PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other Talya's Vow of Nudity Mark II



Snowbluff
2014-07-26, 07:05 PM
Here is her original vow. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?45529-Nude-Bard-Sublime-Chord-Heartwarder-Vow-of-Poverty-Build)

The vow of nudity gives you benefits for being nude. Talya wrote as a tongue-in-cheek joke, but I want to make into something that balances well and is like to similiar abilities from 3.5, like Frightful Presence.

Here is my new text:


*Vow of Nudity
You have taken a sacred vow never to withhold your beauty from the rest of the world.
Prerequisites: Sacred Vow, Charisma 15
Benefit: You are constantly surrounded by an awe-inspiring aura to a radius of 50 feet. Creatures within the aura must make a successful Will save (DC 10 + one-half your character level + your Cha modifier) or be affected by a Fascination effect. A creature that makes a successful saving throw and remains in the aura is unaffected by this feat for 24 Hours. Reentering the area after leaving will invoke another save. If the target is otherwise freed from the Fascination effect (such as being attacked), he is treated as making the save. The aura is a mind-affecting, supernatural compulsion. Allies gain +2 to this saving throw per day that they travel/work alongside you. After 5 days, they no longer have to make a save.
Special: To fullfill your vow, you must never willingly wear any item of clothing or armor that conceals your body. If you intentionally break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. If you break your vow as a result of magical compulsion, or otherwise unintentionally (being forced into a straightjacket, for instance, a possible outcome of wandering city streets in the nude), you lose the benefit of this feat until you receive an atonement spell. Merely having a blanket thrown over you which you immediately attempt to remove will not cause this result.

Magical jewelry, such as anklets, necklaces, and bracelets, are not considered to be clothing or covering for this feat.

I also propose a Vile Vow of Covering. You wear something awful to make people cower. Maybe human skin, not sure. :smalltongue:

Zaydos
2014-07-26, 07:15 PM
Question: Do boots, gloves, and/or hats count as "covering your body"?

Snowbluff
2014-07-26, 07:29 PM
Hm... that's a good point...

Perhaps an exception for jewelry? So Anklets of Translocation, Nipple Clamps of Exquisite Pain, Amber Amulets of Vermin, and other magic items like that would be allowed. With the MIC, you can probably find plenty of jewelry and then add the basic stat bonuses to them.

Maybe a greater version that does not allow that, but gives VoP-style benefits (and them some custom ones).

...
2014-07-26, 08:28 PM
If you are going to connect it with sacred vow, you might as well go full on BoED and connect it to Pistis Sophia.

bekeleven
2014-07-27, 12:05 AM
Gloryborn Armor: The RAW Chainmail Bikini. Does it work?

toapat
2014-07-27, 12:18 AM
Gloryborn Armor: The RAW Chainmail Bikini. Does it work?

No. the origin of the feat is based on the fact that an optimized VoP character is going to probably be pumping one attribute well above and beyond anything else, specifically either their Wisdom (druid) or Charisma (Bard/Battledancer/Paladin of Freedom with Snowflake Wardance or Talya's Pervuoso) and is barred from wearing anything but rags. Talya got fed up with the restrictions, said F' it, id rather be nude, then homebrewed an exalted feat.

besides that, Gloryborn armor is still to some measure of concealing.

TheFamilarRaven
2014-07-27, 12:07 PM
Minor Nitpick.


"Allies Allies gain +2 to this saving throw per day that they travel/work alongside you. After 5 days, they suffer no penalty."

There was never a penalty to begin with. I'm sure you meant that after 5 days they don't have to make saves. But, y'know, it doesn;t say that :smalltongue:

Larkas
2014-07-27, 01:26 PM
Allowing for jewelry in general, semi-transparent robes and some really skimpy armor (like the aforementioned gloryborn armor) might be nice. Not too sure on the second and third parts, though.


There was never a penalty to begin with. I'm sure you meant that after 5 days they don't have to make saves. But, y'know, it doesn;t say that :smalltongue:

Hmmmm... Come to think of it, saying that an ally that spends more than 24 hours away from you loses this benefit might also be a good idea.

Snowbluff
2014-07-27, 04:17 PM
Hi, Larkas! :smallsmile:

Minor Nitpick.


"Allies Allies gain +2 to this saving throw per day that they travel/work alongside you. After 5 days, they suffer no penalty."

There was never a penalty to begin with. I'm sure you meant that after 5 days they don't have to make saves. But, y'know, it doesn;t say that :smalltongue:

Thanks for pointing that out. The reason why I submitted this for review is so lines like this could be clarified.

Larkas
2014-07-29, 09:59 AM
To clarify, my main reason for suggesting the semi-transparent clothes are to make the vow possible in less than tropical weather!


Hi, Larkas! :smallsmile:

Yo! :smallbiggrin:

TheFamilarRaven
2014-07-29, 10:15 AM
Or the vow could just grant you the Endure Elements effects permanently. That's not overpowered in the slightest.

Also, would bracers of armor count as jewelry or clothes?

Snowbluff
2014-07-29, 10:16 AM
Endure Elements may be included in the final version.

EDIT: Dammit, ninjaed. Stupid 60 second posting rule. :smalltongue:

Also, just make bracelets of armor using the MiC rules. IIRC, armor bonus may be added to wrist slot items with no cost penalty.

Oddman80
2014-07-29, 02:10 PM
Would the wearing of a hat of disguise (or a necklace of disguise, or a bracelet/anklet of disguise, etc) be a violation of the vow. would charming a person into believing you are wearing clothing when you are not in fact wearing them, be a violation?

What about rings of invisibility. If your entire body in not seen, are you concealing your beauty from the world? I wouldn't think you were doing it any more so than one would just by going indoors....

Would walking inside a building and closing the door behind you be a violation? Hear you would be actively doing something that conceals your beauty from the world.

I'm not trying to be obtuse - but it seems like either the actual intent of the vow needs to be slightly modified, or else one who takes it would also forego any sense of privacy in their lives, period. No walking behind a tree to do ones business. No "may i have a word with you in private".

Should there not be introduced some concept of the "Greater Good", that would allow the prevention of unwanted harm resulting from prolonged week willed individuals? Only allies that work/travel with you are given the daily bonuses to overcome their fascination. If one of these Naked Ones were ever in a town for a prolonged period, their could be a number of deaths that resulted from people forgoing food and water, as Fascinated creatures "take no action" other than paying attention to the object of their fascination. Since it is a constant Aura, and has no limit to duration (so long as one is within 50 feet), this could be quite problematic... Only people who made their initial saving throw remain unaffected by the aura after 24 hours. but people who failed the saving throw were not given a maximum period for which they could be fascinated. As i said, the DC doesn't get any easier, and if you are an inherently weak willed commoner, you may never make the DC.

Thoughts?

...
2014-07-29, 07:32 PM
Would the wearing of a hat of disguise (or a necklace of disguise, or a bracelet/anklet of disguise, etc) be a violation of the vow. would charming a person into believing you are wearing clothing when you are not in fact wearing them, be a violation?

What about rings of invisibility. If your entire body in not seen, are you concealing your beauty from the world? I wouldn't think you were doing it any more so than one would just by going indoors....

Would walking inside a building and closing the door behind you be a violation? Hear you would be actively doing something that conceals your beauty from the world.

I'm not trying to be obtuse - but it seems like either the actual intent of the vow needs to be slightly modified, or else one who takes it would also forego any sense of privacy in their lives, period. No walking behind a tree to do ones business. No "may i have a word with you in private".

Should there not be introduced some concept of the "Greater Good", that would allow the prevention of unwanted harm resulting from prolonged week willed individuals? Only allies that work/travel with you are given the daily bonuses to overcome their fascination. If one of these Naked Ones were ever in a town for a prolonged period, their could be a number of deaths that resulted from people forgoing food and water, as Fascinated creatures "take no action" other than paying attention to the object of their fascination. Since it is a constant Aura, and has no limit to duration (so long as one is within 50 feet), this could be quite problematic... Only people who made their initial saving throw remain unaffected by the aura after 24 hours. but people who failed the saving throw were not given a maximum period for which they could be fascinated. As i said, the DC doesn't get any easier, and if you are an inherently weak willed commoner, you may never make the DC.

Thoughts?
I think you're thinking too much into it. The system is just, as far as I can see, "I walk around naked because I think I look good, and me thinking I look good is what really matters."

Oddman80
2014-07-30, 09:00 AM
I think you're thinking too much into it. The system is just, as far as I can see, "I walk around naked because I think I look good, and me thinking I look good is what really matters."

My point is that there are aspects of this that have not been thought through. I assume that the whole "not being able to go indoors" is taking it too far. So maybe the wording of the vow should be "You have taken a sacred vow never to withhold your beauty from those in your presence," rather than "...from the rest of the world."

And i am still curious about potential abuse here. If you have a 'necklace of disguise' (extra money paid to use the allowed neck slot for wondrous item otherwise identical to a hat of disguise) you wouldn't be violating the vow requirements:
To fulfill your vow, you must never willingly wear any item of clothing or armor that conceals your body...Magical jewelry, such as anklets, necklaces, and bracelets, are not considered to be clothing or covering for this feat.

Yet you can walk around with magical images of clothing concealing your body. As such, You should still benefit from the aura of fascination.

Additionally, I really think the aura should have a time limit for continual exposure. The DC reduces by 2 for every hour you are continually in the persons presence, regardless of ally/friend/enemy/stranger status. Otherwise, the taker ends up with a pied piper-like horde of emaciated followers following him/her in a zombie-like trance of fascination.

toapat
2014-07-30, 09:46 AM
My point is that there are aspects of this that have not been thought through. I assume that the whole "not being able to go indoors" is taking it too far. So maybe the wording of the vow should be "You have taken a sacred vow never to withhold your beauty from those in your presence," rather than "...from the rest of the world."

And i am still curious about potential abuse here. If you have a 'necklace of disguise' (extra money paid to use the allowed neck slot for wondrous item otherwise identical to a hat of disguise) you wouldn't be violating the vow requirements:
To fulfill your vow, you must never willingly wear any item of clothing or armor that conceals your body...Magical jewelry, such as anklets, necklaces, and bracelets, are not considered to be clothing or covering for this feat.

Yet you can walk around with magical images of clothing concealing your body. As such, You should still benefit from the aura of fascination.

Additionally, I really think the aura should have a time limit for continual exposure. The DC reduces by 2 for every hour you are continually in the persons presence, regardless of ally/friend/enemy/stranger status. Otherwise, the taker ends up with a pied piper-like horde of emaciated followers following him/her in a zombie-like trance of fascination.

Disguise should inherently and does inherently violate the vow.

gr8artist
2014-07-30, 10:59 AM
Hmm, I think if a player in my campaign wanted to use this, I would give him bonuses for every body part he swore not to cover. Pretty face? No masks. Pretty hips? No belts. Ugly wrists? Put some bracers on. After all, the right amount of clothing can actually accentuate ones physical appearance quite nicely.
Plus, this fixes concern about clothing/jewelry disputes and going inside or peeing behind a bush.

toapat
2014-07-30, 02:51 PM
Hmm, I think if a player in my campaign wanted to use this, I would give him bonuses for every body part he swore not to cover. Pretty face? No masks. Pretty hips? No belts. Ugly wrists? Put some bracers on. After all, the right amount of clothing can actually accentuate ones physical appearance quite nicely.
Plus, this fixes concern about clothing/jewelry disputes and going inside or peeing behind a bush.

or make a distinction between Incidental obstructions and intentional obstructions. If you view a maiden with VoN who has a bush obstructing their lower body, thats only Incidental cover, as would be walls, doors, and basically anything which is concealing them due to factors they cant control.

Now, if they are intentionally standing in the bush, thats Intentional cover, and violates the vow, although should not remove it if say, they arem oving through the bush because they have to to get to another destination

DawnQuixotic
2014-07-30, 03:40 PM
Here's another question. What about shapeshifting or "disguises" in which you are still nude? Would those be allowed?


Should there not be introduced some concept of the "Greater Good", that would allow the prevention of unwanted harm resulting from prolonged week willed individuals?

Maybe allow them to suppress the aura? Similar to how nymphs can suppress their blinding beauty.

Hanuman
2014-07-30, 04:21 PM
Oh this is actually quite nice, but you've missed some potential as was pointed out.

Being completely nude for an awe effect and endure elements is nice, and very well could be a good effect for full nudity, but I think better usage would be to reward the player for not filling equipment and magic slots when they wouldn't want to use them anyway, like a very minor and variable Vow of Poverty.
Of course put in a line about this counting as wearing equipment and filling your slots so actual VoP won't work with it, but if it's defensive maybe apostle of peace.

Maybe something along the lines of [(Hit Die + Charisma Mod) / 3 = Bonus
Not wearing armor slot grants Armor AC equal to Bonus
Not wearing face slot grants Darkvision equal to 10' per Bonus.
Not Wearing boots slot reduces fall damage by 10' per Bonus

ect :smallsmile:


Shapeshifting is a good point, Ozodrin can wear things inside it's stomach, it can also form clothing out of itself so "nude" is kind of a blurry line in my case.

toapat
2014-07-30, 05:01 PM
Oh this is actually quite nice, but you've missed some potential as was pointed out.

Being completely nude for an awe effect and endure elements is nice, and very well could be a good effect for full nudity, but I think better usage would be to reward the player for not filling equipment and magic slots when they wouldn't want to use them anyway, like a very minor and variable Vow of Poverty.
Of course put in a line about this counting as wearing equipment and filling your slots so actual VoP won't work with it, but if it's defensive maybe apostle of peace.

Maybe something along the lines of [(Hit Die + Charisma Mod) / 3 = Bonus
Not wearing armor slot grants Armor AC equal to Bonus
Not wearing face slot grants Darkvision equal to 10' per Bonus.
Not Wearing boots slot reduces fall damage by 10' per Bonus

ect :smallsmile:


Shapeshifting is a good point, Ozodrin can wear things inside it's stomach, it can also form clothing out of itself so "nude" is kind of a blurry line in my case.

its already pretty obvious its an incarnum or non-druid VoP feat.

Debihuman
2014-07-30, 05:32 PM
1. Wouldn't this all be easier if the aura just affected creatures that can see you?

2. Since the vow specifically says clothes, someone casting an illusion of clothes on the one with the vow doesn't violate the letter of the law though it does violate the intent. Clever players will always find a way around the rules such as by making themselves invisible, by using paint or woad or henna, by growing their hair so long it drapes around them [See long hair feat here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=14485540&postcount=1] or by holding a large leaf in front of them.

3. Can the aura be voluntarily suppressed?

Debby

DawnQuixotic
2014-07-30, 08:49 PM
2. Since the vow specifically says clothes, someone casting an illusion of clothes on the one with the vow doesn't violate the letter of the law though it does violate the intent. Clever players will always find a way around the rules such as by making themselves invisible, by using paint or woad or henna, by growing their hair so long it drapes around them [See long hair feat here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=14485540&postcount=1] or by holding a large leaf in front of them.


I think using your natural hair shouldn't count because, no one says you have to show off your naughty bits, just that you have to be nude.
Your character shouldn't care, but they could still wrap hair around themselves for decorative purposes or in certain communities with a nudity taboo and still not break their vow.

Though this interpretation would mean transparent clothing is still clothing and thus break the vow as you aren't nude.



Shapeshifting is a good point, Ozodrin can wear things inside it's stomach, it can also form clothing out of itself so "nude" is kind of a blurry line in my case.

Well, I brought it up more concerning the case of, "What if you polymorph into a big naked ogre"?

Bulldog Psion
2014-07-30, 08:58 PM
So this is the type of stuff you folks get up to over here in Homebrew Design? :smallbiggrin:

Hanuman
2014-07-30, 09:16 PM
Hm, this also brings up the point about wild dwarves using beard armor.

jqavins
2014-07-31, 07:51 AM
So this is the type of stuff you folks get up to over here in Homebrew Design? :smallbiggrin:
Yup, damn skippy!

Debihuman
2014-07-31, 08:24 AM
Yup, damn skippy!

Dang, you stole my line!

Still didn't get a response about whether the aura can be suppressed or not.

[Edit] This line kinda bothers me: "You have taken a sacred vow never to withhold your beauty from the rest of the world." It's a silly line. You really have taken a vow to forego wearing clothes; "withholding beauty from the rest of the world" is kinda meaningless there's no way to not withhold it since not everyone can see you at the same time.

Debby

Keledrath
2014-07-31, 08:49 AM
With regards to suppression (I'm in a campaign using this, Snowbluff is in a parallel campaign), my understanding is no. Which caused my character to stand their drooling for a few minutes, since he has a -4 Will save.

jqavins
2014-08-01, 07:14 AM
This line kinda bothers me: "You have taken a sacred vow never to withhold your beauty from the rest of the world." It's a silly line. You really have taken a vow to forego wearing clothes; "withholding beauty from the rest of the world" is kinda meaningless there's no way to not withhold it since not everyone can see you at the same time.
There's a reason the fluffy bits are called "fluff." And yes, I'm talking about rules, perv.

As for starving followers, I would rule that when hunger pangs or bladder/colon strain become painful enough they would invoke this clause in the fascinated rule:
Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Fascinated) at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Fascinated)
Once the physical needs are taken care of, the subject would be vulnerable again.

Still, it would cause trouble in newly formed parties, as other members only manage to break away long enough to take care of business before having to save again. Maybe there should be some sort of safety, like a slap in the face from the sacred nude. (Think Cher and Nicholas Cage.)

Debihuman
2014-08-01, 07:58 AM
The description of mechanics should at least try to match the function of the mechanics. Otherwise, it's a waste of time reading it. Good writing is always more enjoyable than poor writing. To disregard the fluff with a hand wave defeats the purpose of writing it in the first place.

Moreover, it's a "vow of nudity" not a "vow to never withhold beauty" as that would be purely subjective depending on the viewer's measure of beauty. It is after all in eye of the beholder.

Citing to the wiki is generally frowned upon as it's a site with no oversight. Capisce? The online SRD can be found at www.d20srd.org.

No need to slap the fascinated PC, just a shake will suffice. The problem is the fascinated creature is fascinated for as long as the effect lasts. So if the aura can't be suppressed, the creature is unable to move until something happens that ends the effect. The one with the vow could just move out of range, end the effect and warn others to stay away. That's always a possibility.

Bodily functions aren't considered a "threat" so if the PC wets or soils himself while fascinated, that's just a consequence (albeit a disgusting one and why would that ever come up in a game? Eww). And you called me a Perv? Hmmph.

Debby

jqavins
2014-08-01, 09:31 AM
Let's not forget that the origin of this was pure silliness, and even if it's allowed into a game it's still really silly.

The description of mechanics should at least try to match the function of the mechanics. Otherwise, it's a waste of time reading it. Good writing is always more enjoyable than poor writing. To disregard the fluff with a hand wave defeats the purpose of writing it in the first place.

Moreover, it's a "vow of nudity" not a "vow to never withhold beauty" as that would be purely subjective depending on the viewer's measure of beauty. It is after all in eye of the beholder.
I basically agree. The statement is, as I understand it, meant to give a sense of the motivation of the one taking the vow. It could have been written better as something like
You believe it would be wrong to deprive the world of your own stunning beauty. So, you have taken a sacred vow never to never to cover your body with clothes.
I just think it's not worth quibbling over something like that for a rule that is so silly from top to bottom in the first place.

No need to slap the fascinated PC, just a shake will suffice.
But a slap is funnier.

Bodily functions aren't considered a "threat" so if the PC wets or soils himself while fascinated, that's just a consequence (albeit a disgusting one and why would that ever come up in a game? Eww).
True, but I was talking about pain. If the subject holds it long enough, it hurts. And after a while, hunger hurts. The GM who wants a way out of this particular problem can very reasonably rule that anything causing pain counts as a threat for purposes of breaking the effect.

And you called me a Perv? Hmmph.
Actually, I called anyone reating my comment who had to ask what kind of fluffy bits I was referring to a perv. I sincerely hope you did not take the quip personally or take offense. It's all in the silly spirit.

bekeleven
2014-08-01, 12:04 PM
New try: Glassteel from Champions of Valor. "Glassteel is stronger and lighter than iron and completely transparent."

Mith
2014-08-01, 01:32 PM
If transparent clothing doesn't work, I am not sure about Glassteel.

toapat
2014-08-01, 06:52 PM
If transparent clothing doesn't work, I am not sure about Glassteel.

Fabric cant be woven into a lens, Glassteel can be ground into one.

Keledrath
2014-08-01, 06:56 PM
Think about it: You are literally putting a magnifying glass over your fluffy bits.

Snowbluff
2014-08-01, 08:43 PM
Wow, a lot of stuff happened.

I should point that I think you can suppress the feat as a (Su) Aura. I don't remember the rule, though. It kind of messes up the feat if you can just turn it off. Totally screws with the flavor.

Illusory clothing is a good point. I'll have to work around to banning it. The feat has a range because "I can't see it" isn't always as exact. LoE should break it, either way.

As for why I am doing it, my buddy Kel up there pointed it out. It's messing with him pretty bad, and when it was suggested in character creation I took offense. Normally I am a huge prude, but my thirst for mechanical elegance overcame that. :smalltongue:

Keledrath
2014-08-01, 08:46 PM
It's messing with him pretty bad

Are you kidding? This thing extended my life expectancy by 5 whole posts! I couldn't offend/try to molest anyone while fascinated.

Mith
2014-08-01, 08:58 PM
Personally, I think Endure Elements should be added as a permanent effect since someone with the VoN would not be able to use a blanket to warm up.

toapat
2014-08-01, 09:36 PM
Personally, I think Endure Elements should be added as a permanent effect since someone with the VoN would not be able to use a blanket to warm up.

it needs a redundancy feature however so that when VoP gives endure elements VoN swaps to something else.


Think about it: You are literally putting a magnifying glass over your fluffy bits.

i can see how lenses in the armor of Glassteel would "enhance" the male form, but nope. i have no idea asto doing that for women

Keledrath
2014-08-01, 09:42 PM
i can see how lenses in the armor of Glassteel would "enhance" the male form, but nope. i have no idea asto doing that for women

Magnification was what I was thinking, but now that I actually try and picture it I am seeing your point.

Zaydos
2014-08-01, 09:45 PM
Also I want to point out that you'd need your eye to be close to the lens or it'd just make it blurry and out of focus thus concealing things.

toapat
2014-08-01, 10:11 PM
Also I want to point out that you'd need your eye to be close to the lens or it'd just make it blurry and out of focus thus concealing things.

flat side on the inside, dome on the outside

Mith
2014-08-02, 12:02 AM
it needs a redundancy feature however so that when VoP gives endure elements VoN swaps to something else.


Perhaps "If another Vow also grants Endure Elements, pick [X]", X being a list of different bonuses that synergize with the VoN.

Snowbluff
2014-08-03, 12:03 PM
Are you kidding? This thing extended my life expectancy by 5 whole posts! I couldn't offend/try to molest anyone while fascinated.

Well, that works I guess.

As for redundant Endure Elements... I won't add a cause for that. Improve Vow of Nudity might grant a better version of the effect.

rexx1888
2014-08-04, 01:24 AM
does this use a modded vow of poverty or are you instantly pointless the minute someone flies away??

also also, it makes me happy that this thread managed to get past a page :P

Snowbluff
2014-08-04, 05:00 AM
Between jewelry and grafts (nothing says you can't attach wings), you should be fine.

toapat
2014-08-04, 10:24 AM
Between jewelry and grafts (nothing says you can't attach wings), you should be fine.

dont forget Faerun's magical tattoos. Kinda hard to give up magic etched onto your body.

though i feel particularly complex patterns would probably still violate the vow

atemu1234
2014-08-04, 11:42 AM
I feel the urge to chime in here. I rather like this feat, and since the exact wording is, "with holding your beauty from the rest of the world", I'd say technically it does work with transparent things.

Snowbluff
2014-08-04, 12:22 PM
Phooey on that, I'd say.

"Illusory" clothing is still "clothing," and it would technically conceal you, so that won't work for sure.

dont forget Faerun's magical tattoos. Kinda hard to give up magic etched onto your body.

though i feel particularly complex patterns would probably still violate the vow

Yeah, that will need it's own clause. Or I could leave it alone for people who like tattoos. I'm not really fond of people with too much ink myself, so I think doing anything else would be the bias talking. :smalltongue:

toapat
2014-08-04, 12:38 PM
Yeah, that will need it's own clause. Or I could leave it alone for people who like tattoos. I'm not really fond of people with too much ink myself, so I think doing anything else would be the bias talking. :smalltongue:

The problem there is that it would be a case by case basis.

Mith
2014-08-04, 02:33 PM
Tattos could be argued as being stylized to enhance your appearance, so I think a note of it being case by case works best, although a limit may not hurt either.

Talya
2014-08-04, 06:41 PM
Talya wrote as a tongue-in-cheek joke, but I want to make into something that balances well and is like to similiar abilities from 3.5, like Frightful Presence.


Quite right. I didn't put a whole lot of thought into it, I wrote it up on the fly when I had the idea for the post. It was something of a joke, and I never expected someone to try to use it in a campaign. (Though I'm giddy that people liked it as much as they did.)


Question: Do boots, gloves, and/or hats count as "covering your body"?

But I have beautiful hands! and feet! and hair!

I think a distinction needs to be made between decoration and ornamental wear, and things that cover. I have played characters that were nude all the time (without this feat), and used magical jewelry in every equipment slot.


A VoP character is ... barred from wearing anything but rags. Talya got fed up with the restrictions, said F' it, id rather be nude, then homebrewed an exalted feat.


Exactly.


To clarify, my main reason for suggesting the semi-transparent clothes are to make the vow possible in less than tropical weather!


New try: Glassteel from Champions of Valor. "Glassteel is stronger and lighter than iron and completely transparent."

Even as a joke, it was, in my mind, an exalted feat that most people would acquire through VOP. As such, jewelry, transparent clothing and armor would all be unavailable anyway. However, I can see that someone might take it without VOP, in which case yes, I don't see why things that proudly display your beauty wouldn't also be acceptable. Also, VOP includes Endure Elements.


Would the wearing of a hat of disguise (or a necklace of disguise, or a bracelet/anklet of disguise, etc) be a violation of the vow. would charming a person into believing you are wearing clothing when you are not in fact wearing them, be a violation?

What about rings of invisibility. If your entire body in not seen, are you concealing your beauty from the world? I wouldn't think you were doing it any more so than one would just by going indoors....

Would walking inside a building and closing the door behind you be a violation? Hear you would be actively doing something that conceals your beauty from the world.

I'm not trying to be obtuse - but it seems like either the actual intent of the vow needs to be slightly modified, or else one who takes it would also forego any sense of privacy in their lives, period. No walking behind a tree to do ones business. No "may i have a word with you in private".

Should there not be introduced some concept of the "Greater Good", that would allow the prevention of unwanted harm resulting from prolonged week willed individuals? Only allies that work/travel with you are given the daily bonuses to overcome their fascination. If one of these Naked Ones were ever in a town for a prolonged period, their could be a number of deaths that resulted from people forgoing food and water, as Fascinated creatures "take no action" other than paying attention to the object of their fascination. Since it is a constant Aura, and has no limit to duration (so long as one is within 50 feet), this could be quite problematic... Only people who made their initial saving throw remain unaffected by the aura after 24 hours. but people who failed the saving throw were not given a maximum period for which they could be fascinated. As i said, the DC doesn't get any easier, and if you are an inherently weak willed commoner, you may never make the DC.

Thoughts?


My point is that there are aspects of this that have not been thought through. I assume that the whole "not being able to go indoors" is taking it too far. So maybe the wording of the vow should be "You have taken a sacred vow never to withhold your beauty from those in your presence," rather than "...from the rest of the world."

And i am still curious about potential abuse here. If you have a 'necklace of disguise' (extra money paid to use the allowed neck slot for wondrous item otherwise identical to a hat of disguise) you wouldn't be violating the vow requirements:
To fulfill your vow, you must never willingly wear any item of clothing or armor that conceals your body...Magical jewelry, such as anklets, necklaces, and bracelets, are not considered to be clothing or covering for this feat.

Yet you can walk around with magical images of clothing concealing your body. As such, You should still benefit from the aura of fascination.

Additionally, I really think the aura should have a time limit for continual exposure. The DC reduces by 2 for every hour you are continually in the persons presence, regardless of ally/friend/enemy/stranger status. Otherwise, the taker ends up with a pied piper-like horde of emaciated followers following him/her in a zombie-like trance of fascination.


These are all actually thoughts I had after writing it, that I never bothered to clarify. Knock yourselves out.



So this is the type of stuff you folks get up to over here in Homebrew Design? :smallbiggrin:

What do they get it up to? Oh wait, you said something else.

You wanna see what homebrew DID get a lot of use in the longest campaign I ever played?
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?75192-Nara-s-Sensuous-Spells

toapat
2014-08-04, 07:12 PM
Quite right. I didn't put a whole lot of thought into it, I wrote it up on the fly when I had the idea for the post. It was something of a joke, and I never expected someone to try to use it in a campaign. (Though I'm giddy that people liked it as much as they did.)

didnt the heartwarder you originated the feat with see play?

also, is it just me or did your Nara Avatar break?

Talya
2014-08-04, 07:38 PM
didnt the heartwarder you originated the feat with see play?

No.




also, is it just me or did your Nara Avatar break?

It did.

I have another copy of it, but i'm lazy.

Keledrath
2014-08-06, 11:32 PM
I just realized how good of a thing it is that this is exalted. If it wasn't, imagine the horror that succubi could inflict with it.

toapat
2014-08-07, 12:27 AM
I just realized how good of a thing it is that this is exalted. If it wasn't, imagine the horror that succubi could inflict with it.

can you roll against grapple while fascinated? If so it only slightly more threatening for the incarnations of sexual desire.

Angelalex242
2014-08-08, 06:42 PM
Ya know...

Instead of worrying about what magic items you can and can't use when using this vow...

Just make Vow of Poverty a prerequisite for taking this one. Though you might also throw in something about not taking Vow of Chastity and Vow of Nudity at the same time.

Cause that's just cruel. :P

Network
2014-08-08, 07:08 PM
Ya know...

Instead of worrying about what magic items you can and can't use when using this vow...

Just make Vow of Poverty a prerequisite for taking this one. Though you might also throw in something about not taking Vow of Chastity and Vow of Nudity at the same time.

Cause that's just cruel. :P

On the opposite, that's actually pretty funny.

''Sorry, I must show you my thing. Religious reasons. No, you can't touch it. Also religious reasons.''

Having a naked character running around is less funny if that character is expected to make out. I suppose a chaste person that doesn't care about being naked wouldn't see anything sexual about it, while a licentious person is more or less expected to do the association.

Keledrath
2014-08-08, 07:09 PM
Ya know...

Instead of worrying about what magic items you can and can't use when using this vow...

Just make Vow of Poverty a prerequisite for taking this one. Though you might also throw in something about not taking Vow of Chastity and Vow of Nudity at the same time.

Cause that's just cruel. :P

However, it is cruel in a very exalted way.

Amridell
2014-08-08, 07:24 PM
So it'd decided. My next group is taking place on a nude beach.

Snowbluff
2014-08-08, 07:33 PM
can you roll against grapple while fascinated? If so it only slightly more threatening for the incarnations of sexual desire.

Grappling is an attack. They at least get a save if it doesn't break the effect immediately.

Angelalex242
2014-08-09, 05:36 PM
Well, the Book of Exalted Deeds is usually opposed by the Book of Vile Darkness.

Think it through. What would a character with Vile Feats do about someone with Vow of Nudity AND Vow of Chastity?

Remember, Vile Feats are for Super Extreme Evil. Like, at LEAST as bad as Joker and Darkseid level evil.

toapat
2014-08-09, 06:12 PM
Darkseid level evil.

Darkseid is to evil like DnD good is to Good. sure they fit the definition but they arent really such.

Keledrath
2014-08-09, 06:17 PM
Think it through. What would a character with Vile Feats do about someone with Vow of Nudity AND Vow of Chastity?

Um, not really sure why someone with Vile feats has to be able to do something about them. The conditions for losing both are completely different.

As far as a counter to this, Vile feats having Willing Deformity (Madness). Immunity to Mind Affecting.

DiBastet
2014-08-09, 08:37 PM
I think the only way a player could really use this vow in a common campaign was to actually use some loopholes, and I think that IC this is nice. Ok, walking around in the nude is the vow, but since that's a little hard to do in civilized places and he/she can't simply put some thongs on, the character could use some kind of full body painting. Not something stupid imitating clothing, but maybe something mystic on the lines like these ones:

http://www.clickypix.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/clever-creative-body-paint-11-640x906.jpg

or this

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6e/7a/5f/6e7a5fbb836e5cb232a881c3f59b1320.jpg

Snowbluff
2014-08-09, 08:55 PM
Are you sure about that?

ProfDetective
2014-12-15, 02:51 PM
So, is this still being worked on, or left to twist in the wind? Four months of silence is not promising.

Snowbluff
2014-12-15, 04:49 PM
I'm not sure if I want to make changes to it at this point. If someone has some serious concern, I've been keeping it in my subscriptions.

ProfDetective
2014-12-17, 08:34 PM
I just wanted to add something to the pot that I found. A feat on the D&D Wiki called 'Skyclad' http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Skyclad_(DnD_Feat)
And a prestige class tied to it http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Skyclad_Practitioner_%283.5e_Prestige_Class%29
Its basicly Wiccan ritualistic nudity for magic users, but I thought it could help support the Vow a little... somehow.

ProfDetective
2014-12-17, 08:36 PM
Also... backpacks, covers your back, that count against you?

khadgar567
2014-12-21, 04:32 AM
Also... backpacks, covers your back, that count against you?

As far as I know backpacks not acts as render( sean ) equipment they just item

toapat
2014-12-21, 10:34 AM
As far as I know backpacks not acts as render( sean ) equipment they just item

in 3rd your storage comes in 2 varieties: Invisible Leather Back Tardis, and Invisible Leather Tardis Satchel.

khadgar567
2014-12-21, 10:45 AM
in 3rd your storage comes in 2 varieties: Invisible Leather Back Tardis, and Invisible Leather Tardis Satchel.

as far as I researched I couldnt find that two items (fyi I start my d&D life with 3.5 ) but if player and dm agreas you can just make an item handelses that if I remember corecly this is homebrew so aslong as they agree its not my problem

and probably you can you can use tatoed item from one of the suplements whitch ı dont remember its name

Dr_Dinosaur
2014-12-21, 11:57 AM
as far as I researched I couldnt find that two items (fyi I start my d&D life with 3.5 )

He was snarkily referring to the Handy Haversack and Bag of Holding respectively. They're pretty much considered required gear around these parts. The Tardis thing is a Dr. Who reference.

Snowbluff
2014-12-21, 03:05 PM
I'll have to think about this.

Mith
2014-12-21, 04:00 PM
What is the volume of the belt pouches?

ProfDetective
2014-12-22, 05:01 PM
Its wonderful to see that I breathed some life into this unique topic. After some thought, I believe that packs are alright, I'm just thinking too hard. Now, that Skyclad stuff I posted, I see some combo potential, expanding on spellcasting rules. But, I don't know how to go about it.

zergling.exe
2014-12-29, 02:59 AM
So it'd decided. My next group is taking place on a nude beach.

Late to the party but...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/a72c1f2805331cc5d63f90daa45bf200/tumblr_mvzh0oAxUX1s4kvlvo1_500.gif

He has the feat right?

khadgar567
2014-12-29, 06:15 AM
you can never late this party amigo

ProfDetective
2015-01-24, 04:17 PM
Bump. Bump.

Snowbluff
2015-01-24, 11:27 PM
I don't feel like it needs changes right now. Something like that should probably be left to the DM. It's already homebrew, so you'll have to talk to your DM in the first place. The changes I made were to make the feat at least more viable in a group environment, so that you don't stunlock your own team.

As far as Kill La Kill goes, I liked Ryuko's design when she wasn't dressed like a stripper. The whole show suffered from the obnoxious and pointless fanservice and nudity jokes. It kind of jumps the shark at the end, too.