Poverty (Stop posting here Shadzar)

[darkmaster]

So, reading through the "pathfinder is still bad" thread I decided I'd like to make some character classes based on a couple of the "Vow of" feats. Most of them don't have any business being the basis for a class, but the Vow of Poverty, and the Vow of Peace/Nonviolence have potential. Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence should obviously be all about nonlethal damage and saving everyone they can, that is, when they’re not beating the enemy senseless with abilities that focus on ending battle quickly with as little bloodshed as possible, reasonable enough.

Vow of Poverty based class is somewhat more difficult. I know thematically what I want, it’s already been done, but, while I know the crunch that’s there doesn’t work, I don’t know why. I’ve never put much thought into it before now, and I find myself to play through a character with the feat at the moment, school and such. So, what exactly did the Vow of Poverty feat to wrong in 3.5?

[Prak]

No. Vow of Peace/Nonviolence is dumb in a game of murder hobos D&D. Yes, there is an interesting story to be told. But that's the problem, there's one, and it doesn't fit into D&D.

VoP does two things wrong. First, the abilities granted, while they seem nice, are actually less powerful than what you should be getting by level. Second, it is again an inappropriate feat for D&D, the game where you break into people's homes, smack them over the head with a candlestick, and take their shit home in santa sacks.

[...You Lost Me]

It takes away from self-sufficiency. A VoP character in D&D couldn't have magic items or carry their own weapons or anything, and the bonuses didn't make up for it.

[darkmaster]

No. Vow of Peace/Nonviolence is dumb in a game of murder hobos D&D. Yes, there is an interesting story to be told. But that's the problem, there's one, and it doesn't fit into D&D.

VoP does two things wrong. First, the abilities granted, while they seem nice, are actually less powerful than what you should be getting by level. Second, it is again an inappropriate feat for D&D, the game where you break into people's homes, smack them over the head with a candlestick, and take their shit home in santa sacks.

Yes, I already know exactly why you think this is a stupid idea, but I figure if there are people who want to try it, and there are, there should at least be a reasonably balanced option floating about for them to do it. And, well, I couldn't find anything giving a glance about.

That said, if you've anything to add to you lost mes’ "Vow of Poverty but moar" comment, I'm all ears.

[Maxus]

Well, see, WHY would a character take a vow of poverty? They need a motivation that isn't generally in there or isn't readily apparent. D&D adventurers are generally all about the bling. And "I hate greedy people so I vowed to fight greed by not having any of it" just sort of sucks as a reason to take a feat which permeates the entire character.

I mean, it's basically a Samson-like deal. The character adheres to a code of behavior (either getting someone else to carry stuff, or not cutting their hair, etc), and gets more power by doing so.

Some of the problems can be worked around...you take a vow of poverty and your lack of magic weapons is compensated for by BEING a magic weapon, with your enlightened purity of spirit empowering all that you do. Or something.

Big magic vows do have their place in the genre. Vowing to never turn away people in need, to always fight evil, or to become the king of the land/get revenge are good ones.

[shadzar]

Well, see, WHY would a character take a vow of poverty? They need a motivation that isn't generally in there or isn't readily apparent.

possibly to small minded people that only understand how to minmax. oddly enough, not everyone does minmax, and people even played a paladin when they had to tithe, couldnt keep anything except what it took to live off of (couldn't amass treasure), and couldn't possess but a limited number of magical items.

its called playing a character, rather than powergaming to BEAT D&D. (ROLEplaying v ROLLplaying)

the character doesn't take the vow of poverty, a player with an imagination gives it to the character he is playing.

but as you choke on your barrel of cocks, you will still never understand how the game isnt about: Plusones GOTTA CATCH 'EM ALL!

needless to say i saw no problem with Vow of Poverty, because i wasnt ever some minmax fanatic trying to collect as many +1s as possible, and was able to play a character that want fully optimized, and even those people i played with had ZERO problem with the character. hell they even LOVED the greater shares of loot!

D&D adventurers are generally all about the bling.

no, no they are not, sadly small minded people just cant see that and worship at the church of Minister Wyatt and only want to kick in the door and kill things and take their stuff, and not bother talking to the people, be they little ones in fairy rings, or others. Munchkin is made by Steve Jackson Games. you might enjoy it. it IS about kicking in a door, killing something, and taking its loot.

@darkmaster: Vow of Poverty was something done right. simple and down to earth without some outrageous collection of bonuses to it that could be minmax/optimized out of the ass. That is why many people dont like it because they ONLY optimize the character sheet, rather than play a character.

[Prak]

No. Vow of Peace/Nonviolence is dumb in a game of murder hobos D&D. Yes, there is an interesting story to be told. But that's the problem, there's one, and it doesn't fit into D&D.

VoP does two things wrong. First, the abilities granted, while they seem nice, are actually less powerful than what you should be getting by level. Second, it is again an inappropriate feat for D&D, the game where you break into people's homes, smack them over the head with a candlestick, and take their shit home in santa sacks.

Yes, I already know exactly why you think this is a stupid idea, but I figure if there are people who want to try it, and there are, there should at least be a reasonably balanced option floating about for them to do it. And, well, I couldn't find anything giving a glance about.

That said, if you've anything to add to you lost mes’ "Vow of Poverty but moar" comment, I'm all ears.

...a baseball bat is relatively well balanced...

Ok, so for a real answer, you want people to be able to level up in "I object to my party members' game of murder hobos, and yet have not left them for some reason" and do so without hurting themselves. For this, you need several things:

• A reason to take Vow of Poverty/Peace/Nonviolence. This can be just story, but it should be more. Ideally they should actually get something out of "I can't own stuff/I can't kill people."
• As YLM said, self sufficiency. The cleric should not be bumming silver powder off of me so he can bless water. This means that if a character takes "I Forsake Worldly Goods" level 1, that level needs to give him a way to continue to function without worldly goods. The idea is that someone who has taken a vow of poverty has given up luxury, not functionality. So really, they need to be able to hit just as often and hard as their buddy with the actual +5 vorpal longsword. They need a shtick. Come up with a specific organization that takes vows of poverty, and why. Perhaps their forsaking of tools allows them to use their natural weapons to greater effectiveness. Perhaps their god smiles upon them and they get effects that reflect them being favoured by a god for their devotion.
• Everyone who saw VoP and thought it was cool immediately thought of playing, in order, a Monk, a Barbarian, and a Druid. There needs to actually be an incentive to play these kind of characters, while at the same time making them no better than others (not so much better as to be unbalanced, anyway)

I'd say that Vow of Nonviolence would be good for a sect of undead-slayers, who have sworn to not harm the living, and thus are better at harming the dead. Perhaps their attacks always deal non-lethal damage to living creatures, but deal double damage to undead?

Vow of Poverty should belong to spartan style "no fancy stuff for me, thanks" grapplers, and give them greater facility with slams and grapples.

Oh, last thing. Vows are not inherently good. They're disciplined, and thus vaguely lawful, but they are not required of all good people.

[darkmaster]

@darkmaster: Vow of Poverty was something done right. simple and down to earth without some outrageous collection of bonuses to it that could be minmax/optimized out of the ass. That is why many people dont like it because they ONLY optimize the character sheet, rather than play a character.

No, I really don't think it was, I'm a bit burned out on math to try and run the numbers at the moment, but the general consensus is that Vow of Poverty is a poor choice to make.

Now, as to why character would do it, it’s not because some people don’t want to min max, that has nothing to do with the character obviously. Likely it’s a religious thing. Real world Ascetics were Indian (from the subcontinent) holy men who practiced self-deprivation in order to gain enlightenment. Now their specific doctrine also stressed nonviolence, but let’s not push things too far shall we? In truth though, the actual reason a character would become and Ascetic isn’t my concern, it is, after all, up to the player to come up with a character’s background. As I’ve said, I want the player to be able to play an actual character if they choose to go this path, it’s not much different from the Tomes bringing the warrior types up to wizard level, just, you know, with less sharp pointy things.

Thanks for the Advice Prak, I wouldn't have thought of allot of that fluff. I think self suffencentcy and a reason to take it could go hand-in-hand myself, but that just me.

EDIT: fixed quotes

[shadzar]

@darkmaster: Vow of Poverty was something done right. simple and down to earth without some outrageous collection of bonuses to it that could be minmax/optimized out of the ass. That is why many people dont like it because they ONLY optimize the character sheet, rather than play a character.

No, I really don't think it was, I'm a bit burned out on math to try and run the numbers at the moment, but the general consensus is that Vow of Poverty is a poor choice to make.

you kind of prove my point there as to where this consensus is coming from..."running the numbers". this is the minmaxxers realm, playing the mechanics rather than the character.

unlike Prak, i saw monk and sought out poverty, because as you say Buddhist, Xiolin, etc thematically pop out when you think monk. those enlightened rather than attached to worldly goods. and as you considering the game, ignoring killing is bad because that is a whole other vow.

so like the paladin before, it wasnt really about the bonuses some people sought, but the character. the penalties weren't that bad with what you gained.

your average thief doesnt take vow of poverty..that just doesnt make sense unless you are seriously trying to emulate Robin Hood, but that would get old for the other players because the emulation rather than the vow.

i will have to find my githzerai monk sheet and see what notes are on it since i dont have access to 3.x books right now, and see what all the vow did offer to him.

it is the playstyle classh that often happens as i mentioned with Minister Wyatt. some people think only of the game as kicking in a door, killing something, taking its stuff. if you arent interested in the taking the stuff, or just want to kill things, then your playstyle will not fit with that train of thought and the vow of poverty will fit in anywhere.

just remember, that benefits to some dont always come in the matter of math that you can "run the numbers on", when a disadvantage is taken.

[fectin]

Quarterstaves and clubs are free. Hand out a use-based Greater Magic Weapon, and some of the problem goes away.

Actually, you could probably do okay building it as a tome feat, or an option for the tome monk.

If it were non-magical, that would be a moderately compelling reason to go that route. That way you can still do your thing in an AMF. That could definitely work; give up gear in exchange for extraordinary versions of spell-likes.

[crasskris]

You can always take the lazy road and have characters with a vow of poverty sacrifice items of power to their god, upon which they are bestowed powers of the same nature as the items would have provided (or similar ones). So if you sacrifice the +5 vorpal sword you gain the 'punishing pimpfists of god'-power, which amounts to the same thing.

You might want to add some weakness, however, like 'doesn't work on desecrated ground', to offset the un-disarmable feature.

[Winnah]

An easy way around the restriction of having no material possessions is to play a ghost or spirit of some kind.

On a more serious note, how would you handle a character that is militant, but also holds some ascetic tenets, such as Hospitaliers or Templars?

Have them Atone after carrying arms? Or would they have some kind of exemption or divine licence to carry gear around while carrying out their duties?

[fectin]

A murder-hobo is extremely ascetic. He is eschewing any luxuries to pursue whatever cause is driving him to murder.

[tzor]

If you really want to think about a vow of poverty and a vow of nonviolence you really have to really get down to understanding what you mean about both terms. What is poverty and what is nonviolence and how in the world can they even fit into a setting like D&D?

Poverty is easily misunderstood because we sort of build in an implication that power is wealth. The original Gygax description of the paladin had a limitation on the number of magic weapons the paladin could possesses and that was considered a vague form of “poverty.” (Not really, since they could, in theory, possess the greatest weapon in all of the world, but not a dozen of the weakest magical weapons in the world which would clearly be worth far less.)

Now if we were go for a model of poverty we might look towards a St. Francis or a St. Clare. The former often had to go around begging for food. He only had one article of clothing. He walked everywhere. So what does that mean for a D&D adventurer? Darn if I know. In a game where you can get shit ex nihilo, (like food and water and so forth) how can you claim “poverty?”

It even gets worse for nonviolence because any good example you can use for nonviolence would result in someone who would be impossibly suited for adventure. You can’t put Ghandi in an adventuring party. It’s just not going to happen.

[Critias]

hell they even LOVED the greater shares of loot!

D&D adventurers are generally all about the bling.

no, no they are not

One of these things is not like the other. When you ran an impoverished character, did your totally awesome group of gaming buddies LOVE the greater shares of loot (while still being totally awesome), or is any D&D adventurer that's all about the loot a small-minded idiot who doesn't know how to role play? Because you can't have it both ways.

[fectin]

Sure you can, if his totally awesome buddies are small minded idiots.

[hogarth]

Vow of Poverty based class is somewhat more difficult. I know thematically what I want, it’s already been done, but, while I know the crunch that’s there doesn’t work, I don’t know why. I’ve never put much thought into it before now, and I find myself to play through a character with the feat at the moment, school and such. So, what exactly did the Vow of Poverty feat to wrong in 3.5?

The problem with the 3E Vow of Poverty feat is that it looks like it does awesome stuff in exchange for giving up magic items, but it mostly does boring stuff (e.g. you can have a monk who ends up as all defence and no offense, which contributes very little to a party). That's what makes it a "trap" (a term that I hate using because some people use it to mean anything that's not the best possible option in the game).

So what's the solution to avoiding a "trap" option like that? Basically you have to pick one of the following:
(a) Your Vow of Poverty character clearly does get a bunch of awesome stuff. That's the first step towards a HERO-style system where characters end up as blind, armless, legless, mental defectives with control issues in exchange for powerful abilities. There's nothing wrong with that when used in small doses, but it gets ridiculous pretty quickly.

(b) Your Vow of Poverty character clearly does not get a bunch of awesome stuff. Then it's clear that your PC is playing on "hard mode". Of course, it's a dick move to play on "hard mode" unless you have the express written consent of the other players in the party.

[Prak]

'punishing pimpfists of god'

I want this now. Someone find me a vorpal blade.

[darkmaster]

you kind of prove my point there as to where this consensus is coming from..."running the numbers". this is the minmaxxers realm

I'll say it, that's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard. D&D characters are just bundles of numbers wrapped around an idea. Saying you can't figure out the problems with some mechanic in D&D that contributes to character power using math or you’re a Minnmaxer is dumb because that is everything in every D&D book ever. Not only that but it works both ways, you can use math to figure out if something is too weak yeah, but you can do it to figure out if something is out of whack the other way too.

On a more serious note, how would you handle a character that is militant, but also holds some ascetic tenets, such as Hospitaliers or Templars?

Have them Atone after carrying arms? Or would they have some kind of exemption or divine licence to carry gear around while carrying out their duties?

I’d probably just make them paladins who aren’t allowed to keep treasure, and whose armor and weapons actually belong to the church. Even if that wouldn’t work, they can use nonmagical and nonmasterwork simple weapons, so they’d do okay in low level campaigns, also I’m fairly certain the Knights Templar weren’t ascetics what with being extremely wealthy money lenders being the reason for their destruction.

Now if we were go for a model of poverty we might look towards a St. Francis or a St. Clare. The former often had to go around begging for food. He only had one article of clothing. He walked everywhere. So what does that mean for a D&D adventurer? Darn if I know. In a game where you can get shit ex nihilo, (like food and water and so forth) how can you claim “poverty?”

It even gets worse for nonviolence because any good example you can use for nonviolence would result in someone who would be impossibly suited for adventure. You can’t put Ghandi in an adventuring party. It’s just not going to happen.

That was my original idea actually, the classic Ascetic who wanders about with basically nothing on begging for food.

As for Vow of Peace/nonviolence, both feats rather explicitly say nonlethal damage is allowed and you only have to try to stop your friends from killing people. If you can’t stop them, like, say, you’re busy grappling with a sword wielding orc, or they overpower you, obviously you can’t be expected to fight them they’re your friends, and you only like to fight when it’s a matter of self-defense. I’d probably encourage people to play it like the doctor, but with less genocide, they try to convince people to make the right choice, that is, not kill the innocent/their helpless enemies, and if they do on their head be it, whether it be their eventual Karmic justice, or getting beaten nearly to death with their fists of furry.

hell they even LOVED the greater shares of loot!

D&D adventurers are generally all about the bling.

no, no they are not

One of these things is not like the other. When you ran an impoverished character, did your totally awesome group of gaming buddies LOVE the greater shares of loot (while still being totally awesome), or is any D&D adventurer that's all about the loot a small-minded idiot who doesn't know how to role play? Because you can't have it both ways.

I think his point was that the group got more gold, which is a valid point, if you’re not taking any they do get a larger share.

So what's the solution to avoiding a "trap" option like that? Basically you have to pick one of the following:
(a) Your Vow of Poverty character clearly does get a bunch of awesome stuff. That's the first step towards a HERO-style system where characters end up as blind, armless, legless, mental defectives with control issues in exchange for powerful abilities. There's nothing wrong with that when used in small doses, but it gets ridiculous pretty quickly.

(b) Your Vow of Poverty character clearly does not get a bunch of awesome stuff. Then it's clear that your PC is playing on "hard mode". Of course, it's a dick move to play on "hard mode" unless you have the express written consent of the other players in the party.

Yeah, that’s what I thought, I’m aiming for option a myself. It just seems like the way to go to me. I’m actually considering building the benefits into different classes though. Vow of Poverty, the feat, is a simple and nice way to go about it, but it doesn’t really fit what a feat is. Feats, to my mind, are extra little things you can do, they’re not really meant to set the tone for your entire character. Taking a exalted feat is fine and dandy, but you should be taking the feat because you’re character is exalted, not the other way round. Anyway, if Vow of poverty, the feat, failed because a lack of sufficient numbers, could I have an example of more appropriate numbers? Specifically what they should have in the way of magic enhancement as I’ve had little to no opportunity to play around with magic items.

[Prak]

Another thing I'd change about Vow of Poverty is how what weapons you can use is determined. It should be a price limit, something along the lines of "Nothing more than 20 gold," rather than "simple weapons only." I realise the point of the simple weapons line is to encourage staff wielding ascetic monks, but really, it should be possible to play a paladin that took Vow of Poverty and wears padded cloth armour (or hobo armour, as I think I'll call it from now on) and carries a single, mundane longsword.

[CatharzGodfoot]

2e paladins had a vow of poverty requirement that involved much less stupid shit.

[Maxus]

I just got the image of a drunken Paladin wearing about three layers of flannel...

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, the Vow of Poverty has two exclusive conceptual problems with it when applied to D&D.

1.) It makes the characters look like greedy assholes. Like, seriously, a 10th level party has enough money to feed England for a year or bump up the industrial age 400 years early. Why don't they retire and sell their stuff? It's the whole Batman dilemma. When Batman's nightlife gets in the way of his running of one of the biggest corporations in the DC-verse, that makes him an asshole.

2.) If you're trying to avert that by saying that the wealth hoarding really is necessary, it makes things pretty damn grimdark. Yes, I could have used the money to build an orphanage to save the lives of thousands of children... but if I don't have enough money to upgrade my sword from a +4 to +5 tens of thousands more children will die because I lost a fight to the demilich. Sorry, kids, but that incremental bonus is literally worth more than you and your village!

[crasskris]

Another couple of options for vows of poverty:

1. It's all about the looks. Characters with a vow of poverty may use magical items at their leisure, since they are seen simply as tools to accomplish a task - ascetic or not, no faith will deny its monks some books if the monk's task is research. Only items of luxury are forbidden.

Treading the deep murky stinkywaters of 4e for a second, a character may not use any blingy magical item unless he uses Transfer Enchantment to confer the magic to a simple, functional, nondescript item.


2. The character is ascetic, but has an explicit bad-ass mode; the poor traveling monk may become a knight in shining armor if you kick the pooch in front of him, all to the glory of his god, of course. For that end, the vow of poverty feat allows him to 'store' a certain number of items in an extra-dimensional space and summon them, equipped and ready for use, as a free action. To maintain that power, the character needs to maintain a life of strict denial and discipline.

In both cases your character could run around begging and looking like, well, a hobo, without hindering all that sweet, sweet murdering.

[virgil]

hell they even LOVED the greater shares of loot!

D&D adventurers are generally all about the bling.

no, no they are not

One of these things is not like the other. When you ran an impoverished character, did your totally awesome group of gaming buddies LOVE the greater shares of loot (while still being totally awesome), or is any D&D adventurer that's all about the loot a small-minded idiot who doesn't know how to role play? Because you can't have it both ways.

Man, I hated that part about the Vow of Poverty, where you're required to take your share of loot anyway; so it could be donated to someone outside of the group (usually a temple/church). My gaming group wouldn't dare think of doing otherwise with the rare times they allowed a VoP character (felt it was horribly OP, especially on monks).