Divine Vigor [Archive] - Wizards Community

Divine Vigor [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
GuntherFuzz8
06-11-07, 12:18 AM The descriptive text for Divine Vigor says that it can be used once per day per point of Charisma modifier. What if the character has a Charisma modifier of zero? Usually such a feat is listed as having a minimum of one. Was this a oversight in the descriptive text or do I need to rework my characters stats?
Vegepygmy
06-11-07, 01:06 AM The descriptive text for Divine Vigor says that it can be used once per day per point of Charisma modifier.No, it doesn't. It says you use one of your turn or rebuke undead attempts, which is quite a different thing.

It does, however, say that the effects last for a number of minutes equal to your Charisma modifier, and there is no minimum called out. So if you have a Charisma modifier of +0 or less, you gain no benefit from the feat.
GuntherFuzz8
06-11-07, 01:38 AM Thats actually what I meant to state but I failed my type clearly check :(. I was hoping that it was covered by errata somewhere that I hadn't seen, but suspected that I was screwed. Thanks for the quick answer.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GuntherFuzz8 06-11-07, 12:18 AM	The descriptive text for Divine Vigor says that it can be used once per day per point of Charisma modifier. What if the character has a Charisma modifier of zero? Usually such a feat is listed as having a minimum of one. Was this a oversight in the descriptive text or do I need to rework my characters stats?
Vegepygmy 06-11-07, 01:06 AM	The descriptive text for Divine Vigor says that it can be used once per day per point of Charisma modifier.No, it doesn't. It says you use one of your turn or rebuke undead attempts, which is quite a different thing. It does, however, say that the effects last for a number of minutes equal to your Charisma modifier, and there is no minimum called out. So if you have a Charisma modifier of +0 or less, you gain no benefit from the feat.
GuntherFuzz8 06-11-07, 01:38 AM	Thats actually what I meant to state but I failed my type clearly check :(. I was hoping that it was covered by errata somewhere that I hadn't seen, but suspected that I was screwed. Thanks for the quick answer.