin about it. if i
ever actually find out about it, justin will probably be rather
embarraced)


One of the by-products of adventuring is, as i'm sure you're all
aware, rather a lot of gold.

Brother justin gets his share, just like the other 7 members of our
band. Whilst the others Like to live it up, celebrate, and then go
get kitted out for the next adventure, Brother justin Believes in
"re-distribulting the wealth".

The first few sacks worth of gold were given to the poorest people he
could find (FYI, that's the people in the Fallen Area of Sharn)

After several more adventures, Justin decided to set up a Community
center in Fallen, and is now seen by many as somewhat of a community
leader. By others (mainly the more corrupt members of the city
council, and by the local crime bosses) he's seen as a dangerous
trouble maker.

the problem is, that Justin is practically a saint (which, is actually
something i'm working towards. *hint* *hint* ((Just in case my re is
reading this !!)))

All of the monies that he earns, either thru adventuring, "charitable
gifts" and the several thousand gold that someone planted in his bed
chamber to make it look like he was skimming, have ALL gone to
charities, worthy causes, or to help people out.

Of his starting equipment, the crossbow, the simple robes, the wooden
eating impliments, etc, only the robes on his back still remain.
(Ok, and the ID paprers)

Boots, aren't really a problem, (Justin is a shifter) and the one
time someone tried to give him a pair, he honestly didnt know what to
do with them. This actually spawned a whole side quest, as as far
as justin was concered, he now owned something that was an
extavagance, and so he had to go off and find someone for whom a pair
of (in truth, not all that good) boots would be seen as a boon.

(the rest of the party were actually agast at the whole concept of
doing an adventure that had little or no monitary reward, andin their
eyes was a total non issue. )



as for the whole "no magic items of any kind" thing, i can tell you
that there are quite a few times that one of more magic items would
have prevented a whole lot of headaches.

a simple potion of flying, a cure L/M/S/C wounds, an item of
resistance, anything.

however the bonus's gained from the vow of poverty more or less make
up for it.


A lot of people on here have looked at the VOP, and said "that's quite
munchkin".

However i can tell you that, whilst it it slightly more powerfull than
your average feat, it's not actually that unhinged.

Firstly you gain an extra exhaulted feat every other level. There
really arent that many that are actually that powerfull, and after 6
or 7, you pretty much run out of feats that you can actually qualify
for.

Secondly, you gain a bonus to hit and to damage. By 15th that's a
total of +3. Hands up anyone who can honestly say that their 15th
level characters are running arround with a weapon that's lower than
than. . anyone? i thought not.

Thirdly, you get a total of +12 to armour class. +9 that counts as
armor. +2 deflection, and +1 natural.

well, that's a +2 set of plate. or a +4 chain shirt.

Again, any non mage / Sorcerers out there with an AC bonus that low?

What about your rings of protection? Magic shields? Cloaks of
resistance?

FYI, Justins AC is actually only a point or two above average for the
party. Infact it's the difference between his Dex Bonus, and the
party average higher.

(which isnt bad for a party that happens to be paladin/Cleric heavy)

now for the point that pretty much everyone who's looked at the Vow of
poverty has looked at and said "that's overpowered".

+6/4/2 to some stats.


"that's broken" i hear you cry.. Looking arround the table at last
weeks game, i did a quick count up. our main line fighter was using
a +6 set of Gauntlets of ogre power. The mage, a +5 <hat> of
intelect. the order of the bow initiate a +5 <vest> of charisma, and
+4 gauntlets of dexterity.


not to mention that before a big fight, if we have chance to prep,
everyone gets cats grace'd, bull strenght'd and haste'd.

so all in all, not actually that broken.



As for the original question. What counts as a simple, non magical
weapon?

IMO, it's any weapon that's free from additions. That's not worth
anything more than a basic "off of the shelf" version of the weapon.

if, for some reason your campaign setting has all weapons made from
gold, because gold is the standard mineral that wepaons are made
from, and no one would think twice about using one, then someone with
a Vow of Poverty would be allowed to carry one.

similarly, if Gorgonzola was the near mithical element of uberness
that everyone lusts after, then someone with the VOP wouldnt be seen
carrying it.
On 23 May 2007 05:57:02 -0700, Brent <digital.brent DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 23, 7:04 pm, Bruce L Grubb <bgr... DeleteThis @zianet.com> wrote:
>> I think that there are real world examples (Knights Templar) of how
>> while *individuals* in a group might be poor the group as a whole
>> might be fantasticly wealthy. Even the Franciscan Orders started out
>> on vows of *total* poverty had to give in to reality when they went
>> monastic and many Orders owned land (a major source of income under
>> the feudal system)
>Actually, by very definition, land was the one and only fundamental
>basis of socio-economic power. It was an economic system based upon
>the ownership of land.
>> No RGP I have seen handles wealth very well even when there are rules
>> govering it. In D&D where the economic system is a total train wreck
>> such limits on wealth are doomed to failure.
>Oh, I don't know. I think the thing with economics in RPGs is that to
>effectively incorporate realistic economics into RP, it would require
>both a whole new set of rulebooks, and a DM with a Bachelor in
>economics (or an equivalent expertise therein). It is just
>unrealistic, especially when you consider the amount of work
>involved.
>
>As such, I consider the lack of an economic structure in RPGs to be a
>strategic decision, rather than a careless lacking. Indeed, you could
>say that they do have a system, total 'ceteris paribus' (i.e. the term
>used in economics meaning 'all things remaining constant. Used
>primarily to hypothetically isolate and test individual market
>variables). D&D, at least, enforces total ceteris paribus on all
>market influences and trends, usually (with exceptions being made at
>the DMs behest). Inflation, unemployment, demand, supply, and
>elasticity are usually static.
>
>I think this works well, considering the lack of operable
>alternatives. Though, what I would suggest as a decent idea (I think
>AD&D2 had this in the DMG), is a breif rundown of economic effects,
>influences, and causes. Simply explain deman, supply, elasticity,
>competition, monopoly and how these things might impact the game world
>(Like the effects of an undersupply, oversupply, increase and decrease
>in demand, elasticity/inelasticity- plus example goods, players
>pouring cash into a poor village, and basic consequences of government
>intervention in the market). Also a breif rundown of the major
>economic systems and their characteristics. Basically Microeconomics
>101 in a few paragraphs. Probably best to leave macroeconomics out of
>it entirely.
>
>Actually, I do have issue with 1 major aspect of D&D economics, and
>that is in it's price equations for magic items. Whilst I understand
>the need for guidelines, for clueless DMs, I still hold an issue to
>dispute. D&D approaches the pricing of an item from a 'labour theory
>of value' perspective, whilst completely ignoring 'market theory of
>value' (That is to say, it purports that the price of a good is
>derived solely from the labour put into it, rather than the forces of
>demand and supply surrounding it). I think it should be the inverse.
>It is not too hard to wrap one's mind around that the major
>determinants for price are demand, supply, and elasticity. As noted
>earlier, it is impractical to try to encode a living natural market,
>however, it is easy to simulate a believable one. Simply state the the
>prices listed in the equipment section are subject to market forces as
>determined by the DM. Then in the DMG you give a simple table of
>example approximate percentage modifiers to price as depending upon
>various economic influences. An increase in supply will drop prices, a
>decrease will raise them. An increase in demand will raise prices, a
>decrease drop them. An increase/decrease in the price of a substiute
>will effect an inverse increase/decrease in price of a good, just as
>an increase/decrease in the price of a complement with effect a
>similar increase/decrease in price of a good. For magic good, this
>should be especially true.
>
>It just drives me nuts when a PC wants to simple go to the closest
>town and buy his flaming longsword, seeing as he has saved enough
>gold. Or when the party thinks they can flog off a ruby statuette
>hauled from a dungeon somewhere. Regardless of the listed price of
>these items, the price is irrelevant if there is no demand or supply.
>Or powerplayers who want to buy artifacts. Sheesh. Purchasing
>something is as simple as finding a supply, usually easy enough with a
>bit of research. Selling things, however requires finding a demand,
>often a difficult task. I think 'bargaining' should be a skill
>(usefull for both buying and selling), and I think 'appraise' should
>be restricted only to discerning an items genuinity.
>
>So you would have a breif description of economics in the DMG,
>variable prices in the PHB (dependant upon a simplified modifier table
>in the DMG, bargaining as a skill, the phasing out of static value,
>and example effects of various common in-game events (war,
>overtaxation, bandits, feudalism, prohibition, etc).
>
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed? 

On Thu, 24 May 2007 08:13:13 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edcfour.RemoveThis@gmail.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
><matuse73.RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>
>>On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:25:26 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edcfour.RemoveThis@gmail.com>
>>scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
>>><matuse73.RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:16:09 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edcfour.RemoveThis@gmail.com>
>>>>scribed into the ether:
>>>>
>>>>>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
>>>>><matuse73.RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>With regard to magic - a person with a Vow of Poverty can have spells
>>>>>>>placed on him. A CONTINUAL FLAME spell could be placed on, say, his
>>>>>>>hand and no objection would be raised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since continual flame is (relatively) permenant, I'd not allow it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd never allow it, VoP or not. Continual Flame's Target line reads
>>>>>"Object touched", which precludes casting on a person.
>>>>
>>>>Also true. Maybe he meant the VoP's glove or something.
>>>
>>>Which would then mean the glove is no longer a simple clothes with no
>>>magical properties and he'd lose the use of the feat.
>>
>>Cast your gaze up a few lines where I mentioned this.
>
>No Matt, that's *me* mentioning it.

---Since continual flame is (relatively) permenant, I'd not allow it.

That's me.

---I'd never allow it, VoP or not.

That's you responding.

Please keep up.
 >> Stay informed about: Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed?