Talya's Vow of Nudity Mark II

[Snowbluff]

Here is her original vow.

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.

[Zaydos]

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

[Snowbluff]

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).

[...]

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]

Gloryborn Armor: The RAW Chainmail Bikini. Does it work?

[toapat]

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]

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

[Larkas]

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

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]

Hi, Larkas!

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

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

[Larkas]

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

Hi, Larkas!

Yo!

[TheFamilarRaven]

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]

Endure Elements may be included in the final version.

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

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]

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?

[...]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


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]

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


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]

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/shows...0&postcount=1] or by holding a large leaf in front of them.

3. Can the aura be voluntarily suppressed?

Debby

[DawnQuixotic]

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/shows...0&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]

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

[Hanuman]

Hm, this also brings up the point about wild dwarves using beard armor.

[jqavins]

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

Yup, damn skippy!

[Debihuman]

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

[Vhaidara]

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]

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 at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect.

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]

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