Divine Protection Errata


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well the good days are over. Divine Protection from ACG got nerfed from "Give me Paladin 2nd level Divine Grace" to 1/day immediate action on one save.

I got to say it is probably for the best. That feat was ridiculously broken.

I had it on a RotRL character, rocking 34 as my lowest save (Couldn't afford 2 levels in Paladin.)

I had it on another home creation.

I had it in a Dragon Conflict event on 2 characters I'm running for GenCon.

It was in PVP tournament characters I've played.

It was prolific. Every character that is CHA based, had this feat. If they didn't have the pre-res, they took them if possible before taking this feat.

It was dumb.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad to hear about this change, but maybe they nerfed it too much.

Now it is something I would probably never take.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

i had one character with it. It was a nice defense boost for him. That was it. Now I have to figure out what to swap it for.

Of course, this was also in a high-power AP campaign.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Of course, this was also in a high-power AP campaign.

Likewise.

Globetrotter wrote:

I'm glad to hear about this change, but maybe they nerfed it too much.

Now it is something I would probably never take.

It went from "every CHA character takes this feat" to "who would waste a feat". But not every option should be broken (old) or required to be useful (new).


11 people marked this as a favorite.

...Welp, I misread the errata on this. I thought they had reduced it to a bonus on one save, not a bonus on one save once per day. The former would have been a great change that would help make Swashbucklers more viable; the latter ensures nobody is going to use this. Once-per-day feats my ass.


I would still take it on the right character, i.e. one with already decent/good if not OMG-amazing Saves,
i.e. i already expect to pass most saves, but for the one that i do fail, i can use this 1/day option.
i believe even a Paladin might take it?, if their Saves/CHA isn't super amazing, it lets them double up on CHA on 1 save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't double up on a stat to a thing. That's a general rule that the feat reminds you of in its text. This feat was always useless to Paladins.

Furthermore, unless you're a Swashbuckler you have to add the bonus before you even roll the dice so. Completely, and utterly useless for your purposes.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
...Welp, I misread the errata on this. I thought they had reduced it to a bonus on one save, not a bonus on one save once per day. The former would have been a great change that would help make Swashbucklers more viable; the latter ensures nobody is going to use this. Once-per-day feats my ass.

Yeah, the short description doesn't say the once per day. They errata'd the chart and the feat in full, if you stopped reading at the chart update, you wouldn't have seen the once per day part in the full description.

As it is now this feat is almost fully worthless. Only way I can see it being used is if you could use it after you rolled but before you knew what the DC was vs what you were saving against.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep. The pendulum has swung too far the other direction. It's like crane wing all over again.

There really has to be a reasonable middle ground between overpowered and awful. I don't understand why this keeps happening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's really hilarious to me is that the short description for Divine Protection is a completely reasonable and balanced feat that enables all those people who want to pump charisma instead of wisdom, regardless of their class choice.

But the short description isn't what the feat does.

Silver Crusade Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I thought they had reduced it to a bonus on one save, not a bonus on one save once per day. The former would have been a great change that would help make Swashbucklers more viable; the latter ensures nobody is going to use this.

Total agreement.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

They also relaxed the prereqs--now you just need 5 ranks in Religion.

I could easily see taking this feat with a Sorcerer, or other Cha-based caster. Once per day +X on a save (where X is your casting stat modifier) is actually pretty sweet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

What's really hilarious to me is that the short description for Divine Protection is a completely reasonable and balanced feat that enables all those people who want to pump charisma instead of wisdom, regardless of their class choice.

But the short description isn't what the feat does.

That's interesting - Steadfast Personality also had a discrepancy between short and long text, Mark confirmed the short description was correct and the long rewrite was in error. Maybe the long text on Divine Protection is wrong too?

Edit: Hm... If Divine Protection adds Charisma to one save then that'd put Oracles on equal footing with all the other divine casters - they'd take Divine Protection: Fortitude and have roughly the same fortitude saves as clerics. That'd be a great change!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there a link to the ruling?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Downloadable PDF here.

Change the Divine Protection feat’s Prerequisites section to
“Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks.”
and change the Benefit section to “Benefit: Once per day as an immediate action before rolling a saving throw, you can add your Charisma modifier on that saving throw. As usual, this does not stack if you already apply your Charisma modifier to that saving throw.
If you possess the charmed life class feature, you can instead apply Divine Protection’s bonus after rolling the saving throw but before the result is revealed.”


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was I reading the original printing of Divine protection wrong? everyone make it seem like it was easy to get. I did not think it was over powered. Was it really good yes over powered/broken I don't think so.

Yes it was a no brainier feat for oracles, cleric and war priest, but for other class to it, it require huge level dips to get it or a long wait for the with small dip for the other divine caster classes.

4 levels of war priest, 3 levels of cleric, 4 levels of oracle. to get the 2nd level divine spell portion of the requirement along with one of the other requirements of blessing/mystery or domains. That a huge dip for any other cha base character to get a bonus to your saves.

I glad they made this change before I got to 5th level with my Oracle of Metal, because I am not going to take it any more because it is worthless.

Maybe they should have weaken the feat a little bit to static +2 or +1 Sacred bonus to all Saves, or leave it as is and make the Requirements little higher like you need to be able to cast 3rd level divine spells. It strength is supposed to be equal to 1/2 2nd level power, but odds are most classes are not going to get it until 7th or higher anyway because of the level dips.

I think the real reason this took a hit and other feats in this books is that they encouraged multi classing and level dipping, and pathfinder really does not like you doing that.

as others have stated Scalpel would would have fixed the issues there was no need for hammer.


Welp, not a universal fix, but you can change it to a charmed life style save bonus instead of a divine grace style save bonus in your home games.


It is easier now to dip two levels of Paladin then 4 of something else, especially if your DM allows the old 3.5 versions of different alignments like Paladin of Freedom and so forth.

Grand Lodge

Kainpen, most warpriests don't have a positive charisma so it definitely wasn't a no-brainer for warpriests.


maybe not but they could if they could take it easily if they did. Some may have invest in it if they wanted to use Eldritch Heritage feats and orc bloodline. easy way to make up for not putting as many points in STR from the start. I do it with my fighters, the Extra CHA give them the ability to do more then just be normal fighter. Same could apply for war priest. Then it becomes a no brainier for them that have a decent CHA.

now the way the feat is, No one would won't even consider taking it.


KainPen wrote:

Yes it was a no brainier feat for oracles, cleric and war priest, but for other class to it, it require huge level dips to get it or a long wait for the with small dip for the other divine caster classes.

9th levels arcane spells are also broken for wizards/sorcerers/arcanists, the fact that the other classes can't use them easily don't balance them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

but it does not mean they can't use them either, that what use magic device is for and it actual that make it very easy to use them. Easier then getting this feat.

Late access to stuff is a method of trying balance stuff in the game system it self. Also the game was never made to be balanced at all or abilities and power would be the same. It was meant to be group experience and use of team work the various strengths and weakness. Players verse environment.

An all balanced system was tried in 4th edition D&D it failed. People decided to play an unbalanced system called pathfinder instead and it became a success.

is the feat/Power really good yes no one will argue that. Was it need to be completely crippled as a option no. Could it have been tone down.
yes

+2 to all saves would have been perfect option and you know what that was the exact number and option That was used in D&D for paladins pre 3rd edition. Still would have been a good feat considering requirements, would have been something for everyone to run out and want to take no.


KainPen wrote:


+2 to all saves would have been perfect option and you know what that was the exact number and option That was used in D&D for paladins pre 3rd edition. Still would have been a good feat considering requirements, would have been something for everyone to run out and want to take no.

If you want +2 to all saves there is already a set of feats for that. Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude. One feat combining all of those is way off balance. +1 to all would be about right.

And true not all options are equal or balanced, one feat doing what it normally takes 3 to get goes a bit far though IMO.

Once per day may be a little under powered, but again, IMO, not significantly so. The typical adventuring day isn't likely having you make more than a few saves per day. Though that could vary wildly depending on what you are fighting. Invading a conclave of wizards? All you will be doing is making saves all day long. Attacking a strong hold of giants? Mostly your going to be far more worried about AC/healing to survive through it - with maybe a couple saves thrown in for the fire giant priestess encounter.

Even if every encounter contains a caster of some kind, chances are you aren't an exclusive target for all spells cast - your party is going to be the target some of the times. Sometimes it will be a low level spell that you can reliably make the save without using your once per day ability.


Make your mind, either is not overpowered or it is but it is cool because 4e edition fallacy, it can't be both.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
...Welp, I misread the errata on this. I thought they had reduced it to a bonus on one save, not a bonus on one save once per day. The former would have been a great change that would help make Swashbucklers more viable; the latter ensures nobody is going to use this. Once-per-day feats my ass.

it's now available to martials, it couldn't be passive, they had to nerf it beyond belief.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

What's really hilarious to me is that the short description for Divine Protection is a completely reasonable and balanced feat that enables all those people who want to pump charisma instead of wisdom, regardless of their class choice.

But the short description isn't what the feat does.

That's interesting - Steadfast Personality also had a discrepancy between short and long text, Mark confirmed the short description was correct and the long rewrite was in error. Maybe the long text on Divine Protection is wrong too?

Edit: Hm... If Divine Protection adds Charisma to one save then that'd put Oracles on equal footing with all the other divine casters - they'd take Divine Protection: Fortitude and have roughly the same fortitude saves as clerics. That'd be a great change!

Do you have a link to Mark's Steadfast Personality ruling? I am having trouble finding it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
KainPen wrote:

Yes it was a no brainier feat for oracles, cleric and war priest, but for other class to it, it require huge level dips to get it or a long wait for the with small dip for the other divine caster classes.

9th levels arcane spells are also broken for wizards/sorcerers/arcanists, the fact that the other classes can't use them easily don't balance them.

The fact that most campaigns don't go up to 17th level or above makes this also largely irrelevant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

A simpler change for Divine Protection might have been to eliminate ALL prerequisites and simply have it grant +1 to all saves. A feat like that would be at close to the same power level as the existing feats that grant +2 to a single save.


bbangerter wrote:
KainPen wrote:


+2 to all saves would have been perfect option and you know what that was the exact number and option That was used in D&D for paladins pre 3rd edition. Still would have been a good feat considering requirements, would have been something for everyone to run out and want to take no.

If you want +2 to all saves there is already a set of feats for that. Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude. One feat combining all of those is way off balance. +1 to all would be about right.

And true not all options are equal or balanced, one feat doing what it normally takes 3 to get goes a bit far though IMO.

Once per day may be a little under powered, but again, IMO, not significantly so. The typical adventuring day isn't likely having you make more than a few saves per day. Though that could vary wildly depending on what you are fighting. Invading a conclave of wizards? All you will be doing is making saves all day long. Attacking a strong hold of giants? Mostly your going to be far more worried about AC/healing to survive through it - with maybe a couple saves thrown in for the fire giant priestess encounter.

Even if every encounter contains a caster of some kind, chances are you aren't an exclusive target for all spells cast - your party is going to be the target some of the times. Sometimes it will be a low level spell that you can reliably make the save without using your once per day ability.

But remember it is Cha to Save 1/day.

If it was +3 to a save 1/day, then fine. But undefined 1/day is worthless (without the previous ruling that you can't add Cha to a save if have Cha as a base modifier).

You have to be a class that has good Cha, not already using Cha for saves (Oracle out), and wants a 1/day feat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quandary wrote:

I would still take it on the right character, i.e. one with already decent/good if not OMG-amazing Saves,

i.e. i already expect to pass most saves, but for the one that i do fail, i can use this 1/day option.

This doesn't work. You have to use it BEFORE you roll (another new limitation people seem to forget about). That means you use it, roll a natural 20, and come to the realization that you've just wasted your once per day ability.

Scarab Sages

It's only slightly good for Swashbucklers. They usually have a decent CHA, crappy saves, and are the only ones that can apply it after the roll.

It's still worse for them than Iron Will or Great Fortitude.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It was clearly overpowered pre-nerf.

It is clearly underpowered post-nerf.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Tormsskull wrote:

It was clearly overpowered pre-nerf.

It is clearly underpowered post-nerf.

/thread


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I fail to understand why things are continuously, wholly destroyed like this.

Yes, +Cha to all saves was very powerful.
Yes, Divine Protection beat out all the +2-one save feats.
Yes, +Cha to one save, 1/day, as an immediate action, before you roll the save is just about useless.
Yes, it is intended to, allegedly, make swashbucklers more appealing.
No, it has not done so, at least for me.

Yes, I will never be using the new Divine Protection,

Sovereign Court

Imbicatus wrote:

It's only slightly good for Swashbucklers. They usually have a decent CHA, crappy saves, and are the only ones that can apply it after the roll.

It's still worse for them than Iron Will or Great Fortitude.

How many times a day do you usually fail fort/will by 1-2 points for saves that really matter? (separately - not combined)

If it's rarely more than once (it is for me), then that makes Divine Protection very competitive with the two of them for Swashbucklers - better most of the time.

It's also a competitive choice for Oracles, Sorcerers, and some bards who can use it for +7 or more. I'd consider it to use against save vs death spells - though I wouldn't grab it early for them.


Part of it for me was that I'm an old school purist..... the original core classes can be outshone in terms of flavour and RP factor by follow ons BUT should NEVER be usurped in terms of power by any of the new classes. And before anyone jumps in... I've playing RPG's for 25+ years and many of my fellow old timers feel this way.

For arcane casters this truth still holds.... the wizard although quite dull in comparison to the subsequent arcane casters still is No 1 in power.

For divine casters, Divine Prot IMO raised the Oracle head and shoulders above the cleric in terms of power whilst simultaneously being far more flavoursome..... ergo goes against the grain.... ergo WRONG!!

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Flavor is not a balance for power.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seniority in getting written is also not a good reason to determine power rankings, either. It also doesn't change the fact that Divine Protection was ridiculously strong for the low cost of a couple skill points and a single feat slot for anyone who could benefit from it. It should have never been written in the first place.


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Flavor is not a balance for power.

The problem with that is it is a gaping hole... for power creep.

Every class must have more and new abilities than its predecessor...... or its boring!!

The Shaman and Arcanist are classic examples of this...


Seranov wrote:
Seniority in getting written is also not a good reason to determine power rankings, either. It also doesn't change the fact that Divine Protection was ridiculously strong for the low cost of a couple skill points and a single feat slot for anyone who could benefit from it. It should have never been written in the first place.

I agree it shouldnt have

However having played the game for 25+ years me and my friends do know something of what were talking about in terms of what does and doesnt work and how class power should be distributed....

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

For games other than Pathfinder, sure. But your 20+ years don't mean squat in the context of Pathfinder. The fact that you're arguing that the Fighter, Rogue and Monk (because they came first!) should be stronger than every other class that came after them is pretty clear evidence of that.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is space in class design for flavor features, and for power features.

5e design refers to flavor abilities as "ribbons".

A Storm Sorcerer might (and this is a rough example since I honestly don't remember the specific level and ability) might learn at level 7 to control the weather in his immediate space to a degree, but at-will. He can at his leisure make the wind whip his robes around or he can stay perfectly dry in a storm. It's not giving him Power, as a level 6 ability might give him Cha to damage with Electric spells.

You would not think that his personal weather control is a worse ability than adding his casting stat to damage, because it's growing the character in a different way.

A flavor drawback (such as a strict code) should be balanced with a flavor feature, not a power feature.

Liberty's Edge

Classes should play differently but evenly. One class shouldn't be inherently more powerful than the next at the same class level, but they should have differing mechanics as to how they play. That's the problem with people who spout the 4th edition fallacy, they say they made a system where characters were equal and no one liked it. But what really happened was they made a system that made so many characters play the same mechanically that it didn't really matter what you were playing. I understand creating different, but equal classes is pretty hard to do, but that doesn't mean that shouldn't be the goal. /derail

As for Divine Protection, it's a shame that it ended up where it is, there are so many more alternatives that would have created a useful, but not overpowered feat. Cha instead of x for one save would be powerful, but not game breaking. +1 to all saves would have been good. Once per day re-roll a save would have been good (though you can already get this as a trait). Even once per day, after the roll but before seeing the result you can add your Cha mod would have been alright, but right now, this just seems awful. As is, this is only an okay feat for swashbucklers, but as mentioned above, the other +2 to a save feats are all better than this. And it just serves to remind me of Paizo's blatant attempt to try and get everyone to like the swashbuckler, by making options terrible for anyone else.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

the wizard should honestly be brought back, but not anything to do with it's seniority, likewise stuff should be better than the fighter regardless of how old it is.


Bandw2 wrote:
the wizard should honestly be brought back, but not anything to do with it's seniority, likewise stuff should be better than the fighter regardless of how old it is.

Personally, I don't think anything should be better at fighting than the fighter, if the fighter can't really do anything other than fight. But really, I don't think it's good design to make a class that can't do anything but fight.


Melkiador wrote:


Personally, I don't think anything should be better at fighting than the fighter, if the fighter can't really do anything other than fight. But really, I don't think it's good design to make a class that can't do anything but fight.

+100...

"Hi there whats your name"

"Fighter"

"And what do you do?"

"Fight"

"Anything else.. any hobbies, interesting extras?"

"No... I fight..,. therefore I am"

"Kudos friend"

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately, the Fighter being the best at fighting ship sailed in 1985 when the Barbarian was introduced to 1st edition D&D. There was a little bit of a comeback in 2nd edition when Grand Mastery was fighter only, but it's never really been the best at fighting ever.

Community & Digital Content Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. Asking what another person "is smoking" because they have a different point of view isn't helpful.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Silver Surfer wrote:
Melkiador wrote:


Personally, I don't think anything should be better at fighting than the fighter, if the fighter can't really do anything other than fight. But really, I don't think it's good design to make a class that can't do anything but fight.

+100...

"Hi there whats your name"

"Fighter"

"And what do you do?"

"Fight"

"Anything else.. any hobbies, interesting extras?"

"No... I fight..,. therefore I am"

"Kudos friend"

so, basically it was made for an mmo and not ttrpgs, okay.

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Divine Protection Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.