Vow of Poverty - Weapons Allowed?
Harold Groot
"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."
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 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"?
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?
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?
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? 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? 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?)
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".
But is such an item allowed to a person with a Vow of Poverty?
Bruce Grubb
que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:
Looking over the d20 SRS's prices list
<http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm> I'm not sure WHAT they
are intending here. There are several Martial and Exotic Weapons that are
far cheaper than some of the Simple ones listed. A Crossbow, heavy is 50g
which outprices all but the Axe, orc double; Flail, dire; Sword,
two-bladed; Slashing Urgrosh, dwarven (same price), Bludgeoning
Crossbow, hand; Crossbow, repeating heavy; and Crossbow, repeating light.
The non-masterwork requirement I can see
<http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/craft.htm> but the rest just does not
make any sense.
> 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? 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? 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?)
>
> 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".
> But is such an item allowed to a person with a Vow of Poverty?
Not sure as I think who ever wrote this didn't think through the conditions
very well. Looks like about as bad as anything AD&D1 produced in terms of
logic.
Marcel Beaudoin
news:4652f9ab...@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
The Mad Afro
Harold Groot wrote:
> 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."
[snip]
> 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 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"?
I interpret "ordinary, simple weapons" to be simple weapons sold as-is
in the PHB without any special materials or qualities. What
constitutes "special" varies according to campaign and region, but all
things being equal, a cold-iron weapon falls outside of the lines,
IMO.
> 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 think you might be trying to over-analyze something that the
designers wanted to handwave. Sure, there is a variety of weapons in
the Simple category, from a club to a crossbow, but in order to keep
things, well...simple, it was decided that VoP characters can use any
Simple weapon.
It's worth noting, also, that a Vow of Poverty is not a Vow of
Nonviolence. A Monk can take the VoP and still go around beating the
crap out of people. Rather, the pupose of the VoP is to mechanically
represent a character who voluntarily eschews material possessions and
all the hang-ups that go with them, thus freeing his soul for a life
of ascetic enlightenment. A simple weapon, ideally, isn't worth much
and won't cause much heartache if it is lost. In this way, a VoP
character doesn't form any kind of emotional or resource investment in
these items, as might a fighter with his masterwork greatsword.
When somebody approaches me about the VoP, I pretty much lay it out
that they'd better get used to a robe, a bowl, and a stick. If you're
worried about having more than that, you don't need to be taking this
Vow.
But then, I don't have much patience for hand-wringing. :)
>
> 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? 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? 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?)
Since a VoP character can benefit from spells cast by others, I'd say
that he could benefit from temporary spells cast on his equipment in
the same manner. However, in the case of a permanent spell cast on his
weapon, I'd think the VoP character should want to give that weapon up
once it was clear that the spell is a permanent improvement.
Once again, the idea behind the VoP is rejection of the necessity of
material possessions. A character doesn't take the Vow and then go
around carefully calculating exactly what kinds of items he can and
can't get away with and still keep all his wicked bonuses. Rather, he
carries a weapon grudgingly, if at all, and will carry the simplest
one possible, ideally with non-combat uses.
YMMV, but I think that the Vows should not be approached with the
intent to find ways around their limitations or to haggle over the
intent of the rules. If a player isn't willing to play within the
spirit of the Vow (not just the RAW), then I'd hesitate to allow it in
the first place, at least not with all attendant benefits.
--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro
Matt Frisch
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.
Marcel Beaudoin
news:8gh653p3nn879k7sq...@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
Darin McBride
>>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.
Kyle Wilson
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
Ed Chauvin IV
<matu...@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
Bruce L Grubb
> in rec.games.frp.dnd, Matt Frisch <matus...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote innews:8gh653p3nn879k7sq...@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.
Brent
> 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)
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.
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).
Brent
> 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)
basis of socio-economic power. It was an economic system based upon
the ownership of land.
> govering it. In D&D where the economic system is a total train wreck
> such limits on wealth are doomed to failure.
Bruce Grubb
Brent <digita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 7:04 pm, Bruce L Grubb <bgr...@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.
Well there were other forms of Wealth (the
> > 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.
I don't expect *that* level of work but more along the lines of don't set
the income of a commoner at something like 1sp/day and then have a lantern
set at 12gp. THat is totally insanity.
> 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.
This is not a problem just in D&D. Even GURPS which has advantages,
disadvantages, and even social ranks glosses over over these aspects.
I agree on this. Problem is with the random treasure tables you
automatically have an insane range of wealth. I mean why should a lowly
goblin guard have any kind magic item on him because the DM got really
wonky rolls on his dice and similarly wonky rolls resulted in chief of said
goblin having NO magic items what so over? While there is a link between
level and wealth that does not hold together very well-you can have very
rich level 1 aristocrats and poor bordering on destitute level 30 paladins
but you can't easily get such results on the treasure table (DMG3 p53)
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
><matu...@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.
Ed Chauvin IV
<matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:16:09 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@gmail.com>
>scribed into the ether:
>
>>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
>><matu...@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.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
><matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>
>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:16:09 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@gmail.com>
>>scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
>>><matu...@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.
Ed Chauvin IV
No Matt, that's *me* mentioning it.
golden-s...@blue-spam-yonder.co.-spam-.uk
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.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
><matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>
>>On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:25:26 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@gmail.com>
>>scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
>>><matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:16:09 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@gmail.com>
>>>>scribed into the ether:
>>>>
>>>>>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
>>>>><matu...@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.
Ed Chauvin IV
Hey Matt, that's not you mentioning a glove with CF cast on it no
longer being simple clothes with no magical properties.
Thanks for playing.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
But it is mentioning dissallowing the spell because of its permenant
nature. I just didn't bother to consider that a character is an inelidgable
target in the first place. Stretch your brain, just a teeny tiny bit, Ed.
Ed Chauvin IV
That, the permanent nature of the spell, is different from the "this"
you were referring to, the magical properties of a glove.
>I just didn't bother to consider that a character is an inelidgable
>target in the first place. Stretch your brain, just a teeny tiny bit, Ed.
Yet another issue. You do see the quoted text above, right?
Bruce Grubb
I think the flaw if you actually think about it is that Vow of Poverty is
poorly worded and even more poorly thought out.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
Magical properties of a glove do not violate the VoP if they aren't
permenant, any more than casting Magic Fang or Strength on the character
does. Continual Flame, being non-temporary, gives permenant value to a pair
of gloves, and is a double violation both in possessed value and magical
enhancement.
>>I just didn't bother to consider that a character is an inelidgable
>>target in the first place. Stretch your brain, just a teeny tiny bit, Ed.
>
>Yet another issue. You do see the quoted text above, right?
Are you channeling Terry this week or something?
Ed Chauvin IV
scrawled:
>
>I think the flaw
The flaw here would be to assume you know fuckall about thinking.
Ed Chauvin IV
<matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>Magical properties of a glove do not violate the VoP if they aren't
>permenant,
"You may wear simple clothes (...) with no magical properties."
BoED p48
There is *no* exception to this.
In fact...
"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."
ibid
> any more than casting Magic Fang or Strength on the character
>does.
"...though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf -- you
can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive
a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your
companion's ebony fly."
ibid
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
><matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>
>>Magical properties of a glove do not violate the VoP if they aren't
>>permenant,
>
>"You may wear simple clothes (...) with no magical properties."
>
>BoED p48
>
>There is *no* exception to this.
Yes, which is, again, why I wouldn't allow Continual Flame.
>In fact...
>
>"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."
>
>ibid
>
>> any more than casting Magic Fang or Strength on the character
>>does.
>
>"...though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf -- you
>can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive
>a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your
>companion's ebony fly."
>
>ibid
So you're posting previously quoted sections of the rules to say you agree
with me? You could have done it a lot simpler than this.
Or are you trying to claim that Magic Fang and Strength spells cast on the
character violate the VoP?
Bruce L Grubb
wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 03:21:19 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <edcf...@gmail.com>
> scribed into the ether:
>
> >Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch
>
> >>Magical properties of a glove do not violate the VoP if they aren't
> >>permenant,
>
> >"You may wear simple clothes (...) with no magical properties."
>
> >BoED p48
>
> >There is *no* exception to this.
>
> Yes, which is, again, why I wouldn't allow Continual Flame.
The problem is casting Continual Flame on some clothing does not imbue
it with magical properties. If it did there would be a section in the
DMG on how Continual Flame added to the value of items it was cast on.
> >In fact...
>
> >"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."
>
> >ibid
>
> >> any more than casting Magic Fang or Strength on the character
> >>does.
>
> >"...though you can benefit from magic items used on your behalf -- you
> >can drink a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives you, receive
> >a spell cast from a wand, scroll, or staff, or ride on your
> >companion's ebony fly."
>
> >ibid
>
> So you're posting previously quoted sections of the rules to say you agree
> with me? You could have done it a lot simpler than this.
>
> Or are you trying to claim that Magic Fang and Strength spells cast on the
> character violate the VoP?
Ed is showing that casting a spell on something does not give it magic
properties regardless of its duration. The ONLY different between
Magic Fang, Strength, and Continual Flame with regards to VoP it their
durations. Blatently obvious to anybody with a brain in their head.
Ed Chauvin IV
<matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> hastily scrawled:
>So you're posting previously quoted sections of the rules to say you agree
>with me? You could have done it a lot simpler than this.
>
>Or are you trying to claim that Magic Fang and Strength spells cast on the
>character violate the VoP?
*sigh*
Ed Chauvin IV
scrawled:
Go away Bruce, you're too stupid for this.
Bruce Grubb
Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Bruce L Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> hastily
> scrawled:
>
> Go away Bruce, you're too stupid for this.
Considering you out everything you are not coming off any better than Matt.
Ed Chauvin IV
scrawled:
I "out" everything because everything you said was stupidly
irrelevant. I'd suggest you buy a clue and come back, but you
wouldn't know what to do it.
Darin McBride
>> Yes, which is, again, why I wouldn't allow Continual Flame.
>
> The problem is casting Continual Flame on some clothing does not imbue
> it with magical properties. If it did there would be a section in the
> DMG on how Continual Flame added to the value of items it was cast on.
Compare "Torch" with "Everburning Torch" in PHB. Torch: 1cp. Everburning
torch: 110gp (10gp x caster level (3) x spell level (2) plus special
material (50gp) = 110gp - the torch is thrown in for free at that point).
So, in general, any piece of clothing (or any other item) would gain 110gp
of value by having Continual Flame cast on it.
It may not be the DMG, but it seems pretty clear to me.
Bruce Grubb
Darin McBride <dmcb...@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote:
Problem is it takes a Cleric of FIFTH level to cast their version
<http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/continualFlame.htm> because it is THIRD
level to them. That throws out the above which only applies to Wizards and
Sorcerers who don't use feats to alter the spell.
Furthermore this does not match anything in the DMG are far as magic item
value is concerned (pgs 282-288) In fact
'use-activated or continuous' directly CONTRADICTS IT: spell level*caster
level*2000gp (Table 7-33 pg 285,
<http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm>)
Care to explain THAT one?
Keith Davies
Market price is based on the cheapest it can be produced. Notice that
sorcerer-created items always cost more, for spells of second level and
higher. The market price is based on the wizard cost for those spells.
So, no contradiction here. If you went to a cleric for an everburning
torch it would cost (10 * 5 * 3 = 150, +50 =) 200 gp. Should've gone to
a wizard, if you wanted it cheaper.
Also, this is not a use-activated or continuous version of a spell. The
spell itself is continuous, so there's no need for a surcharge on it.
However, unlike a use-activated or continuous item created by normal
means, a continuous torch is killed by a /dispel magic/; a permanent
item created the other way is only suppressed for a while.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "History is made by stupid people
keith....@kjdavies.org "Clever people wouldn't even try
keith....@gmail.com "If you want a place in the history books
http://www.kjdavies.org/ "Then do something dumb before you die."
-- The Arrogant Worms
Rast
And to anyone else with a brain. Grubb is a troll, just ignore him.
--
"Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance
Darin McBride
The explanation is simple. You're a troll. You simply cannot be so dense
without actually trying.
The DMG magic item value is for a continuous use item, which is *quite*
different from a permanent-duration spell. For example, if I wander into
an anti-magic field, it will suppress (but not dispel) the magic in my
continuous-use item, and will completely dispel my Continual Flame (as it's
just a spell effect, not a magic item in the Create-Wondrous-Item sense).
After I leave the field, my continuous-use item will function again, but my
Continual Flame is forever extinguished - I'll need another 50gp of spell
component so I can cast it again.
There is absolutely no contradiction. The difference in price between a
simple Continual Flame and a continuous Continual Flame is well worth it.
(As an aside - you missed the cost of the spell component x50, so it's even
more expensive, although this neither enhances nor takes away from your
point.)
Bruce Grubb
Darin McBride <dmcb...@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote:
No I am one who THINKS rather than being stupid.
> You simply cannot be so dense without actually trying.
It is not being dense but having a LARGE knowledge of how D&D magic has
been said to work over the years via modules, Dragon articles, and home
brew stuff.
> The DMG magic item value is for a continuous use item, which is *quite*
> different from a permanent-duration spell. For example, if I wander into
> an anti-magic field, it will suppress (but not dispel) the magic in my
> continuous-use item, and will completely dispel my Continual Flame (as it's
> just a spell effect, not a magic item in the Create-Wondrous-Item sense).
That all depends on how you think "anti-magic field" is handled. It could
be a localized weakening of the connections of the Prime Material plane to
the other planes as per Dragon #100's "City Beyond the Gate" and the Q1
Module or a negation of local energy (mana) as per GURPS 'no mana' zones.
> After I leave the field, my continuous-use item will function again, but my
> Continual Flame is forever extinguished - I'll need another 50gp of spell
> component so I can cast it again.
Not if the "anti-magic field" is produced by local area isolation from the
planes or a no mana effect. The Continual Flame would come back on in both
those cases.
John
> Darin McBride wrote:
>
> > > Care to explain THAT one?
>
> > The explanation is simple. You're a troll.
>
> No I am one who THINKS rather than being stupid.
You know, if Bruce said it was sunny out side I would grab an
umbrella.
> > You simply cannot be so dense without actually trying.
>
> It is not being dense
This I agree with, Bruce is not being dense. Dense would be a step up
for Bruce. 'Abysmally Ignorant And Proud Of It' seems to be more
accurate.
> but having a LARGE knowledge of how D&D magic has
> been said to work over the years via modules, Dragon articles, and home
> brew stuff.
What does any of this have to do with 3.5, or are you trying to imply
that all previous editions of a game equally relevant in how the
current edition works?
> > The DMG magic item value is for a continuous use item, which is *quite*
> > different from a permanent-duration spell. For example, if I wander into
> > an anti-magic field, it will suppress (but not dispel) the magic in my
> > continuous-use item, and will completely dispel my Continual Flame (as it's
> > just a spell effect, not a magic item in the Create-Wondrous-Item sense).
>
> That all depends on how you think "anti-magic field" is handled.
No, it depends on what is written down in the PHB and DMG. You could
try reading those you know, but that would make things too easy,
wouldn't it?
John
Brent
> The problem is casting Continual Flame on some clothing does not imbue
> it with magical properties. If it did there would be a section in the
> DMG on how Continual Flame added to the value of items it was cast on.
Economically it does. That is what counts. A vow of poverty is about
eschewing material wealth. Thus, anything which is of relative value
(economically), is something a VoP character is not interested in
owning.
> Ed is showing that casting a spell on something does not give it magic
> properties regardless of its duration. The ONLY different between
> Magic Fang, Strength, and Continual Flame with regards to VoP it their
> durations. Blatently obvious to anybody with a brain in their head.
The duration is important. A temporary magic effect lasting only a
short period of time has no real bearing on the economic value of an
item. A sword is not going to be worth any more in the market with
buffs cast on, because it is apparent that whatever good those buffs
serve will vanish in mere rounds. A *permanent* magical effect cast
upon an item is just as good as a magic item itself, in the
marketplace.
Bruce Grubb
Brent <digita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 6:27 pm, Bruce L Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:>
> > The problem is casting Continual Flame on some clothing does not imbue
> > it with magical properties. If it did there would be a section in the
> > DMG on how Continual Flame added to the value of items it was cast on.
>
> Economically it does. That is what counts. A vow of poverty is about
> eschewing material wealth. Thus, anything which is of relative value
> (economically), is something a VoP character is not interested in
> owning.
The old adage 'one persons treasure is another's garbage' comes to mind.
There were places in the real world where gold had no value but bone did
(Ripley's Believe it or Not Museum in Chicago, IL) IIRC the old Dark Sun
setting had Iron being a precious metal.
In Lost in Space episode "Treasures of the Lost Planet" a group of space
pirates look for a great pirate's treasure figuring that it has to be
insane wealth as he came from a planet loaded with gems, gold, silver, and
about every precious metal you could think of. One of them figures out
that the one thing he did not see on that planet was iron which is exactly
what the treasure is.
In the Star Trek episode "Catspaw" Korab tries to bribe Kirk and company
with gemstones only to be told that "We could make a ton of these on our
ship for you. They mean nothing to us." Conversely in "Elaan of Troyius"
if is found that common stones of that planet are valuable Dilithium.
> > Ed is showing that casting a spell on something does not give it magic
> > properties regardless of its duration. The ONLY different between
> > Magic Fang, Strength, and Continual Flame with regards to VoP it their
> > durations. Blatently obvious to anybody with a brain in their head.
>
> The duration is important. A temporary magic effect lasting only a
> short period of time has no real bearing on the economic value of an
> item. A sword is not going to be worth any more in the market with
> buffs cast on, because it is apparent that whatever good those buffs
> serve will vanish in mere rounds. A *permanent* magical effect cast
> upon an item is just as good as a magic item itself, in the
> marketplace.
Which if true would cost per the rules in the DMG for such items which it
does not. Also the VoP clearly states that ANY spell can be case on the
VoP behalf. Continual Flame would fall under this category.
Kyle Wilson
>On May 27, 6:27 pm, Bruce L Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:>
>> The problem is casting Continual Flame on some clothing does not imbue
>> it with magical properties. If it did there would be a section in the
>> DMG on how Continual Flame added to the value of items it was cast on.
>
>Economically it does. That is what counts. A vow of poverty is about
>eschewing material wealth. Thus, anything which is of relative value
>(economically), is something a VoP character is not interested in
>owning.
>
The unfortunate thing is that the game rules need to be written this
tightly to avoid abuse. I'd ideally like to see a vow of poverty
played as if the character didn't value expensive things and tried to
give them away so as to help the most other people. They might use a
found +1 sword for one battle, but would then tend to give it to some
beggar in the next village they entered. It would be easy to
discourage 'loaner' items as the player with the vow should be
inclined to give them away as well (and get very upset if the loaner
made a fuss...people in need were helped). That would make for a
rewarding implementation of a vow of poverty. Done right, the player
could hold valuable magical items for a short period, but would tend
to automatically dispose of them. This would unfortunately be subject
to abuse by those inclined to power-gaming and those inclined towards
player empowerment would likely become upset is a GM subjectively
penalized players for gaming the system (for example avoiding villages
so that there would be no opportunities to give away items).
--
Kyle Wilson
email: mynameasoneword at wilson.mv.com
Darin McBride
> Brent <digita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 27, 6:27 pm, Bruce L Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:>
>>> The problem is casting Continual Flame on some clothing does not imbue
>>> it with magical properties. If it did there would be a section in the
>>> DMG on how Continual Flame added to the value of items it was cast on.
>>
>>Economically it does. That is what counts. A vow of poverty is about
>>eschewing material wealth. Thus, anything which is of relative value
>>(economically), is something a VoP character is not interested in
>>owning.
>>
>
> The unfortunate thing is that the game rules need to be written this
> tightly to avoid abuse.
I don't fully agree that they need to be written that way to avoid abuse.
To avoid trolls and other idiots from questioning them, sure, but not to
avoid abuse in our own games.
> I'd ideally like to see a vow of poverty
> played as if the character didn't value expensive things and tried to
> give them away so as to help the most other people. They might use a
> found +1 sword for one battle, but would then tend to give it to some
> beggar in the next village they entered.
This largely makes sense to me. I would just houserule it so that you could
use what you've found, but as soon as you find a deserving person, you'd be
obliged to find a way to help them out. Further, you must make every
honest effort to make opportunities happen. If, for example, you know that
on your way to your next goal is a town, and you purposefully avoid it,
that's a dishonest effort to avoid it, and there goes the VoP. Of course,
what is "reasonable"? A half-day out of the way? Five days out of the
way? It may also depend on what you have to get rid of - a few pieces of
platinum vs a +2 weapon. It's fairly fluid, but I'd rather go with the
spirit of the feat and look for honest efforts rather than sticking to hard
and fast rules.
That said, I wouldn't say the character doesn't value expensive things. The
character definitely is aware of their value, and highly appreciates what
it can do for *others*.
> It would be easy to
> discourage 'loaner' items as the player with the vow should be
> inclined to give them away as well (and get very upset if the loaner
> made a fuss...people in need were helped). That would make for a
> rewarding implementation of a vow of poverty. Done right, the player
> could hold valuable magical items for a short period, but would tend
> to automatically dispose of them. This would unfortunately be subject
> to abuse by those inclined to power-gaming and those inclined towards
> player empowerment would likely become upset is a GM subjectively
> penalized players for gaming the system (for example avoiding villages
> so that there would be no opportunities to give away items).
Well, if you're worried about empowering GMs, you don't need VoP to cause
havoc ;-) But with the "honest effort" criteria above, I wouldn't worry
about PCs abusing the feat, either.
And, IMO, it gives the feat a more palatable flavour. Sure, it makes the
feat more powerful (allowing you to wear that cloak of resistance for a
round - or a week), but I like the flavour better.
I'd probably also allow a VoP-modifier feat to allow you to carry and keep a
magical container. After all, if you can bring back that hoard of copper
*in addition to* the hoard of gold, that would help even more people,
right? Leaving behind the copper isn't going to help the poor at all.
Maybe called "Vow of Charity" - requiring VoP, and, special: having given
away a magical container already, and having had to leave treasure that one
couldn't carry (to feel the angst of not being able to help others - as
much). So not something one could take at first level. (And maybe
granting a +4 perfection bonus to diplomacy checks - which obviously
doesn't stack with the Sacred Vow's +2 perfection bonus to diplomacy.)
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>In article <1180444553.7...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Brent <digita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 27, 6:27 pm, Bruce L Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:>
>> > The problem is casting Continual Flame on some clothing does not imbue
>> > it with magical properties. If it did there would be a section in the
>> > DMG on how Continual Flame added to the value of items it was cast on.
>>
>> Economically it does. That is what counts. A vow of poverty is about
>> eschewing material wealth. Thus, anything which is of relative value
>> (economically), is something a VoP character is not interested in
>> owning.
>
>The old adage 'one persons treasure is another's garbage' comes to mind.
>There were places in the real world where gold had no value but bone did
>(Ripley's Believe it or Not Museum in Chicago, IL) IIRC the old Dark Sun
>setting had Iron being a precious metal.
And happily we dispense with your cultural relativism bullshit with a handy
rulebook that defines these values for us.
>> The duration is important. A temporary magic effect lasting only a
>> short period of time has no real bearing on the economic value of an
>> item. A sword is not going to be worth any more in the market with
>> buffs cast on, because it is apparent that whatever good those buffs
>> serve will vanish in mere rounds. A *permanent* magical effect cast
>> upon an item is just as good as a magic item itself, in the
>> marketplace.
>
>Which if true would cost per the rules in the DMG for such items which it
>does not. Also the VoP clearly states that ANY spell can be case on the
>VoP behalf. Continual Flame would fall under this category.
Continual Flame's material component alone violates the VoP value limit.
Why do you persist in displaying stupidity over and over again, Bruce?
Brent
> The old adage 'one persons treasure is another's garbage' comes to mind.
> There were places in the real world where gold had no value but bone did
> (Ripley's Believe it or Not Museum in Chicago, IL) IIRC the old Dark Sun
> setting had Iron being a precious metal.
>
> In Lost in Space episode "Treasures of the Lost Planet" a group of space
> pirates look for a great pirate's treasure figuring that it has to be
> insane wealth as he came from a planet loaded with gems, gold, silver, and
> about every precious metal you could think of. One of them figures out
> that the one thing he did not see on that planet was iron which is exactly
> what the treasure is.
>
> In the Star Trek episode "Catspaw" Korab tries to bribe Kirk and company
> with gemstones only to be told that "We could make a ton of these on our
> ship for you. They mean nothing to us." Conversely in "Elaan of Troyius"
> if is found that common stones of that planet are valuable Dilithium.
Right, proving my point. Economic value is what counts, not rulebook
value. In a world with high value for bone and low value for gold,
then gold would not offend a VoP and bone would. In a world with
endless supply of precious gems, market equilibrium (as found by
reference to demand) would slide downward along the demand curve
(rendering them no longer precious, and thus no longer valuable). Such
a world would make it fine for a VoPer to possess gems, as long as he
had some kind of purpose in possessing them (perhaps as a tool). The
point is that what is economically valuable is ruled out from the VoP.
VoP encourages characters to stick the absolute bare minimum
possessions required, eschewing all else. The fact is, magic increase
the value of anything possessing or affected permanently by it. This
makes it a no no for the VoP. If in a society, all weapons were made
of cold iron, and cold iron was the default metal of manufacture, then
cold iron would be ok. In a world with such an endless supply of
diamonds that all weapons were cut from solid diamond, and this was
the basic and cheapest way it was done, then this would be ok for VoP.
You have to grasp the essence of what the VoP is. It is not a vow
against magic, or x-gp value. it is a vow against material wealth,
whatsoever that happens to be wherever the vower lives. If covering
yourself in shit is a sign of wealth, then VoP would ban it.
> Which if true would cost per the rules in the DMG for such items which it
> does not. Also the VoP clearly states that ANY spell can be case on the
> VoP behalf. Continual Flame would fall under this category.
Right, but the Vow of poverty itself is a vow against material wealth,
which is generated upon the possessions of a VoPer if they all flicker
with magical flames. Though the DMG does not specifically cite a
counter example to this pedantry, it shouldn't have to. In a game with
so many variables, D&D rules are built around 3 premises. 1) All rules
are positive in nature and essence, explaining mainly how they do
work, and leaving it to your to understand that everything outside of
how something *does* work, is how it *doesn't* work. 2)Core rulebooks
overrule unless otherwise specified. 3) DM ultimately has the final
word on anything, regardless of what is or isn't written.
It is easy to sit back and poke pedantic meaningless holes in the
intricacy of the sprawling materials on D&D. It is also easy sit back
and make connections by following logical leads (perhaps easier). Any
system is vulnerable to pedantry. Yes, even GURPS. finding blank spots
in the rules and citing them as failures is mindless. Rather they are
usually tiny areas lacking detailed illumination, which more often
than not are solved by common sense and comparison and reference to
written examples and pointers.
Brent
Also note that the main point of focus in the VoP is that material
possessions do not empower you, they hamper you. With such a mindset,
a character with a VoP genuinely holds material wealth to be something
they do not want or need. A distraction at best, and temptaion at
worst, from what they hold to be truly important. As such, a VoPer who
did find a rare and powerful weapon would probably feel better laying
it aside, rather than becoming tempted and reliant upon it's alluring
power (and ultimately distracted from his cause in his focus on the
accumulation of power and wealth for it). He would most likely, give
it to one of his friends, or if alone, stow it away to give to someone
else later. The idea being, that if offered the cudgel of St Cuthbert
himself, the VoP would not *want* it.
Brent
understood intimately the notions and philosophy behind a vow should
they wish to take it. Perhaps even requiring a quest, or test, of some
sort to prove their comprehension and resolve. If the vow was actually
offered by a monastic institution, I think a perfect example would be
to send the character into a dungeon of sorts, armed with only a sack
full of all of the items he needs to easily defeat the challenges
presented therein. The focus being, if he succumbs to using them he is
missing the point of what the vow is about.
Material possesssions to the vow, are a both a crutch, and a
distraction. They weaken their 'owners' to rely upon them, until they
are indeed hopelessly owned by the possessions themselves.
Furthermore, the accumulation of them often distracts the owners away
from the purpose for which they are accumulating them for. It becomes
an end within itself.
Kyle Wilson
>Kyle Wilson wrote:
>
>> Brent <digita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 27, 6:27 pm, Bruce L Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:>
>>>> The problem is casting Continual Flame on some clothing does not imbue
>>>> it with magical properties. If it did there would be a section in the
>>>> DMG on how Continual Flame added to the value of items it was cast on.
>>>
>>>Economically it does. That is what counts. A vow of poverty is about
>>>eschewing material wealth. Thus, anything which is of relative value
>>>(economically), is something a VoP character is not interested in
>>>owning.
>>>
>>
>> The unfortunate thing is that the game rules need to be written this
>> tightly to avoid abuse.
>
>I don't fully agree that they need to be written that way to avoid abuse.
>To avoid trolls and other idiots from questioning them, sure, but not to
>avoid abuse in our own games.
You are right. If I had a player who wanted to take a vow of poverty,
I'd probably run it as I suggested here. I was thinking of the
impetus behind the RAW definition of the vow. I have to assume that
it is written in such a rigid manner in order to avoid abuse by rules
laywers and optimaxers.
>> I'd ideally like to see a vow of poverty
>> played as if the character didn't value expensive things and tried to
>> give them away so as to help the most other people. They might use a
>> found +1 sword for one battle, but would then tend to give it to some
>> beggar in the next village they entered.
>
>This largely makes sense to me. I would just houserule it so that you could
>use what you've found, but as soon as you find a deserving person, you'd be
>obliged to find a way to help them out. Further, you must make every
>honest effort to make opportunities happen. If, for example, you know that
>on your way to your next goal is a town, and you purposefully avoid it,
>that's a dishonest effort to avoid it, and there goes the VoP. Of course,
>what is "reasonable"? A half-day out of the way? Five days out of the
>way? It may also depend on what you have to get rid of - a few pieces of
>platinum vs a +2 weapon. It's fairly fluid, but I'd rather go with the
>spirit of the feat and look for honest efforts rather than sticking to hard
>and fast rules.
>
>That said, I wouldn't say the character doesn't value expensive things. The
>character definitely is aware of their value, and highly appreciates what
>it can do for *others*.
Again...I agree. They understand the value of the items. I guess it
would have been better stated as 'they don't covet valuable items'.
>> It would be easy to
>> discourage 'loaner' items as the player with the vow should be
>> inclined to give them away as well (and get very upset if the loaner
>> made a fuss...people in need were helped). That would make for a
>> rewarding implementation of a vow of poverty. Done right, the player
>> could hold valuable magical items for a short period, but would tend
>> to automatically dispose of them. This would unfortunately be subject
>> to abuse by those inclined to power-gaming and those inclined towards
>> player empowerment would likely become upset is a GM subjectively
>> penalized players for gaming the system (for example avoiding villages
>> so that there would be no opportunities to give away items).
>
>Well, if you're worried about empowering GMs, you don't need VoP to cause
>havoc ;-) But with the "honest effort" criteria above, I wouldn't worry
>about PCs abusing the feat, either.
I was anticipating push-back from the folks in the group who dislike
allowing for open GM interpretations. This approach to vow of poverty
certainly requires good faith on the part of both GM and players.
Played well it seems as if it could be a lot of fun.
>And, IMO, it gives the feat a more palatable flavour. Sure, it makes the
>feat more powerful (allowing you to wear that cloak of resistance for a
>round - or a week), but I like the flavour better.
Ideally, the character wants to pass on the items to those in need as
soon as possible. I'd expect that once a particular series of
encounters are complete and there is an opportunity to return to a
village, the vow player would press the party to go there.
>I'd probably also allow a VoP-modifier feat to allow you to carry and keep a
>magical container. After all, if you can bring back that hoard of copper
>*in addition to* the hoard of gold, that would help even more people,
>right? Leaving behind the copper isn't going to help the poor at all.
>Maybe called "Vow of Charity" - requiring VoP, and, special: having given
>away a magical container already, and having had to leave treasure that one
>couldn't carry (to feel the angst of not being able to help others - as
>much). So not something one could take at first level. (And maybe
>granting a +4 perfection bonus to diplomacy checks - which obviously
>doesn't stack with the Sacred Vow's +2 perfection bonus to diplomacy.)
This almost sounds like the basis for a ten level prestige class or
even a full progression specialty class. Sort of a penniless saint
class...in many ways this would be more consistent with the structure
of the vow as well...it is pretty intrusive on the character who takes
it...more of a lifetime commitment and less of a tuning option.
Justisaur
I think the best solution to the 'problem' of abuse is to have no game
benefits of a vow of poverty. People in this world get none (other
than possibly feeling good about themselves, and maybe something in
the afterlife).
- Justisaur
Bruce Grubb
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
In *this* (ie a TL7-8 industrial) world you're right but then D&D is set in
a magic filled TL3-4 world. VoP should provide *something* other that a
feel good and better afterlife if the follower is of a supernatural force
that supports such things. It is not like clerics are 'out of the loop' as
it were.
Bruce Grubb
Brent <digita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not just the minimum possessions of low quality as we.. Remember they
cannot by the book posses Masterwork items - even if they lived somewhere
that only had Masterwork items.
> The fact is, magic increase
> the value of anything possessing or affected permanently by it. This
> makes it a no no for the VoP. If in a society, all weapons were made
> of cold iron, and cold iron was the default metal of manufacture, then
> cold iron would be ok. In a world with such an endless supply of
> diamonds that all weapons were cut from solid diamond, and this was
> the basic and cheapest way it was done, then this would be ok for VoP.
> You have to grasp the essence of what the VoP is. It is not a vow
> against magic, or x-gp value. it is a vow against material wealth,
> whatsoever that happens to be wherever the vower lives. If covering
> yourself in shit is a sign of wealth, then VoP would ban it.
The problem with VoP is that is a cultural bugaboo. Potlatch of the
Kwakiutl Indians of Canada is a real world example where the *giving or
destruction of valuable items is a sign of wealth*. Under such a society
VoP as written is a Catch-22: if a VoP person gives away or destroys any
valuable item that comes into his possession he is wealthy by that
culture's standards and violates the spirit of VoP, and if he keeps it he
violates the actually wording.
Also in societies where material wealth has little or meaning (magicracies
for example) the VoP again falls apart. In magicracies the ability to do
magic (arcane or divine) is a sign of wealth rather than the material
goodies you can pump out with said spells.
There is an interesting dialog in STNG episode "Neutral Zone" where Picard
tries to chastise a Ralph Offenhouse for his continues quest for wealth.
Picard: That is what this about, the accumulation of material things.
Offenhouse: No it is about power.
Picard: That power is an illusion.
Offenhouse: Is it? I should be dead but I not.
Picard breaks off the conversation as Offenhouse has made a key point about
wealth-in this case is simply a means to acquire power. But in a world
where magic abounds does VoP mean one cannot cast spells or have magical
abilities?
VoP as presented here only works in a narrow subset of societies and have
minor to major problems in others.
Kyle Wilson
Ah...I hadn't considered it from that perspective. I was looking at
it as primarily a charitable impulse mixed with a lack of interest in
valuable things. Looking at valuable items as temptations and trouble
makes alot of sense as well. That would certainly explain the
tendency of the VoP character to avoid using items that would
otherwise be temporarily available.
Marcel Beaudoin
news:bgrubb-96A686....@news.zianet.com:
> In article <1180530369.3...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Brent <digita...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Right, proving my point. Economic value is what counts, not rulebook
>> value. In a world with high value for bone and low value for gold,
>> then gold would not offend a VoP and bone would. In a world with
>> endless supply of precious gems, market equilibrium (as found by
>> reference to demand) would slide downward along the demand curve
>> (rendering them no longer precious, and thus no longer valuable).
>> Such a world would make it fine for a VoPer to possess gems, as long
>> as he had some kind of purpose in possessing them (perhaps as a
>> tool). The point is that what is economically valuable is ruled out
>> from the VoP. VoP encourages characters to stick the absolute bare
>> minimum possessions required, eschewing all else.
>
> Not just the minimum possessions of low quality as we.. Remember they
> cannot by the book posses Masterwork items - even if they lived
> somewhere that only had Masterwork items.
If they lived somewhere that only had MW items, then MW items would be
normal items and would then not break the VoP.
--
Marcel
Justisaur
> In article <1180539928.969308.118...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
If you are going that way, then I think the best solution is the magic
items not only aren't allowed by the VOP, but that they don't work for
the VOP. So if someone hands the VOP character a magic flaming sword,
it turns off while in his possession. You could go even further and
say that the VOP supresses magic items for some time period so if the
fighter hands his super weapon to the VOP it quits working for a
while, an hour, a day, whatever.
- Justisaur
- Justisaur
John
> Brent <digital.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>The
> > point is that what is economically valuable is ruled out from the VoP.
> > VoP encourages characters to stick the absolute bare minimum
> > possessions required, eschewing all else.
>
> Not just the minimum possessions of low quality as we.. Remember they
> cannot by the book posses Masterwork items - even if they lived somewhere
> that only had Masterwork items.
Hm..if you change the default setting then things about VoP will
change....
> > You have to grasp the essence of what the VoP is. It is not a vow
> > against magic, or x-gp value. it is a vow against material wealth,
> > whatsoever that happens to be wherever the vower lives. If covering
> > yourself in shit is a sign of wealth, then VoP would ban it.
>
> The problem with VoP is that is a cultural bugaboo.
No, it really isnt.
> Potlatch of the
> Kwakiutl Indians of Canada is a real world example where the *giving or
> destruction of valuable items is a sign of wealth*. Under such a society
> VoP as written is a Catch-22: if a VoP person gives away or destroys any
> valuable item that comes into his possession he is wealthy by that
> culture's standards and violates the spirit of VoP, and if he keeps it he
> violates the actually wording.
Only if the GM is an asshole or a idiot. All the character with VoP
has to do is not have anything to give away in the first place.
Wow, that was hard.
> Also in societies where material wealth has little or meaning (magicracies
> for example) the VoP again falls apart. In magicracies the ability to do
> magic (arcane or divine) is a sign of wealth rather than the material
> goodies you can pump out with said spells.
Wait! You mean that (once again) if you change the default setting
things about various classes or feats based on that setting will
change also?
Wow.
So, if I wanted to run a game in a world without elves, and someone
wanted to play an elf, then that must mean.. DnD is Broken!
John
Ed Chauvin IV
hastily scrawled:
If Grubb had a clue, he wouldn't have said what he did.
Bruce L Grubb
wrote:
> in rec.games.frp.dnd, Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote innews:bgrubb-96A686....@news.zianet.com:
>
> > Brent <digital.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Right, proving my point. Economic value is what counts, not rulebook
> >> value. In a world with high value for bone and low value for gold,
> >> then gold would not offend a VoP and bone would. In a world with
> >> endless supply of precious gems, market equilibrium (as found by
> >> reference to demand) would slide downward along the demand curve
> >> (rendering them no longer precious, and thus no longer valuable).
> >> Such a world would make it fine for a VoPer to possess gems, as long
> >> as he had some kind of purpose in possessing them (perhaps as a
> >> tool). The point is that what is economically valuable is ruled out
> >> from the VoP. VoP encourages characters to stick the absolute bare
> >> minimum possessions required, eschewing all else.
>
> > Not just the minimum possessions of low quality as we.. Remember they
> > cannot by the book posses Masterwork items - even if they lived
> > somewhere that only had Masterwork items.
>
> If they lived somewhere that only had MW items, then MW items would be
> normal items and would then not break the VoP.
Sorry but VoP as presented specifically excludes MW items even if they
are common times: "You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor
masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as
a walking stick."
Taken litterally this causes all kinds of problems which was the
point.
Bruce L Grubb
> Mere moments before death, Marcel Beaudoin <marcel.beaud...@gmail.com>
> hastily scrawled:
>
>
>
> >in rec.games.frp.dnd, Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in
> >news:bgrubb-96A686....@news.zianet.com:
>
> >> Brent <digital.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >>> Right, proving my point. Economic value is what counts, not rulebook
> >>> value. In a world with high value for bone and low value for gold,
> >>> then gold would not offend a VoP and bone would. In a world with
> >>> endless supply of precious gems, market equilibrium (as found by
> >>> reference to demand) would slide downward along the demand curve
> >>> (rendering them no longer precious, and thus no longer valuable).
> >>> Such a world would make it fine for a VoPer to possess gems, as long
> >>> as he had some kind of purpose in possessing them (perhaps as a
> >>> tool). The point is that what is economically valuable is ruled out
> >>> from the VoP. VoP encourages characters to stick the absolute bare
> >>> minimum possessions required, eschewing all else.
>
> >> Not just the minimum possessions of low quality as we.. Remember they
> >> cannot by the book posses Masterwork items - even if they lived
> >> somewhere that only had Masterwork items.
>
> >If they lived somewhere that only had MW items, then MW items would be
> >normal items and would then not break the VoP.
>
> If Grubb had a clue, he wouldn't have said what he did.
I do have a clue which is more than I can say for you or Matt:
"You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple
weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as a walking
stick." (First post of the thread)
Taken litterally this excludes magic and masterwork items even if they
have no value. It also excludes martial and exotic weapons (they are
not 'simple' weapons are they?) even though a crossbow cost more (50g)
than most martial and exotics do. <http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/
weapons.htm>
Face it no matter who you try to handwave it VoP as presented is
majorly broken and nothing you Captains Clueless can do can change
that fact.
Bruce L Grubb
> Bruce Grubb wrote:
>
> > Brent <digital.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>The
> > > point is that what is economically valuable is ruled out from the VoP.
> > > VoP encourages characters to stick the absolute bare minimum
> > > possessions required, eschewing all else.
>
> > Not just the minimum possessions of low quality as we.. Remember they
> > cannot by the book posses Masterwork items - even if they lived somewhere
> > that only had Masterwork items.
>
> Hm..if you change the default setting then things about VoP will
> change....
Even within the default setting VoP is broken: "You may carry and use
ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a
quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick." (Book of Exalted Deeds)
D&D breaks weapons down into the catagories of Simple, Martial, and
Exotic <http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm> however the
*cost* of a Crossbow (50g) is less than many Martial and Exotic
weapons but a VoP cannot use them becuas them are not simple weapons.
This fact shows that VoP was presented in Book of Exalted Deeds is
totally broken and illogical as presented.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>On May 31, 10:08 am, Marcel Beaudoin <marcel.beaud...@gmail.com>
The point being that when you change the fundamental rules of item
creation, that this has a ripple effect on all other dependant rules?
That's quite the bit of phenomenal insight there. You fucking tool.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>On May 31, 12:47 pm, John <jsphilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
Please indicate the section of the rules that dictate simple weapons must
be less expensive than martial/exotic. Can't? Oh, that's because there is
no such rule.
Someone under a VoP could not use a 50 gold crossbow, because it exceeds
his wealth limit. The fact that a crossbow is a simple weapon is completely
non-relevant.
Not that it's the least bit surprising that your idiocy would stretch to
this area. After all, you continue to insist that bardic magic and wizard
magic are identical because they are "both arcane".
>This fact shows that VoP was presented in Book of Exalted Deeds is
>totally broken and illogical as presented.
No, it shows nothing of the sort. Your "interpretation" of the rules is
very insightful, however. It shows that there is no lie or
misinterpretation too stupid that you will not sink to it in order to harp
on D&D rules. It shows that you have the reading comprehension of a 5 day
old infant.
And I just had a great insight...Bruce is Miko Miyazaki. See how the
following quotes made in reference to her fit Bruce like a hand tailored
suit:
"It's like he has the Monk class ability that lets you leap as far as you
want, only for him it only applies to conclusions."
"Wow, Bruce Grubb ignoring all possibilities in order to arrive at a
preconceived conclusion that happens to support his existing emotional
state. Who could have seen THAT coming?"
I now see the real problem with trying to beat sense into Bruce...he's a
fictional character.
Bruce L Grubb
You really are dense, Matt. Crossbow is a simple weapon, right? It
costs 50g, right? A Hammer, light costs only 1g but since it is a
martial weapons a person with cannot have it because is not a SIMPLE
weapon. This is all CORE RULES.
Care to explain how per the DMG this makes ANY degree of sence? No
going off on BS like 'they mean different kind of simple weapons'.
The DMG and PHB directly what weapons catagories are so any song and
dance you come up with has to deal with the simple weapon catagory.
Bruce L Grubb
Show me the rules that says I can't replace D&D's magic system with
the one from GURPS 4e. Same thing applies to that.
The fact of the matter is VoP as presented only allows SIMPLE weapons
which indudes things like a SMALL HAMMER. Jesus was a carpenter for
crying out loud. How the same hill you think he used to hammer wooden
pegs or nails into place? Qith his bare hands?! Oh I see in you
little delutional world he was also known as Jesus "Iron Fist" Christ
and *did* use his firsts in his trade. Have ANY idea insane this
sounds?! What a mintue given what you have already posted I know you
don't as Jack Chick's tracks make more sense.
Of course the way D&D catagorizes weapons is brain dead anyhow as a
Morningstar is classed a 'simple' weapon while the Flail and Scythe
are martial weapons even though they were used by many a farmer in the
harvesting of his crops.
Brent
> cannot by the book posses Masterwork items - even if they lived somewhere
> that only had Masterwork items.
Then the said masterwork items would no longer be masterwork,
economically speaking, they would be ordinary goods. The book assumes
a campaign setting of the world of Greyhawk, or something similar to
it. If an unusual or extreme campaign setting is implemented, thn the
economic implications of this world must be taken into consideration
when implementing the rules. Consider a katana, in a wealthy asian
setting, this is the defacto longsword. The common sword of choice.
However, by the books, it is essentially a masterwork bastard sword.
Yet it would still not violate the VoP in an asian setting where
katanas were common. Or perhaps a better example, in an Iron age
setting, Iron swords are standard, and do not violate the VoP.
Composite steel, very rare at the time, would. In a medieval setting,
composite steel swords are common (and thus no longer economically
considered a luxury good), and would not violate the VoP. Tempered
steel perhaps would. You catch the drift.
> > The fact is, magic increase
> > the value of anything possessing or affected permanently by it. This
> > makes it a no no for the VoP. If in a society, all weapons were made
> > of cold iron, and cold iron was the default metal of manufacture, then
> > cold iron would be ok. In a world with such an endless supply of
> > diamonds that all weapons were cut from solid diamond, and this was
> > the basic and cheapest way it was done, then this would be ok for VoP.
> > You have to grasp the essence of what the VoP is. It is not a vow
> > against magic, or x-gp value. it is a vow against material wealth,
> > whatsoever that happens to be wherever the vower lives. If covering
> > yourself in shit is a sign of wealth, then VoP would ban it.
>
> The problem with VoP is that is a cultural bugaboo. Potlatch of the
> Kwakiutl Indians of Canada is a real world example where the *giving or
> destruction of valuable items is a sign of wealth*. Under such a society
> VoP as written is a Catch-22: if a VoP person gives away or destroys any
> valuable item that comes into his possession he is wealthy by that
> culture's standards and violates the spirit of VoP, and if he keeps it he
> violates the actually wording.
Right, so you modify the vow to fit in that campaign setting. As noted
earlier, the current VoP rules are written for a campaign setting
similar to the world of GreyHawk. In indian (as in real indian)
culture, being overweight is a sign of prestige and wealth. As such, a
VoPer in an indian setting would try to keep thin. The rulebook does
not need to account for every obscure campaign setting imaginable,
especially not in fantasy of all things.
>
> Also in societies where material wealth has little or meaning (magicracies
> for example) the VoP again falls apart. In magicracies the ability to do
> magic (arcane or divine) is a sign of wealth rather than the material
> goodies you can pump out with said spells.
>
Right, so in a magocracy, VoP is about the eschewing of magic. Are you
following the pattern? Whatever constitutes economic benefit is a no
no for the VoP.
> There is an interesting dialog in STNG episode "Neutral Zone" where Picard
> tries to chastise a Ralph Offenhouse for his continues quest for wealth.
>
> Picard: That is what this about, the accumulation of material things.
> Offenhouse: No it is about power.
> Picard: That power is an illusion.
> Offenhouse: Is it? I should be dead but I not.
>
> Picard breaks off the conversation as Offenhouse has made a key point about
> wealth-in this case is simply a means to acquire power. But in a world
> where magic abounds does VoP mean one cannot cast spells or have magical
> abilities?
No, it means one must forgoe specifically material wealth. Whilst
material wealth may be a manifestation of power, for philosophical
reasons, the VoP forbids this specific means of accumulation of power,
due to the self-serving purpose it often creates in those who indulge
in it (and a number of other reasons).
>
> VoP as presented here only works in a narrow subset of societies and have
> minor to major problems in others.
So use your vast mental faculties to understand what the theme of the
VoP is, and apply it to other contexts.
The point is, the VoP is dead simple. It forbids the accumulation or
indulgence in material wealth, as economically defined by the socio-
economic context. Thats all.
Brent
> Sorry but VoP as presented specifically excludes MW items even if they
> are common times: "You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor
> masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a quarterstaff that serves as
> a walking stick."
>
> Taken litterally this causes all kinds of problems which was the
> point.
Because in the default setting, for which these rules were written,
Masterwork and magical weapons constitute a higher echelon of economic
value. Change the foundation of the rules, and you must in turn change
the rules.
Brent
However, the very definition of a 'simple weapon' is one that is (a)
easy to use, and (b) common enough most people would know how to use
it. Cite the cross bow, in a campaign setting based in Medieval
england, one might rule that the crossbow is no longer simple, due to
it's rare nature, and rather the longbow now is.
The point is that the rules are written for the default campaign
setting, or something similar thereto. Instead of reading "You may
carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons",
when you consider changing the context, you must read the subtext, in
this case simply; "You may carry and use ordinary (neither magic nor
masterwork) simple, as defined by what is simple, ordinary,
masterwork, and exceptionally magical in relevant campaign setting".
Actually, that was kind of easy.
Marcel Beaudoin
news:1180679579.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
VoP is written as it is for a universe where there are MW and non-MW items.
MW items are prohibited because they cost so much more and are of such a
higher quality than non-MW items.
Remember that MW designates something that is extremely well made. If
everything is extremely well made, than there is no need for the MW
designation, so there end up being normal items and magic items. of a much
higher
If you change the rules of the universe to remove non-MW items, it is only
common sense that VoP will have to be re-written for that universe.
--
Marcel
Bruce Grubb
Brent <digita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:42 pm, Bruce L Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
> > On May 31, 2:35 pm, Ed Chauvin IV <edcf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Mere moments before death, Marcel Beaudoin <marcel.beaud...@gmail.com>
> > > hastily scrawled:
> >
> > > >in rec.games.frp.dnd, Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in
> > > >news:bgrubb-96A686....@news.zianet.com:
> >
> > Taken litterally this excludes magic and masterwork items even if they
> > have no value. It also excludes martial and exotic weapons (they are
> > not 'simple' weapons are they?) even though a crossbow cost more (50g)
> > than most martial and exotics do. <http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/
> > weapons.htm>
> >
> > Face it no matter who you try to handwave it VoP as presented is
> > majorly broken and nothing you Captains Clueless can do can change
> > that fact.
>
> However, the very definition of a 'simple weapon' is one that is (a)
> easy to use, and (b) common enough most people would know how to use
> it. Cite the cross bow, in a campaign setting based in Medieval
> england, one might rule that the crossbow is no longer simple, due to
> it's rare nature, and rather the longbow now is.
Problem is that in the *Default* campaign a crossbow is presented as a
'simple' weapon while something like a hammer, small (like what a
blacksmith or even carpenter would have access to) is not. How that makes
ANY sense to someone with a functioning brain in their head is beyond me
and those are the DEFAULT classification for places like Grayhawk and
Forgotten Realms. Face is VoP as presented is brain dead.
John
> John wrote:
>
> > > Not just the minimum possessions of low quality as we.. Remember they
> > > cannot by the book posses Masterwork items - even if they lived somewhere
> > > that only had Masterwork items.
>
> > Hm..if you change the default setting then things about VoP will
> > change....
>
> Even within the default setting VoP is broken: "You may carry and use
> ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a
> quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick." (Book of Exalted Deeds)
>
> D&D breaks weapons down into the catagories of Simple, Martial, and
> Exotic <http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm> however the
> *cost* of a Crossbow (50g) is less than many Martial and Exotic
> weapons but a VoP cannot use them becuas them are not simple weapons.
> This fact shows that VoP was presented in Book of Exalted Deeds is
> totally broken and illogical as presented.
You once again mistake 'Bruce No Like!' (or is it 'Bruce no
Understand!') with broken and illogical.
So what if "*cost* of a Crossbow less (although it isnt less, its
more..speaking of broken and illogical...) than many Martial and
Exotic weapons? You answer your own question when you said, "VoP
cannot use them because them are not simple weapons".
See Bruce, since the VoP can only use simple weapons, if them are not
simple weapons him can not use them.
John
Marcel Beaudoin
Using a hammer to hammer things is *very* different than using a hammer
in combat. Using a hammer in combat requires being able to continually
keep the head of the hammer turned in the right direction. As the hammer
hits armor, shields, other weapons, etc, the shaft will have a tendancy
to turn in the wielder's hand. That is why they are considered martial
weapons, whereas a club (which is, in essence, a hammer with a round
head) is a simple weapon. A crossbow, on the other hand, *is* very simple
to use. Put bolt in, point, pull trigger. Very little training required.
--
Marcel
John
> Matt Frisch wrote:
> > The point being that when you change the fundamental rules of item
> > creation, that this has a ripple effect on all other dependant rules
>
> You really are dense, Matt. Crossbow is a simple weapon, right? It
> costs 50g, right? A Hammer, light costs only 1g but since it is a
> martial weapons a person with cannot have it because is not a SIMPLE
> weapon. This is all CORE RULES.
So where did you get the idea that simple must equal inexpensive?
Someone with a VoP uses things that are simple and cheap.
Wow, that was hard.
John
John
> Matt Frisch wrote:
>
> > be less expensive than martial/exotic. Can't? Oh, that's because there is
> > no such rule.
>
> Show me the rules that says I can't replace D&D's magic system with
> the one from GURPS 4e. Same thing applies to that.
What????
> The fact of the matter is VoP as presented only allows SIMPLE weapons
> which indudes things like a SMALL HAMMER. Jesus was a carpenter for
> crying out loud. How the same hill you think he used to hammer wooden
> pegs or nails into place? Qith his bare hands?! Oh I see in you
> little delutional world he was also known as Jesus "Iron Fist" Christ
> and *did* use his firsts in his trade. Have ANY idea insane this
> sounds?! What a mintue given what you have already posted I know you
> don't as Jack Chick's tracks make more sense.
Um..are you trying to say a carpentry hammer is the same thing as a
war hammer?
John
Marcel Beaudoin
news:1180680452....@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> D&D breaks weapons down into the catagories of Simple, Martial, and
> Exotic <http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm> however the
> *cost* of a Crossbow (50g) is less than many Martial and Exotic
> weapons
Do you even read the links you post??
A Heavy Crossbow is 50gp.
The only weapons that are more expensive are:
Falchion
Longbow
Composite Longbow
Axe, orc double
Flail, dire
Sword, two-bladed
Crossbow, hand
Crossbow, Repeating (both heavy and light)
Gee, most of those are a lot more complicated to make than a crossbow.
Even if you drop down to Light Crossbow (35 gp), it only adds
Greatsword
Urgrosh, dwarven
to the list.
--
Marcel
ther...@gmail.com
nerve up to decloak and post.
A question for Bruce, and this is not an attack by any means, but do
you by any chance have Borderline Personality Disorder? This
arguement shows all the hallmarks of someone with BPD (I have a mild
case of it myself, and work in mental health)
Bruce Grubb
John <jsphi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bruce L Grubb wrote:
> > John wrote:
> >
> > > > Not just the minimum possessions of low quality as we.. Remember they
> > > > cannot by the book posses Masterwork items - even if they lived
> > > > somewhere
> > > > that only had Masterwork items.
> >
> > > Hm..if you change the default setting then things about VoP will
> > > change....
> >
> > Even within the default setting VoP is broken: "You may carry and use
> > ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a
> > quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick." (Book of Exalted Deeds)
> >
> > D&D breaks weapons down into the catagories of Simple, Martial, and
> > Exotic <http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm> however the
> > *cost* of a Crossbow (50g) is less than many Martial and Exotic
> > weapons but a VoP cannot use them becuas them are not simple weapons.
> > This fact shows that VoP was presented in Book of Exalted Deeds is
> > totally broken and illogical as presented.
>
> You once again mistake 'Bruce No Like!' (or is it 'Bruce no
> Understand!') with broken and illogical.
> So what if "*cost* of a Crossbow less
Hypothetical BS if you are assuming the DEFAULT worlds Sad Sack. Crossbow
was just ONE EXAMPLE. The Longspear is 5gp which is STILL more expensive
than the Hammer, light (1g) and the Whip (1g) both of which are not
"simple" weapons by the way D&D defines them. In fact there are TWELVE (!)
simple weapons that are more than than Hammer, light or Whip. You going to
try to come up what if crap on those too?
Face VoP is totally broken.
Bruce Grubb
Marcel Beaudoin <marcel....@gmail.com> wrote:
Same applies to the Sickle which is a simple weapon. Then you have Club vs
Greatclub. A one handed club is simple while a two handed greatclub is a
martial weapon; like THAT makes a lot of sense. Try again.
> That is why they are considered martial
> weapons, whereas a club (which is, in essence, a hammer with a round
> head) is a simple weapon. A crossbow, on the other hand, *is* very simple
> to use. Put bolt in, point, pull trigger. Very little training required.
Problem is D&D puts Spear, Quarterstaff, sling as well as Crossbow in the
same class of weapons. A sling *looks* simple but takes skill and training
to be able to actually hit anything with any kind of accuracy.
D&D's simple, martial, and exotic weapons table doesn't seem to have any
real rhyme or reason to it as the weapons are not grouped together by cost,
ease of use, or any other discernible criteria. In fact there are some
really stupid errors in the table. A bastard sword (exotic) is a type of
Longsword <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword> guys, sheesh.
In fact some things (like the Rapier) are totally antichronist to
Bruce Grubb
Marcel Beaudoin <marcel....@gmail.com> wrote:
> in rec.games.frp.dnd, Bruce L Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in
> news:1180680452....@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > D&D breaks weapons down into the catagories of Simple, Martial, and
> > Exotic <http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm> however the
> > *cost* of a Crossbow (50g) is less than many Martial and Exotic
> > weapons
>
> Do you even read the links you post??
>
> A Heavy Crossbow is 50gp.
>
> The only weapons that are more expensive are:
> Falchion
> Longbow
> Composite Longbow
> Axe, orc double
> Flail, dire
> Sword, two-bladed
> Crossbow, hand
> Crossbow, Repeating (both heavy and light)
>
> Gee, most of those are a lot more complicated to make than a crossbow.
The problem is that there are CHEAPER items supposedly harder to use than a
crossbow. The whip at 1g, the Shuriken a 1g for a set of 5 and so on.
Better take your own advice, pilgrim.
Bruce Grubb
John <jsphi...@gmail.com> wrote:
So they use SIMPLE weapons Read what was quoted. Sheesh.
Bruce Grubb
"ther...@gmail.com" <ther...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Been reading and enjoying this thread for a while now, finally got the
> nerve up to decloak and post.
> A question for Bruce, and this is not an attack by any means, but do
> you by any chance have Borderline Personality Disorder?
The only disorder I have is dealing with morons that less sense than Sheff
over in sci.archaeology did.
John
> John wrote:
>
> > > This fact shows that VoP was presented in Book of Exalted Deeds is
> > > totally broken and illogical as presented.
>
> > You once again mistake 'Bruce No Like!' (or is it 'Bruce no
> > Understand!') with broken and illogical.
> > So what if "*cost* of a Crossbow less
>
> Hypothetical BS if you are assuming the DEFAULT worlds Sad Sack. Crossbow
> was just ONE EXAMPLE. The Longspear is 5gp which is STILL more expensive
> than the Hammer, light (1g) and the Whip (1g) both of which are not
> "simple" weapons by the way D&D defines them. In fact there are TWELVE (!)
> simple weapons that are more than than Hammer, light or Whip. You going to
> try to come up what if crap on those too?
VoP requires simple And cheap, not simple Or cheap.
How hard is that?
> Face VoP is totally broken.
Your record is broken.
John
John
> Marcel Beaudoin wrote:
>
> > Gee, most of those are a lot more complicated to make than a crossbow.
>
> The problem is that there are CHEAPER items supposedly harder to use than a
> crossbow. The whip at 1g, the Shuriken a 1g for a set of 5 and so on.
Because as everyone knows, expensive things are harder to use than
inexpensive things.
John
John
> John wrote:
> > Bruce L Grubb wrote:
>
> > So where did you get the idea that simple must equal inexpensive?
> > Someone with a VoP uses things that are simple and cheap.
>
> So they use SIMPLE weapons Read what was quoted. Sheesh.
So that's all that is required for VoP eh? Simple Weapons? Nothing
about any sort of value limit on what they can own?
John
Ed Chauvin IV
scrawled:
Nope, none whatsoever.
Believe it or not.
--
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
Ed Chauvin IV
scrawled:
>
>Problem is D&D puts Spear, Quarterstaff, sling as well as Crossbow in the
>same class of weapons. A sling *looks* simple but takes skill and training
>to be able to actually hit anything with any kind of accuracy.
Hey, so does a spear, quarterstaff and crossbow. What's your point?
>D&D's simple, martial, and exotic weapons table doesn't seem to have any
>real rhyme or reason to it as the weapons are not grouped together by cost,
>ease of use, or any other discernible criteria.
Sure there is, but the criteria is far too complex for you to
understand.
>In fact there are some
>really stupid errors in the table. A bastard sword (exotic) is a type of
>Longsword <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword> guys, sheesh.
And so's a great sword, what's your point?
>In fact some things (like the Rapier) are totally antichronist to
I'm pretty sure you misspelled (as well as misused) anachronistic just
there.
Christopher Adams
> Bruce Grubb wrote:
>
>> In fact some things (like the Rapier) are totally antichronist to
>
> I'm pretty sure you misspelled (as well as misused) anachronistic just
> there.
Complaints about anachronisms in D&D are absolutely fucking retarded, anyway.
It's not a medieval game, it's a fantasy game which uses *some* medieval
technology and trappings.
You know . . . like a lot of fantasy stories do.
--
Christopher Adams - St Ives, New South Wales
-------
What can change the nature of a man?
-------
Sydney-based gamers - Get in touch with
SUTEKH at the University of Sydney!
http://forum.sutekh.info/
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
So your counterarguement is that the rules don't expressly forbid you to
change the rules?
I present to you, Bruce Grubb: RULE ZERO.
Imbecile.
I do enjoy how your response to my pointing out that you're wrong yet again
(which refers me to an earlier post, where "Bruce is wrong" and "Bruce is
speaking" are synonyms) is to go off on a complete right angle tangent to
try to deflect how completely wrong you are. It failed, but it was
enjoyable.
Please show us the rule where simple weapons cannot exceed the VoP material
wealth limit. Please show us the rule in VoP which says that the VoP sworn
character is permitted to use all simple weapons regardless of cost.
Please do anything to even remotely defend your assinine assertions, or
retract them. Or just stop posting forever.
>The fact of the matter is VoP as presented only allows SIMPLE weapons
>which indudes things like a SMALL HAMMER. Jesus was a carpenter for
>crying out loud. How the same hill you think he used to hammer wooden
>pegs or nails into place?
You'll have to point out the D&D interpretation of Jesus where he takes the
VoP. You'll also have to point out where a carpenter's hammer and a
warhammer are the same thing. You'd also have to point out where the value
of a carpenter's hammer exceeds the VoP limit.
Of course, to do any of that, you'd need to first demontrate the existance
of a functional brain in that empty cavern above your neck. I won't be
holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
> Qith his bare hands?! Oh I see in you
>little delutional world he was also known as Jesus "Iron Fist" Christ
>and *did* use his firsts in his trade.
In this instance, you'd have to point out the instance where Jesus fought
anyone for any reason.
This is such an absurd non-sequitor that it represents new stupidity to
even your extremely impress list of accomplished idiocy.
> Have ANY idea insane this sounds?!
Yes, I have a very good idea of how insane it sounds to try to equate Jesus
with a D&D rule. Didn't stop you from going there, though.
>Of course the way D&D catagorizes weapons is brain dead anyhow as a
>Morningstar is classed a 'simple' weapon while the Flail and Scythe
>are martial weapons even though they were used by many a farmer in the
>harvesting of his crops.
1) The flail-weapon is derived from a threshing stick, which is itself not
a very functional weapon.
2) A scythe-weapon is derived from a farmer's scythe which is itself not a
very functional weapon.
3) You're a moron to even try to make these claims.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
As dense as interstellar hydrogen. I'm not the one trying to claim that
there is a hidden excemption in the VoP rules to allow a 50 gold crossbow
just because it is a simple weapon. I'm also not the one trying to find
hidden excemptions in the VoP rules that allow very cheap martial weapons
to be allowed. Both of those people would be you.
And oh, again you try to avoid being called out on your idiocy by
completely changing the subject. When you change the underlying rules of
item construction, then ALL OF THE RULES WHICH DEPEND ON THEM WILL BE
AFFECTED.
So yes, of course if all items in the entire world are masterwork, then
this creates a conflict with the VoP RAW. No fucking duh. You're trying to
accuse the VoP as being flawed after you change how all item generation in
the entire game works? Well, let me counterpoint with something that has
been mention before, but bears repeating: You're one of the stupidest
people who has ever lived.
> Crossbow is a simple weapon, right? It costs 50g, right? A Hammer, light costs only 1g but since it is a
>martial weapons a person with cannot have it because is not a SIMPLE
>weapon. This is all CORE RULES.
Yes...
>Care to explain how per the DMG this makes ANY degree of sence?
Crossbows are simple weapons, that take a fair amount of expertise and time
to construct, and therefore have a high cost.
Light hammers are martial weapons that are relatively simple to construct
and don't take very long, and therefore have a very low cost. They also
aren't very good beyond their flexibility as a thrown weapon, and thus tend
to be in low demand. Low demand = lower price.
Did I use any words you didn't understand there? Probably. Ask for
clarification at need. Please note that skillfully throwing a hammer to
inflict mortal damage is not something which just anyone can do with any
sort of reliability, and thus why the light hammer is classified as
martial. Crossbows take almost no skill at all, and are thus simple.
> No going off on BS like 'they mean different kind of simple weapons'.
I wouldn't dream of it. One is a simple weapon. The other is martial.
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>In article <1180701073.8...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Brent <digita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 1, 4:42 pm, Bruce L Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>> > On May 31, 2:35 pm, Ed Chauvin IV <edcf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Mere moments before death, Marcel Beaudoin <marcel.beaud...@gmail.com>
>> > > hastily scrawled:
>> >
>> > > >in rec.games.frp.dnd, Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in
>> > > >news:bgrubb-96A686....@news.zianet.com:
>> >
>> > Taken litterally this excludes magic and masterwork items even if they
>> > have no value. It also excludes martial and exotic weapons (they are
>> > not 'simple' weapons are they?) even though a crossbow cost more (50g)
>> > than most martial and exotics do. <http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/
>> > weapons.htm>
>> >
>> > Face it no matter who you try to handwave it VoP as presented is
>> > majorly broken and nothing you Captains Clueless can do can change
>> > that fact.
>>
>> However, the very definition of a 'simple weapon' is one that is (a)
>> easy to use, and (b) common enough most people would know how to use
>> it. Cite the cross bow, in a campaign setting based in Medieval
>> england, one might rule that the crossbow is no longer simple, due to
>> it's rare nature, and rather the longbow now is.
>
>Problem is that in the *Default* campaign a crossbow is presented as a
>'simple' weapon while something like a hammer, small (like what a
>blacksmith or even carpenter would have access to) is not.
Warhammers are not smithy hammers, nor are they carpentry hammers.
Your idiocy knows no bounds.
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>In article <1180712142.2...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> John <jsphi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bruce L Grubb wrote:
>> > John wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Not just the minimum possessions of low quality as we.. Remember they
>> > > > cannot by the book posses Masterwork items - even if they lived
>> > > > somewhere
>> > > > that only had Masterwork items.
>> >
>> > > Hm..if you change the default setting then things about VoP will
>> > > change....
>> >
>> > Even within the default setting VoP is broken: "You may carry and use
>> > ordinary (neither magic nor masterwork) simple weapons, usually just a
>> > quarterstaff that serves as a walking stick." (Book of Exalted Deeds)
>> >
>> > D&D breaks weapons down into the catagories of Simple, Martial, and
>> > Exotic <http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm> however the
>> > *cost* of a Crossbow (50g) is less than many Martial and Exotic
>> > weapons but a VoP cannot use them becuas them are not simple weapons.
>> > This fact shows that VoP was presented in Book of Exalted Deeds is
>> > totally broken and illogical as presented.
>>
>> You once again mistake 'Bruce No Like!' (or is it 'Bruce no
>> Understand!') with broken and illogical.
>> So what if "*cost* of a Crossbow less
>
>Hypothetical BS
This word, "hypothetical", it does not mean what you think it means.
> The Longspear is 5gp which is STILL more expensive
>than the Hammer, light (1g) and the Whip (1g) both of which are not
>"simple" weapons by the way D&D defines them.
Because...*gasp* D&D doesn't define weapon classification by cost.
Since nobody anywhere besides you has ever claimed otherwise, please take
your red herring and pound it up your ass with the aforementioned 1gp light
hammer.
>Face VoP is totally broken.
Bruce Doesn't Understand Rules != VoP is totally broken.
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
Raspberries are harder to use than apples, because they cost more per
pound.
It's a fact, Bruce said so.
Bruce Grubb
John <jsphi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or just silly with this.
Bruce Grubb
John <jsphi...@gmail.com> wrote:
The quote provided at the start of the thread doesn't give a value amount.
Whips are relative cheap but since they are not simple weapons they are not
allowed to the VoP regardless of how cheap they are. VoP would have been
better served by at least saying they cannot use a weapon valued over a
certain amount (which given the default cost of Masterwork items would
include them). SOmething a smart person would have realized by now.
cop...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
> Because...*gasp* D&D doesn't define weapon classification by cost.
Although, at least on the surface, it seems strange that a weapon's
cost is irrelvant to a Vow of _Poverty_.
Brandon
Bruce Grubb
Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> hastily
> scrawled:
>
> >
> >Problem is D&D puts Spear, Quarterstaff, sling as well as Crossbow in the
> >same class of weapons. A sling *looks* simple but takes skill and training
> >to be able to actually hit anything with any kind of accuracy.
>
> Hey, so does a spear, quarterstaff and crossbow. What's your point?
See below or did you read that far before commenting? Thought not.
> >D&D's simple, martial, and exotic weapons table doesn't seem to have any
> >real rhyme or reason to it as the weapons are not grouped together by cost,
> >ease of use, or any other discernible criteria.
>
> Sure there is, but the criteria is far too complex for you to
> understand.
Age old cop out. As my late mother said any idiot can make the simple look
complicated but it take someone with with real brains to make the
complicated look simple.
> >In fact there are some
> >really stupid errors in the table. A bastard sword (exotic) is a type of
> >Longsword <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword> guys, sheesh.
>
> And so's a great sword, what's your point?
There are in two SEPERATE categories.
Bruce Grubb
Matt Frisch <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
This is stupid as that was never my point in the first place. Of course
you guys are so locked into your little mind sets you couldn't find your
own rears with both hands and a road map.
Ed Chauvin IV
scrawled:
>In article <nfa1631f3paa7t14v...@4ax.com>,
> Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mere moments before death, Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> hastily
>> scrawled:
>>
>> >
>> >Problem is D&D puts Spear, Quarterstaff, sling as well as Crossbow in the
>> >same class of weapons. A sling *looks* simple but takes skill and training
>> >to be able to actually hit anything with any kind of accuracy.
>>
>> Hey, so does a spear, quarterstaff and crossbow. What's your point?
>
>See below or did you read that far before commenting? Thought not.
Oh, your point is that you don't understand the reasons for D&D's
weapon categories. Why didn't you say so?
>> >D&D's simple, martial, and exotic weapons table doesn't seem to have any
>> >real rhyme or reason to it as the weapons are not grouped together by cost,
>> >ease of use, or any other discernible criteria.
>>
>> Sure there is, but the criteria is far too complex for you to
>> understand.
>
>Age old cop out. As my late mother said any idiot can make the simple look
>complicated but it take someone with with real brains to make the
>complicated look simple.
Hm.
>> >In fact there are some
>> >really stupid errors in the table. A bastard sword (exotic) is a type of
>> >Longsword <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword> guys, sheesh.
>>
>> And so's a great sword, what's your point?
>
>There are in two SEPERATE categories.
You don't think there's a reason for that?
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
Possibly. Game balance does need to enter into it somewhere. Most weapons
are 20 gold or less. Including such perenial favorites as the Kukri,
Longsword, Scimitar...combine a good weapon with the various VoP enabled
feats and you start to get overpowered. I've seen enough threads on various
forums about that feat as it is without giving it more than it already
does.
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>In article <ucn163d22rme3sd9q...@4ax.com>,
> Matt Frisch <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:20:36 -0000, John <jsphi...@gmail.com> scribed
>> into the ether:
>>
>> >Bruce Grubb wrote:
>> >> Marcel Beaudoin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Gee, most of those are a lot more complicated to make than a crossbow.
>> >>
>> >> The problem is that there are CHEAPER items supposedly harder to use than a
>> >> crossbow. The whip at 1g, the Shuriken a 1g for a set of 5 and so on.
>> >> Better take your own advice, pilgrim.-
>> >
>> >Because as everyone knows, expensive things are harder to use than
>> >inexpensive things.
>>
>> Raspberries are harder to use than apples, because they cost more per
>> pound.
>
>This is stupid as that was never my point in the first place.
"The problem is that there are CHEAPER items supposedly harder to use than
a crossbow". There it is, exactly as you wrote it, helpfully quoted in this
very post.
Don't blame us because your own words are filled with idiocy.
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>In article <1180732836.6...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
He's describing your own arguement. Sad that you don't even see it.
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>In article <nfa1631f3paa7t14v...@4ax.com>,
> Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mere moments before death, Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> hastily
>> scrawled:
>> >D&D's simple, martial, and exotic weapons table doesn't seem to have any
>> >real rhyme or reason to it as the weapons are not grouped together by cost,
>> >ease of use, or any other discernible criteria.
>>
>> Sure there is, but the criteria is far too complex for you to
>> understand.
>
>Age old cop out.
It's not a cop out when it's true. You really don't understand.
Or, by all means...prove that you do. Stop posting, since understanding the
rules would mean realizing how stupid your position is on this subject.
PS: The criteria for weapon classification is really simple...it's a
testament to your idiocy that you don't grasp it:
Martial weapons are better than simple weapons.
Exotic weapons are better than martial weapons.
Wow...that's some brutal criteria, isn't it? I can see why you'd struggle
so hard to understand it.
>> >In fact there are some
>> >really stupid errors in the table. A bastard sword (exotic) is a type of
>> >Longsword <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword> guys, sheesh.
>>
>> And so's a great sword, what's your point?
>
>There are in two SEPERATE categories.
Bastard swords are not longswords according to the rules. The bastard sword
is mechanically superior to the longsword. The game does not need to
conform to how YOU think the weapons should be defined. Further, even
experts will disagree on what different swords are called. Where's the
division between shortsword and longsword? Who knows. You don't.
You can't even get a link that supports your own arguement. But then, that
is part of the Bruce Grubb Trifecta. The term longsword is so completely
generic that it can refer to a hundred different swords, none of which look
alike. So once more we're into standard Grubbisms...
1) Bruce not like = Rules are wrong/broken/stupid/whatever.
2) There is no intellectually dishonest depth to which Bruce will not sink
in order to bash on D&D rules, no matter how far-fetched his reasoning
must go, and how stupid he must become in order to accomplish this. It's
getting to the point where I'm beginning to wonder if Gygax murdered his
parents when he was a kid.