Vow of Poverty and riding animals

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I've never used Vow of Poverty but have a question.

Many heroes ride regularly. Should a character with VoP be allowed a
mount or should they have to walk? Or would being regularly loaned a
horse be allowed. What about tack? Stabling? What if the horse is an
Animal Companion / whatever?

My first thought is that a horse was the mark of a wealthy person.
However, a character on foot is going to get killed pretty quickly if
all the other characters are on horseback and have to flee - maybe
killing the character who picks him up too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quentin Stephens wrote:
> I've never used Vow of Poverty but have a question.

I'm not familiar with VoP, but here's my two cents

> Many heroes ride regularly. Should a character with VoP be allowed a
> mount or should they have to walk? Or would being regularly loaned a
> horse be allowed.

VoP has to do with, well, a vow of poverty, yes? Would you allow a
person with VoP to regularly use a +5 weapon that was "loaned" to him?
Or to have a million gold pieces in the bank for his use, "on loan"?

> What if the horse is an Animal Companion / whatever?

Animal companions aren't possessions, can't be sold etc.

> My first thought is that a horse was the mark of a wealthy person.
> However, a character on foot is going to get killed pretty quickly if
> all the other characters are on horseback and have to flee

But you can use that same justification for anything. "My character
with VoP must be able to use this +5 thing of protection, otherwise, my
character will be killed pretty quickly since all the other characters
have +5 things."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quentin Stephens wrote:
> I've never used Vow of Poverty but have a question.
>
> Many heroes ride regularly. Should a character with VoP be allowed a
> mount or should they have to walk? Or would being regularly loaned a
> horse be allowed. What about tack? Stabling? What if the horse is an
> Animal Companion / whatever?
>

I would say no, a VoP would prevent being loaned a horse. An animal
companion or paladin's mount is a different matter though, I'd allow
that. The only way I'd let someone with a VoP use somone elses horse
is if they were both riding it, i.e. the person loaning the horse is
still using it, the person with the VoP is just a passenger. Of course
there are no rules regarding sharing a mount, so that would probably
create more of a headache as well.

Of course I don't allow VoP in the first place, so it's all mute to me.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> I would say no, a VoP would prevent being loaned a horse. An animal
> companion or paladin's mount is a different matter though, I'd allow
> that. The only way I'd let someone with a VoP use somone elses horse
> is if they were both riding it, i.e. the person loaning the horse is
> still using it, the person with the VoP is just a passenger. Of course
> there are no rules regarding sharing a mount, so that would probably
> create more of a headache as well.

I don't have the book it is in, but what if the tack and stableing is the bare minimums?
not the fancy dragonhide barding, and not the flavoured oats, but the functional sturdy
equipment and the trail mix for food?

Is the VoP really like a Vow of Impovershed?
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns967FCD89C9AF9stqstqstq@130.133.1.4:

> I've never used Vow of Poverty but have a question.
>
> Many heroes ride regularly. Should a character with VoP be allowed a
> mount or should they have to walk? Or would being regularly loaned a
> horse be allowed. What about tack? Stabling? What if the horse is an
> Animal Companion / whatever?
>
If this is a question that you think can be answered by the printed rules,
you're a very shitty GM.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1119648918.348280.13890@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Of course I don't allow VoP in the first place, so it's all mute
> to me.
>

That's okay, you can talk about it if you want. Me, I have
problems with it took, mostly because of how people want to use it.
So, for me, it's all moot too.

--
Marc

Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
Doyle : What was that ?
Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns967F8643E41DDtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:

> Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns967FCD89C9AF9stqstqstq@130.133.1.4:
>
>> I've never used Vow of Poverty but have a question.
>>
>> Many heroes ride regularly. Should a character with VoP be
>> allowed a mount or should they have to walk? Or would being
>> regularly loaned a horse be allowed. What about tack? Stabling?
>> What if the horse is an Animal Companion / whatever?
>>
> If this is a question that you think can be answered by the
> printed rules, you're a very shitty GM.

Not a particularly helpful answer; not even amusing.

If I had found the answer in the printed rules, I wouldn't have
posted the question here, would I? And since the rules are a
starting point and I find myself in a quandary, why shouldn't I
hope to benefit from others' thoughts and experiences?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 24 Jun 2005 14:35:18 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I would say no, a VoP would prevent being loaned a horse. An animal
>companion or paladin's mount is a different matter though, I'd allow
>that. The only way I'd let someone with a VoP use somone elses horse
>is if they were both riding it, i.e. the person loaning the horse is
>still using it, the person with the VoP is just a passenger. Of course
>there are no rules regarding sharing a mount, so that would probably
>create more of a headache as well.

I think I would allow a VoP character to accept a ride on a horse so
long as it wasn't a dodge for his having a horse. Party-owned horse,
no way. NPC-owned horse while accompanying the NPC or doing something
for the NPC, ok.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

alordofchaos@yahoo.com wrote:

> Quentin Stephens wrote:
>
>>I've never used Vow of Poverty but have a question.
>
>
> I'm not familiar with VoP, but here's my two cents
>
>
>>Many heroes ride regularly. Should a character with VoP be allowed a
>>mount or should they have to walk? Or would being regularly loaned a
>>horse be allowed.
>
>
> VoP has to do with, well, a vow of poverty, yes? Would you allow a
> person with VoP to regularly use a +5 weapon that was "loaned" to him?
> Or to have a million gold pieces in the bank for his use, "on loan"?
>
>
>>What if the horse is an Animal Companion / whatever?
>
>
> Animal companions aren't possessions, can't be sold etc.
>
>
>>My first thought is that a horse was the mark of a wealthy person.
>>However, a character on foot is going to get killed pretty quickly if
>>all the other characters are on horseback and have to flee
>
>
> But you can use that same justification for anything. "My character
> with VoP must be able to use this +5 thing of protection, otherwise, my
> character will be killed pretty quickly since all the other characters
> have +5 things."

Moot point anyway, since munchkins take VoP with monks and druids.
Neither of which particularly need horses.

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Loren Pechtel wrote:

> On 24 Jun 2005 14:35:18 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I would say no, a VoP would prevent being loaned a horse. An animal
>>companion or paladin's mount is a different matter though, I'd allow
>>that. The only way I'd let someone with a VoP use somone elses horse
>>is if they were both riding it, i.e. the person loaning the horse is
>>still using it, the person with the VoP is just a passenger. Of course
>>there are no rules regarding sharing a mount, so that would probably
>>create more of a headache as well.
>
>
> I think I would allow a VoP character to accept a ride on a horse so
> long as it wasn't a dodge for his having a horse. Party-owned horse,
> no way. NPC-owned horse while accompanying the NPC or doing something
> for the NPC, ok.

<Dances a little munchkin jig>

"We're splitting, we're splitting, we're splitting hairs with this one,
we're splitting hairs and playing games and maxing out the feat! It's
fun to give the DM, a great big honkin' headache, it's fun to get your
way by just wear-ING -- HIM -- DOWN!"

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Unless the vow specifically states that the character has to walk, I would
allow him to ride a party owned animal (such as a pack animal) when
necessary. The vow could be worded to allow the character to ride only
mules or other "low social status animals" and retain the VOP. I would
probably also require the player to pay rent to the party for use of the
animal.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 24 Jun 2005 19:12:19 GMT, Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid>
wrote:

>I've never used Vow of Poverty but have a question.
>
>Many heroes ride regularly. Should a character with VoP be allowed a
>mount or should they have to walk? Or would being regularly loaned a
>horse be allowed. What about tack? Stabling? What if the horse is an
>Animal Companion / whatever?

Well being an Animal Companion would mean they aren't property but
just a friend.

>
>My first thought is that a horse was the mark of a wealthy person.
>However, a character on foot is going to get killed pretty quickly if
>all the other characters are on horseback and have to flee - maybe
>killing the character who picks him up too.

Nothing keeps other members of the group from owning a pack animal
(in fact they should have one if they are expecting to ever transport
a big haul), and a vow of poverty won't keep a character from
temporarily using someone elses property to flee for their lives.
Alternately, of course the VoP character can simply hide and let the
bad guys chase after the entirely obvious party on horseback.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:EIhve.141261$sy6.134311
@lakeread04:

> Moot point anyway, since munchkins take VoP with monks and druids.
> Neither of which particularly need horses.
>

Well, to me, it makes sense for a monk to take VoP, moreso than
most classes. Not that I mean it makes sense for all monks to take
it.

--
Marc

Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
Doyle : What was that ?
Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Marc L. wrote:
> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:EIhve.141261$sy6.134311
> @lakeread04:
>
>
>>Moot point anyway, since munchkins take VoP with monks and druids.
>>Neither of which particularly need horses.
>>
>
>
> Well, to me, it makes sense for a monk to take VoP, moreso than
> most classes. Not that I mean it makes sense for all monks to take
> it.

A class/feat combo can make thematic sense and still be munchy.

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <BFkve.141273$sy6.129273@lakeread04>,
Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>Marc L. wrote:
>> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:EIhve.141261$sy6.134311
>> @lakeread04:
>>>Moot point anyway, since munchkins take VoP with monks and druids.
>>>Neither of which particularly need horses.
>> Well, to me, it makes sense for a monk to take VoP, moreso than
>> most classes. Not that I mean it makes sense for all monks to take
>> it.
>A class/feat combo can make thematic sense and still be munchy.

I posted a monk/VoP a few months ago, which didn't look too munchy to me.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <krqdnRbryPk9IyDfRVn-ow@comcast.com>,
Rock-Viper <rockvipe@comcastNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>Unless the vow specifically states that the character has to walk, I would
>allow him to ride a party owned animal (such as a pack animal) when
>necessary. The vow could be worded to allow the character to ride only
>mules or other "low social status animals" and retain the VOP. I would
>probably also require the player to pay rent to the party for use of the
>animal.

Unfortunately the VoP technically never has any money -- if he seems to at any
given moment, that's just stuff that hasn't quite made it to the church yet.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns9680D33C3364stqstqstq@130.133.1.4:

> No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
> news:Xns967F8643E41DDtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
>
>> Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid> wrote in
>> news:Xns967FCD89C9AF9stqstqstq@130.133.1.4:
>>
>>> I've never used Vow of Poverty but have a question.
>>>
>>> Many heroes ride regularly. Should a character with VoP be
>>> allowed a mount or should they have to walk? Or would being
>>> regularly loaned a horse be allowed. What about tack? Stabling?
>>> What if the horse is an Animal Companion / whatever?
>>>
>> If this is a question that you think can be answered by the
>> printed rules, you're a very shitty GM.
>
> Not a particularly helpful answer; not even amusing.

It wasn't intended to be amusing. It was quite serious.
>
> If I had found the answer in the printed rules, I wouldn't have
> posted the question here, would I? And since the rules are a
> starting point and I find myself in a quandary, why shouldn't I
> hope to benefit from others' thoughts and experiences?
>
You're in to the realm of something that cannot be properly answered by
mechanics rules. It's depednant on the culture of the religion. Make a
decision.

--
Terry Austin
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Campaign Cartographer Now Available