Please rate Divine Vengeance
- Thread starter smetzger
- Start date
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
As a free action, this might be a reasonable feat. As a standard action, it can be advantageous but only in very limited circumstances.
1. Only against undead--this is a very big limitation; comparing this to Divine Might, for instance, Divine Might makes turning ability useful against any enemy.
2. Only when dealing damage is more effective than turning. This is also a big limitation since turning will often be more effective than damage against undead. So, it is useful only against unturnable undead or by characters who aren't very good at turning anyway--perhaps a multiclassed cleric or paladin. This also underscores the opportunity cost of using the feat: a use of it could have been a turning attempt and since you're obviously facing undead, a turning attempt might well be useful. Contrast this with Divine Might which doesn't have much of an effective opportunity cost most of the time since it can be used against creatures against whom turning is useless.
3. Only when the standard action you lose is likely to inflict less than (2d6)xthe number of attacks in the rest of that round and the next round that are likely to hit. So, for an unhasted 3rd level paladin with a 15 strength wielding a +1 longsword (1d8+3--average 7.5), Divine Vengeance is a bad idea. He gets an average of 7 damage in round 2 but gives up an average of 7.5 damage in round 1 (where it's potentially more useful).
In a best case scenario, Divine Vengeance could be quite useful--for instance, a hasted Ranger/Rogue/Paladin/Consecrated Harrier 10 with all of the dual wielding feats going after a vampire who is the target of his hunt (Blessings of Scripture +10
In that case, he might end up exchanging 25-30 points of damage from the hast action for an additional 30d6 (7 attacks/full attack action plus one from haste in the second round) points of damage from Divine Vengeance. (On the other hand, most level 16+ paladins--even multiclassed ones have more than a +7 cha bonus so he could get even more damage by using Divine Might--a feat that is easier for him to get)
This would be a much better feat if it were either:
A. A free action to activate.
B. Also effective against evil outsiders or any creature with the [evil] subtype
or
C. Lasted 2 rounds+1/point of charisma bonus
It could probably be beefed up in all of these ways without being overpowered.
1. Only against undead--this is a very big limitation; comparing this to Divine Might, for instance, Divine Might makes turning ability useful against any enemy.
2. Only when dealing damage is more effective than turning. This is also a big limitation since turning will often be more effective than damage against undead. So, it is useful only against unturnable undead or by characters who aren't very good at turning anyway--perhaps a multiclassed cleric or paladin. This also underscores the opportunity cost of using the feat: a use of it could have been a turning attempt and since you're obviously facing undead, a turning attempt might well be useful. Contrast this with Divine Might which doesn't have much of an effective opportunity cost most of the time since it can be used against creatures against whom turning is useless.
3. Only when the standard action you lose is likely to inflict less than (2d6)xthe number of attacks in the rest of that round and the next round that are likely to hit. So, for an unhasted 3rd level paladin with a 15 strength wielding a +1 longsword (1d8+3--average 7.5), Divine Vengeance is a bad idea. He gets an average of 7 damage in round 2 but gives up an average of 7.5 damage in round 1 (where it's potentially more useful).
In a best case scenario, Divine Vengeance could be quite useful--for instance, a hasted Ranger/Rogue/Paladin/Consecrated Harrier 10 with all of the dual wielding feats going after a vampire who is the target of his hunt (Blessings of Scripture +10
In that case, he might end up exchanging 25-30 points of damage from the hast action for an additional 30d6 (7 attacks/full attack action plus one from haste in the second round) points of damage from Divine Vengeance. (On the other hand, most level 16+ paladins--even multiclassed ones have more than a +7 cha bonus so he could get even more damage by using Divine Might--a feat that is easier for him to get)This would be a much better feat if it were either:
A. A free action to activate.
B. Also effective against evil outsiders or any creature with the [evil] subtype
or
C. Lasted 2 rounds+1/point of charisma bonus
It could probably be beefed up in all of these ways without being overpowered.
Archer said:
The feat only states that you get to add extra damage from attacks. As it is written, I do not believe that the player gets to make an attack as part of activation.
Personally, I think this feat has very limited usability.
Archer said:
Evidence?
Archer said:
We have no idea what their 'intent' was. Maybe they intended to have a cool sounding feat that would in effect soak up some power from those over the top and out of balance Clerics and Paladins.
I agree that it _should_ be errated to a free action. But until such time, it is a house rule to allow it to be used as a free action.
Last edited:
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
I felt generous and gave it a 2.
Spending an action to improve your damage a bit is amazingly lousy.
I think only a fool would use this feat unless they were Hasted, had 3 iterative attacks, Cleave, and a target rich environment.
Spending an action to improve your damage a bit is amazingly lousy.
I think only a fool would use this feat unless they were Hasted, had 3 iterative attacks, Cleave, and a target rich environment.
Elder-Basilisk said:
In a best case scenario, Divine Vengeance could be quite useful--for instance, a hasted Ranger/Rogue/Paladin/Consecrated Harrier 10 with all of the dual wielding feats going after a vampire who is the target of his hunt (Blessings of Scripture +10
One wondesr why not just give the character two Sunblades while you're at it?
Why the Rogue?
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Xarlen said:
One wondesr why not just give the character two Sunblades while you're at it?
Why the Rogue?
The extra damage from the sunblades would be the same with or without Divine Vengeance
He probably has them. . . .The rogue levels are to get the disguise and gather info prereqs for Consecrated Harrier--they also help out the character's damage when he's fighting living targets--if the character were a real hunter of the dead, he'd just be using positive energy bursts. . . .
Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
If you're going this route, you're better off building a shield-bashing Paladin and using Divine Shield instead of Divine Might.
Li Shenron
Legend
I am seriously started thinking the whole "standard action to activate" thing was a serious mistake by the author of the book, and it was probably added at the last second before printing because they noticed that the author haven't written anything about how much time it takes to use every single divine feats.
With the FAQ they have already timidly tried to fix up Divine Might, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more FAQs on other divine feats, but they won't change out that sentence in DotF, it's not WotC's habit of admitting design mistakes.
Sorry if I sound harsh, but I really think the divine feats are very different from each other, and not all of them look like an action, some look like just a bonus to another action, and I wouldn't expect them to be standard actions only because a Turn Undead attempt is.
This is the case for Divine Vengeance: if it requires a standard action to activate, you're wasting a Turn Undead attempt AND basically a round, is it worth it? Of course 100% not. If it is a standard action to activate+attack, why to say you get the bonus to all your attacks, when basically as a standard action you attack only once? AoO??? Not seriously. Why not just saying you get the bonus for one round worth of attacks, spend a daily attempt, and that would be a reasonable feat to have, don't you think so too? That would mean technically a free action to activate, I know, it's not what it says, but either it is a poorly designed feat or a poorly worded feat.
If you play it just like a bonus to damage for 1 full round at the expense of a Turn attempt, it is a decent feat: generally you can get a lot more usefulness from turning, but if the opponent is just one, and you would need a very luck roll to turn it, it is a good idea not to risk and go for the 100% sure bonus to damage.
With the FAQ they have already timidly tried to fix up Divine Might, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more FAQs on other divine feats, but they won't change out that sentence in DotF, it's not WotC's habit of admitting design mistakes.
Sorry if I sound harsh, but I really think the divine feats are very different from each other, and not all of them look like an action, some look like just a bonus to another action, and I wouldn't expect them to be standard actions only because a Turn Undead attempt is.
This is the case for Divine Vengeance: if it requires a standard action to activate, you're wasting a Turn Undead attempt AND basically a round, is it worth it? Of course 100% not. If it is a standard action to activate+attack, why to say you get the bonus to all your attacks, when basically as a standard action you attack only once? AoO??? Not seriously. Why not just saying you get the bonus for one round worth of attacks, spend a daily attempt, and that would be a reasonable feat to have, don't you think so too? That would mean technically a free action to activate, I know, it's not what it says, but either it is a poorly designed feat or a poorly worded feat.
If you play it just like a bonus to damage for 1 full round at the expense of a Turn attempt, it is a decent feat: generally you can get a lot more usefulness from turning, but if the opponent is just one, and you would need a very luck roll to turn it, it is a good idea not to risk and go for the 100% sure bonus to damage.
Similar Threads
