Need Help - Divine Vigor

[iwatt]

It's also got to do with the toning down of Divine Might from 3.0 to 3.5. Now Divine Might is not the superior choice. It's still good, but not the end-all of feats for paladins, who benefit the most out of this feat (less effective turning, + better charisma). Personally I think it depends on playing style. My dwarf paldin took Divine Shield because the Party uses him as a meat shield while the ranger kills whatever is bothering us with arrows. The cleric radiant servant of pelor is in charge of smashing undead while keeping the meat shield alive.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I hate to bring this up again, but I'd really like folk to convince me that the feat really isn't "too" good so I can let the player go ahead and take the feat, no questions asked.

I've been playing a paladin for the last half-year now, 1st to 7th so far. I've decided against Divine Vigor. The +10 speed is nice but hardly necessary (especially if you're a paladin who will have access to your mount for distance-oriented, open-area battles), same with the temp hit points. For the standard action it costs to activate, I picked up Divine Shield instead. Currently that's a +4 to AC, eventually as high as a +7 or more. Better to simply not get hit, IMO.

As it is, I'll be splitting Divine Vigor into *two* different feats: Divine Vigor (+2 temp HP/level) and Divine Celerity (+10ft speed).

I wouldn't even consider the speed feat, though at 1 hour per point of Charisma bonus the temp hp would tempt me. It'd mean you could almost always have it up before you needed it, voiding the required standard action...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The balancing factor is the Standard Action to use. This is the biggy.

In the campaign in which I play an 8th level Paladin, on average I get ~1 round to prep before combat. Sometimes it is 0 rounds of preps, sometimes 2,... You get my drift.

Without Divine Vigor, I already have the following options on that precious one round to prepare (spells are either prepped or from scroll):
(1) Cast Bless Weapon
(2) Cast Protection from Evil
(3) Cast Divine Favor
(4) Cast Bull's Strength
(5) Cast Resist Energy
(6) Drink some other potion
(7) Call my Mount (if he is not already with me)
(8) Double Move to a better tactical position
(9) Lay on Hands (if someone needs healing)
(10) CLW from a wand (if someone needs healing)
(11) Ready an Action
(12) Share Spell with mount
(13) Use a miscellaneous magic item...

So, to my mind, the bug question is not whether Divine Vigor is sometimes useful. Obviously, it is.

The real question is whether adding one more option that requires a Standard Action to that long list is worth the expenditure of a precious Feat?

For my paladin, the answer is No.

What also factors in there is I have Divine Might. I really do not have lots of extra Turning attempts going to waste. I use them plenty. Paladins who have Power Attack + Divine Might are not going to find Divine Vigor particularly attractive. Paladins usually need offensive punch.

For a cleric, the list of prep options is huge. Does a cleric really need another prep option? The ones who benefit the most from the extra HPs are going to want to cast Divine Power, Righteous Might, or BOTH.

In conclusion, I think that Divine Vigor is a good feat, but it is not so attractive to typical Paladins or Clerics as to be a no-brainer because these characters already have a number of similarly useful abilities at their disposal.

 

[Thanee]

Not to mention, that clerics and paladins aren't exactly drowning in feats.

As for the speed, there are a few magical boots, that give a speed bonus.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scharlata]

[...], but I'd really like folk to convince me that the feat really isn't "too" good so I can let the player go ahead and take the feat, no questions asked. [...]

Hi!

It's very advantageous, but not overpowered. If I was to play a cleric, I would take it (probably). A player of mine takes the feat, if he has a chance, and is happy every time with it.

Beware of Divine Spell Power! It seems to be slightly unbalancing IMHO.

Kind regards

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I've seen many paladins & no divine vigor but one character did plan to eventually take around lvl9+...

So no, it is just a preference & certainly not a must have.

 

[Sue Bloodbucket]

Talking about heavy pollution...

In my campaing everyone who can take that feat takes it.
Since the Party heaviely (spelled right?) relies (again? damn my english) on the thief scouting ahead.
And since she is getting the job realy well done, there is hardly ever anything like an ambush, at least not from the enemy... So the x-tra time to buff up is ever at hand.

It is not of my concern to rate the vigorthing unbalanced nor is it to forbid my players to have it.
I just think it's a question of style after all...
Perhaps one should ask his players if they realy think that a cleric of kelimvor, or a mystic theurge (!) must be that eager to hand the bad guys to such a "swift" justice?

But i also must admit that the players could answer "yes!" as it was the case in our little party.

regards
Sue "Vigoresse" Bloodbucket

 

[strongbow]

Be sure to observe the rules section that introduces the Feat section in Complete Divine. You can't take Quicken Turning to Quicken a Divine Feat like Divine Vigor. Some people don't read the relevant section and get away with a lot there. Just a little FYI.

 

[italianranma]

I think it really depends on the DM's playing style. My group has had to learn what the DM does in combat, how he handles skills, which ways his rulings fall...etc. If tHP is so important in your campaign (I can't really know why, but I'll guess) maybe you're giving them too many surprise attacks, or hitting them with large creatures that easily bypass their AC. Or maybe everyone wields 2-handed. When I made a character concept and put it on these boards about a year ago including that feat for a Cleric/Mage/Mystic Theurge everyone gave me crap about it saying there is much better stuff out there. I guess they're right in their own way. If the party's combat philosophy is everyone take care of themselves then having everyone take this feat sounds good. If the philosophy is everyone have rediculusly high AC or lets deal 271 points of damage in the first round, then there are other divine feats that are better for them. I personally (as a player and a RPGA herald GM) wouldn't change the feat just because your player's are wising up to your tactics. That really just breeds anger, and feelings of unfairness. If it's becomeing such a problem for you change up your tactics. if the movement is hurting you, have them fight some flyers. If the extra hps are hurting you, counter it by going around those hps. Death attacks, petrification, paralysis, mind control, etc. Or you could fire-ball them to death instead, assuming that their reflex saves are the lowest.
In my experiance, as a Paladin, I need to get into the fight ASAP. Every spell I cast, everytime I need to call my mount, and every standard action I use doing this delays me from my job: killing things before they inflict damage. (of course this is my combat philosophy). I've never taken this feat, and none of my character development plans feature it before level 15: there are just too many other good feats that I usually have to take first: weapon focus, power attack, cleave, mounted combat, divine might, spirited charge, extra smiting. My clerics are always too busy buffing to do anything else, although I could really use the extra speed from this feat to extend my healing range (but then isn't there a feat in CD that allows me to cast cure spells at a range?).
In summary, depending on how your players stratigise to counter your DMing style, different feats will be over emphasised. If you want to de-emphasise those feats, you should look to how you DM first before changing rules.