Where is this “Vow of Poverty” feat comming from? “Book of Exalted Deeds”?
Its cetainly a quite different ball of wax from the one presented in the
“Book of Hallowed Might”, which grants an insight bonus of +1/2 levels (max
+10) to Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Sense Motive.
Kenneth Gauck
Originally posted by kgauck@Feb 24 2004, 10:50 PM
Where is this “Vow of Poverty” feat comming from? “Book of Exalted Deeds”?
Yep. The “Book of Exalted Deeds” is the good counterpart to the “Book of Vile Darkness”. It’s an original WOTC book…
Originally posted by Birthright-L@Feb 24 2004, 07:10 PM
Choosing feats for a campaign setting is not a matter of simply players finding which books better helps you bypass your DM`s restrictions.
Well, naturally it is to bypass DM restrictions (well, IF there are). If a campaign group gets magical items normally, there is no reason to take it. The point was, to GIVE up equipment to get a better bloodline. And I told a way to undergo this. That’s all!!
Originally posted by Ariadne+Feb 24 2004, 07:42 PM–></div><table border=‘0’ align=‘center’ width=‘95%’ cellpadding=‘3’ cellspacing=‘1’><tr><td>QUOTE (Ariadne @ Feb 24 2004, 07:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id=‘QUOTE’> <!–QuoteBegin-Birthright-L@Feb 24 2004, 07:10 PM
Choosing feats for a campaign setting is not a matter of simply players finding which books better helps you bypass your DM`s restrictions.
Well, naturally it is to bypass DM restrictions (well, IF there are). If a campaign group gets magical items normally, there is no reason to take it. The point was, to GIVE up equipment to get a better bloodline. And I told a way to undergo this. That’s all!! [/b][/quote]
You see I look at this differently. Taking this feat in a setting where magic items are rare is actually power gaming and bypassing restrictions. I mean what is the point (game blance wise)in taking a restriction that is not really a restriction. If a PC is not giving anything up and gaining a whole bunch of things, like are granted by this feat, then there is a serious bust in the way things are being handled, IMO.
> I mean what is the point (game blance wise)in taking a restriction
> that is not really a restriction.
Maybe we should task Gary with figuring out the treasure value of every feat
so that we can modify ECL by such considerations. >)
Kenneth Gauck
Originally posted by Ariadne+Feb 25 2004, 01:33 AM–></div><table border=‘0’ align=‘center’ width=‘95%’ cellpadding=‘3’ cellspacing=‘1’><tr><td>QUOTE (Ariadne @ Feb 25 2004, 01:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id=‘QUOTE’> <!–QuoteBegin-kgauck@Feb 24 2004, 10:50 PM
Where is this “Vow of Poverty” feat comming from? “Book of Exalted Deeds”?
Yep. The “Book of Exalted Deeds” is the good counterpart to the “Book of Vile Darkness”. It’s an original WOTC book… [/b][/quote]
My preferred alternate title for ‘The Book of Exalted Deeds’ would be ‘The Manual of Munchkin Might.’
Vow of Poverty is only balanced in campaigns that uses the default D&D treasure model. Even in such campaigns, it’s somewhat fishy. If you calculate the equivalent gear the feat grants, you arrive at a value of somewhere around 25%-40% greater than the treasure an average PC is ‘supposed’ to have. Of course, there’s the matter of top-end items and customizability, but the bonus feats given should cover that somewhat. In a Birthright campaign that uses a lower magic item level, Vow of Poverty is about as appropriate as a Sherman tank. Of course, a DM may still allow a significantly toned down variant of it.
Beyond Vow of Poverty, The Manual of Munchkin Might also contains other things that aren’t quite balanced. In fact, they make a point that the Saint template specifically violates their own level adjustment rules. It grants more power than it should for the level adjustment it incurs - and the excuse for doing so? ‘Role-playing.’ While I don’t see anything wrong with an individual DM doing so in his campaign if he’s confident he can balance it that way, there’s definitely something wrong with WotC presenting deliberately unbalanced game options. When I buy a WotC book, I’d very much like them to present stuff in line with the standard D&D design guidelines - stuff that is fairly well balanced. And playtested. I don’t want to see ‘we deliberately made this unbalanced because we think it’s cool.’ A sidebar discussing ‘how to balance game mechanic benefits with role-playing penalties’ would be okay.
In this particular case, the WotC label means very little. James Wyatt has produced some good stuff (most notably Oriental Adventures), but whenever it comes to the religious books, he seems to churn out a lot of boring garbage. I hope he’s kept far away from the Complete Divine.
[i]Originally posted by geeman+Feb 24 2004, 12:30 PM–></div><table border=‘0’ align=‘center’ width=‘95%’ cellpadding=‘3’ cellspacing=‘1’><tr><td>QUOTE (geeman @ Feb 24 2004, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id=‘QUOTE’>In this suggestion bloodlines aren
t gained or paid for by spending gp. Their presence is just accounted for to balance the character for the purpose of EL by giving the bloodline a gp value. If a scion committed bloodtheft (or otherwise increased his bloodline) he wouldnt then spend gp to actually use it. His bloodline would just increase, and the gp value of his inventory would go up by whatever amount the his bloodline score increased and whatever the value of the blood abilities he gained might be. Theres no "transaction" involved. For example, if bloodline score is worth 100gp/point, a minor blood ability 500gp and a major blood ability 1,000gp a scion with a bloodline score of 15 and a minor blood ability would have a 2,000gp bloodline. He doesnt spend those gp. Its just factored into his inventory as a kind of "virtual" magic item, if you will. If that scion committed bloodtheft on someone (or a couple people) and gained enough points to bump his bloodline score up to 20 and increase his minor blood ability to a major blood ability the value added to his inventory would increase to 3,000gp. If the total value of his bloodline puts him into a higher bracket than he would normally have access to (according to Table 5-1 in the DMG) then that can be used to change his EL for the purpose of determining encounters and CR awards--but NOT his ECL. Theres no level adjustment requiring XP to be earned, nor does he actually pay for his bloodline with gp.[/b]
Or, a different way you could factor this in is have the DM secretly deduct the gp value of the aquired blood powers etc. from the treasure he awards the character/party with in the future. That’s basically how I do it – and not just with bloodlines. Since I sort of ad lib the handing ou of treasure in my campaign in a kind of haphazard way, I just once in a while check how much treasure they actually have compared how much I would like them to have at this point in their XP progression and then just compensate for that in future adventures.
<!–QuoteBegin-geeman[/i]@Feb 24 2004, 12:30 PM
Not having seen that I cant really comment on it, but I dont think this method has actually been discussed much in the BR community, so the polling done for the earlier bloodline proposals doesnt really make much difference since nobodys really presented a system yet (other than the rather vague one described here.)[/quote]
Actually, I think this method was hardly discussed at all after I introduced it at the time. It’s interesting to see it resurface after all this time. 
Originally posted by irdeggman
You see I look at this differently. Taking this feat in a setting where magic items are rare is actually power gaming and bypassing restrictions. I mean what is the point (game blance wise)in taking a restriction that is not really a restriction. If a PC is not giving anything up and gaining a whole bunch of things, like are granted by this feat, then there is a serious bust in the way things are being handled, IMO.
First it was something to show holes in a system. Naturally every player (or nearly everyone) takes the best for his character, what he can get. And one thing is this feat…
And OK, if the player playes a neutral or evil character, he has to bite in the sour apple and can slip through no hole 
Second, that feat is balanced with having and gaining absolute no possession of value. This means you can’t ever use magical items or even masterwork things, you actually GET from your DM (if it’s the “perfect” magical item for you, you have lost ). And: If you “borrow” a magical item from a other player for only a single round (even, if using a scroll or something), you loose all benefits of that vow permanetly. So the player HAS to watch himself (hard drawback if you ask me).
Further this feat is not for every class. Take the ordinary fighter: He can’t use armor of any type and no martial weapon. IMO, even if he uses a quarterstaff, no armor (end that’s why even with dex 18 a more or less low AC) is very deadly at the first about 6 levels. Only a monk (gaining his wis bonus to AC) and a bit later a druid (gaining wild shape at 5th level) have less problems to survive the “hard” first levels. So you can say, not all guys who actually take that feat are wise or survive long enough to get the “good” benefits of it, maybe only if they have the “Vow of Peace” as well 
(Don’t ask, the “Vow of Peace” is definitivly only useful for NPC’s).
And as I said, if a DM handles magical items “normally” (without restrictions), a guy with a “vow of poverty” gains nearly the same as a normal player of same level. He only needs not to “fight” to get some particular “found” magical item…
Oh, I nearly forgot: Using a quarterstaff or similar simple weapon makes it hard to pierce someone’s heart to gain the benefits of bloodtheft (just an idea)…
[i]Originally posted by Mark Aurel±-></div><table border=‘0’ align=‘center’ width=‘95%’ cellpadding=‘3’ cellspacing=‘1’><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark Aurel)</td></tr><tr><td id=‘QUOTE’> Beyond Vow of Poverty, The Manual of Munchkin Might also contains other things that aren’t quite balanced. In fact, they make a point that the Saint template specifically violates their own level adjustment rules. It grants more power than it should for the level adjustment it incurs - and the excuse for doing so? ‘Role-playing.’ [/b]
I must say that I didn’t read the saint that good to give a comment until now. I only know that a saint suffers +2 ECL and there are hard requirements to become one (something like never behaving other than good, 3 required exalted feats and one extraordinary sacrifice [whatever is meant by that]). Naturally you’re right, that IF you become a saint, the ECL is added, so you have spontaneously gained two levels. That is quite unbalancing compared with the rest of the group…
BTW the “Book of Vile Darkness” isn’t much different from the “Book of Exaltd Deeds”, if you look at presented stuff. The ONLY difference is: There aren’t enough players of evil characters around, who can use it (if there where, they wouldn’t survive long enough in a normal group, to check out the advantages of that book). And maybe I’m a bit conservative, but the only comment I can give to the “Book of Vile Darkness”: It is tasteless…
Oh, realy unbalancing are the “Gestalt Characters” presented in Unearthed Arcana (OK, other thread, but I wanted to mention it).
<!–QuoteBegin- Mark Aurel[/i]
I hope he’s kept far away from the Complete Divine. [/quote]
What’s that? Can you tell something more?
Originally posted by Mark_Aurel@Feb 25 2004, 11:08 AM
[b] My preferred alternate title for ‘The Book of Exalted Deeds’ would be ‘The Manual of Munchkin Might.’
Vow of Poverty is only balanced in campaigns that uses the default D&D treasure model. Even in such campaigns, it’s somewhat fishy. If you calculate the equivalent gear the feat grants, you arrive at a value of somewhere around 25%-40% greater than the treasure an average PC is ‘supposed’ to have. Of course, there’s the matter of top-end items and customizability, but the bonus feats given should cover that somewhat. In a Birthright campaign that uses a lower magic item level, Vow of Poverty is about as appropriate as a Sherman tank. Of course, a DM may still allow a significantly toned down variant of it.
Beyond Vow of Poverty, The Manual of Munchkin Might also contains other things that aren’t quite balanced. In fact, they make a point that the Saint template specifically violates their own level adjustment rules. It grants more power than it should for the level adjustment it incurs - and the excuse for doing so? ‘Role-playing.’ While I don’t see anything wrong with an individual DM doing so in his campaign if he’s confident he can balance it that way, there’s definitely something wrong with WotC presenting deliberately unbalanced game options. When I buy a WotC book, I’d very much like them to present stuff in line with the standard D&D design guidelines - stuff that is fairly well balanced. And playtested. I don’t want to see ‘we deliberately made this unbalanced because we think it’s cool.’ A sidebar discussing ‘how to balance game mechanic benefits with role-playing penalties’ would be okay.
In this particular case, the WotC label means very little. James Wyatt has produced some good stuff (most notably Oriental Adventures), but whenever it comes to the religious books, he seems to churn out a lot of boring garbage. I hope he’s kept far away from the Complete Divine. [/b]
Good joke. People playing in your campaign do not have any fun at all, do they?
IMO BoED is perfectly balanced.
You forgot the most important point considering game balance in BoED: GOOD characters have slightly disadvantages compared to neutral characters and evil ones. It is always a problem playing a REALLY good character in a not so good campaigns. BoED solves this problem perfectly, as does the BoVD for evil characters.
Ariadne schrieb:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2287
>
> Ariadne wrote:
> [quote = irdeggman] You see I look at this differently. Taking this feat in a setting where magic items are rare is actually power gaming and bypassing restrictions. I mean what is the point (game blance wise)in taking a restriction that is not really a restriction. If a PC is not giving anything up and gaining a whole bunch of things, like are granted by this feat, then there is a serious bust in the way things are being handled, IMO. [/quote]
>
> First it was something to show holes in a system. Naturally every player (or nearly everyone) takes the best for his character, what he can get. And one thing is this feat…
> And OK, if the player playes a neutral or evil character, he has to bite in the sour apple and can slip through no hole
>
Ach and ouch - and I had just now considred to ask Björn if such exalted
feats would fit my Paladin who is LN
> And as I said, if a DM handles magical items “normally” (without restrictions), a guy with a “vow of poverty” gains nearly the same as a normal player of same level. He only needs not to “fight” to get some particular “found” magical item…
>
> Oh, I nearly forgot: Using a quarterstaff or similar simple weapon makes it hard to pierce someone’s heart to gain the benefits of bloodtheft (just an idea)…
>
Just break the Quarterstaff into small pieces - Jonathan Harker can do
it and Van Helsing as well so adventurers certainly can
On the matter of calling the use of that feat as “breaking the rules”
and “power gaming” and whatnot in a world where magical items are rare.
Then every classability that gives magical attacks for free are just as
much more valuable as this feat and “power gaming”. There is no monk in
Birthright, but in other rare-magic worlds to get +3 attacks without
magical weapons is fine, not to mention the +5 Arrows the Arcane Archer
gets for free in a world where to create +5 arrows cost 25% or 50% more
than in other worlds if you actually find someone who would create them…
Even the spells “Greater Magic Weapon” or similar or even ALL SPELLS
are actually powergaming (in a world where a magical weapon +1 is a
heirloom!) as in Birthright Wizards are so rare. We should not allow
Players to select Wizards at all
bye
Michael
Originally posted by Azrai+Feb 25 2004, 09:10 PM–></div><table border=‘0’ align=‘center’ width=‘95%’ cellpadding=‘3’ cellspacing=‘1’><tr><td>QUOTE (Azrai @ Feb 25 2004, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id=‘QUOTE’> <!–QuoteBegin-Mark_Aurel@Feb 25 2004, 11:08 AM
[b] My preferred alternate title for ‘The Book of Exalted Deeds’ would be ‘The Manual of Munchkin Might.’
Vow of Poverty is only balanced in campaigns that uses the default D&D treasure model. Even in such campaigns, it’s somewhat fishy. If you calculate the equivalent gear the feat grants, you arrive at a value of somewhere around 25%-40% greater than the treasure an average PC is ‘supposed’ to have. Of course, there’s the matter of top-end items and customizability, but the bonus feats given should cover that somewhat. In a Birthright campaign that uses a lower magic item level, Vow of Poverty is about as appropriate as a Sherman tank. Of course, a DM may still allow a significantly toned down variant of it.
Beyond Vow of Poverty, The Manual of Munchkin Might also contains other things that aren’t quite balanced. In fact, they make a point that the Saint template specifically violates their own level adjustment rules. It grants more power than it should for the level adjustment it incurs - and the excuse for doing so? ‘Role-playing.’ While I don’t see anything wrong with an individual DM doing so in his campaign if he’s confident he can balance it that way, there’s definitely something wrong with WotC presenting deliberately unbalanced game options. When I buy a WotC book, I’d very much like them to present stuff in line with the standard D&D design guidelines - stuff that is fairly well balanced. And playtested. I don’t want to see ‘we deliberately made this unbalanced because we think it’s cool.’ A sidebar discussing ‘how to balance game mechanic benefits with role-playing penalties’ would be okay.
In this particular case, the WotC label means very little. James Wyatt has produced some good stuff (most notably Oriental Adventures), but whenever it comes to the religious books, he seems to churn out a lot of boring garbage. I hope he’s kept far away from the Complete Divine. [/b]
Good joke. People playing in your campaign do not have any fun at all, do they?
IMO BoED is perfectly balanced.
You forgot the most important point considering game balance in BoED: GOOD characters have slightly disadvantages compared to neutral characters and evil ones. It is always a problem playing a REALLY good character in a not so good campaigns. BoED solves this problem perfectly, as does the BoVD for evil characters. [/b][/quote]
Actually, I think the people that play in my campaigns have a great deal of fun. Why else would the same group come back time and again after 12 years of playing? I’ve DMed other groups as well - I was in contact with one player who moved away a few years ago recently. He lauded me as the best DM he’d ever had, and asked if I could come down and run a campaign where he lives now (about 2-4 hours away, depending on transportation).
So, yes, I’d like to believe players have fun in my campaigns, since you asked so nicely.
I can certainly respect that you are of the opinion that the BoED is balanced. That doesn’t necessarily make it so, however. The fact that ‘good’ characters may sometimes take ‘hits’ in a power-gaming sense for being ‘good’ (turning down treasure, giving away stuff, whatever) does not mean they should be granted any game mechanical benefits for doing so. Doing that should be left to the individual DM. I’d even consider it great if WotC gave a set of guidelines or ideas that would help people hammer out how to award such. I do not appreciate it when WotC explicitly violates their own rules, the basic design guidelines they’ve followed since 3e, and take it upon themselves to turn out a deliberately power-inflated template as the standard.
You see, I’m of the mind that people should be able to feel free to play the character they want to. If the game mechanical rewards for playing one type of character is greater than for playing another type of character, then you’re penalizing yourself if you pick the ‘lesser’ choice, even if it is the more fun one. As a DM, I might occasionally try to equalize somewhat for that, but generally, I prefer the options to be equal all the way. If you intrinsically reward one sort of behavior more than another, you also force players in that direction somewhat. It simply isn’t fair to those that want to play something else.
The most fair thing to do is place the reward on the same level as the penalty. If you have a paladin that denies rewards for great quests, gives away most of what he earns, and so forth, he’ll be compensated for that by NPC goodwill, favors, and so forth - and possibly XP - not through getting an overpowered template.
Most of the stuff in the BoED is okay balancewise - it’s just that there are elements that hints at a poor game design philosophy.
[i]Originally posted by Ariadne+Feb 25 2004, 08:07 PM–></div><table border=‘0’ align=‘center’ width=‘95%’ cellpadding=‘3’ cellspacing=‘1’><tr><td>QUOTE (Ariadne @ Feb 25 2004, 08:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id=‘QUOTE’> [quote]Originally posted by Mark Aurel@
Beyond Vow of Poverty, The Manual of Munchkin Might also contains other things that aren’t quite balanced. In fact, they make a point that the Saint template specifically violates their own level adjustment rules. It grants more power than it should for the level adjustment it incurs - and the excuse for doing so? ‘Role-playing.’
I must say that I didn?t read the saint that good to give a comment until now. I only know that a saint suffers +2 ECL and there are hard requirements to become one (something like never behaving other than good, 3 required exalted feats and one extraordinary sacrifice [whatever is meant by that]). Naturally you?re right, that IF you become a saint, the ECL is added, so you have spontaneously gained two levels. That is quite unbalancing compared with the rest of the group…
BTW the ?Book of Vile Darkness? isn?t much different from the ?Book of Exaltd Deeds?, if you look at presented stuff. The ONLY difference is: There aren?t enough players of evil characters around, who can use it (if there where, they wouldn?t survive long enough in a normal group, to check out the advantages of that book). And maybe I?m a bit conservative, but the only comment I can give to the ?Book of Vile Darkness?: It is tasteless…
Oh, realy unbalancing are the ?Gestalt Characters? presented in Unearthed Arcana (OK, other thread, but I wanted to mention it).
<!–QuoteBegin- Mark Aurel[/i]
I hope he’s kept far away from the Complete Divine. [/quote]
What?s that? Can you tell something more? [/b][/quote]
The Complete Divine is an upcoming WotC product - it’s probably going to be like Complete Warrior. Basically a hardcover version of Defenders of the Faith for 3.5e, with stuff added from all over the place. I’d expect about 100 pages of prestige classes, some base classes, a load of feats, a heap of magic items, and a truckful of spells. I know you like priests, so I have no doubts you will enjoy it, but I suspect it will be somewhat bland.
As for the BoED and the BoVD, the latter is a DM’s book, and great as such. It contains some great ideas and reminders for enriching a campaign, IMO - it’s given me some truly despicable villains that my players have really hated. I don’t think I’d really want to DM a campaign where players used the material in there much, though. The main problem with both books is that their source material seems to be pretty much exclusively occidental in nature. I think that kind of works for the BoVD, but the BoED feels a bit too much like it was written in a church. I also think it parrots the BoVD a bit too much, being too much of a mirror image, and too little its own book.
The problem with the saint template isn’t so much the fact that you can get it in a snap - it’s that they explicitly state that they’ve kept the level adjustment artificially low to reward good characters.
Gestalt characters is certainly a powerful option - and there’s several other options of a high power level in UA. There’s a very crucial difference between that and the BoED, though - the options such as gestalt characters in UA is intended to be used instead of normal characters and normal rules. The saint template isn’t a variant or alternate rule - it should be possible to drop into any campaign - but it’s also deliberately overpowered.
It’s not so much the case itself that’s bad - there’s certainly been overpowered and underpowered templates and classes and races and such before. The problem is just the attitude they’re displaying with regards to it - deliberately introducing an overpowered option. Feels like power creep to me.