Talk:Divine Boon

Evaluation

Using this is like a Ranger trying to use his whole skill bar without Expertise. I strongly advised to keep away from this unless you can quickly keep removing it and enchanting yourself with this if you need a quick boost of health, in which case, you are eating your energy bar anyway unless you are using it rarely.--ShadowFog 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

divine boon + spam = lose. divine boon + e-management = win. - Y0_ich_halt 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on guys, don't you see it? This enchantment is actually a nice equalizer. Try using it with an elementalist/monk-healer. This skill covers the divine favor and better healing prayer attributes completely. And used with the high energy storage of an elementalist the higher spell cost doesn't count at all. Huh? Using an ele as a healer? Sounds way stuuuuupid? Just try it. ^^Pudding 02:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

ure retarded --Cursed Angel 02:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

hmmm...seems someone didn't see the attribute of this enchantment. Hmmm...okay. Pretty useless skill.--Pudding 13:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

haha :P --Blood Anthem 13:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This skill is actually pretty good. I find myself using it, this on level 11 divine favor+Word of Healing actually healed this person's whole health. You can't say it sucks. 76.235.135.238 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Divine boon = an extra orison with every heal for 2 energy+1 pip, 1 pip = 0.3 energy per second, this spell isnt bad, might not be the greatest but it is powerful 76.26.189.65 18:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh how I miss boon prot... give us a way to get our Boon Prots back! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.216.72 (talk) at 02:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

Reversal of Fortune

Guardian

Draw Conditions

Reverse Hex

Melandru's Resilience

Signet of Devotion

Spirit Bond

Divine Boon

- Y0_ich_halt 12:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Use boon sig + divine boon + blessed sig. 14 divine 13 prot --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.54.172 (talk) at 16:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

Use of this skill with E/mo would be pointless

Yu lose the pip of regen and this only gives you a minimal 20hp heal on monk skills. Not mathematically worth the effort, though theres nothing wrong with a smart E/mo. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.31.252 (talk) at 08:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

Update

WTF BUFF? Am i missing something or is this just silly stupid OP? Justice 07:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think its just new skill balancers first of many miscalculations.209.136.71.235 15:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sucks to be a corsair, tho. 66.190.15.232 00:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, hadnt considered that. Used to run roj in JQ (imagine that) with divine boon + RoD and watchful. Justice 23:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Buff to Selfless Spirit makes this skill God

Life Sheath

Shield of Absorption

Guardian

Reverse Hex

Spirit Bond

Selfless Spirit

Divine Boon

Blank

The constant pro e-management from Selfless Spirit keeps my teams' red bars up without making my blue bar go down. I <3 this update. (Japanties 17:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

Call it a QQ

But I was really enjoying playing a smite monk before when they had some marginal utility outside of dropping Rays of Judgement and two-man farms. Divine Boon not affecting Smite Hex, Smite Condition and Reversal of Damage anymore means I won't be playing a smite monk anymore. Since I don't enjoy simply healing for healing's sake, that means I won't be playing a monk anymore. I understand the drive to maintain balance between healing and damage output, but I'm confident most people would agree that Smiting is far from overpowered and the heals from these skills with Divine Boon were only just enough to keep one or two players alive under mild duress. Band-aids at best. Oh, well. Sad day. Nobu 03:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just run Smiter's Boon? with a high DF rank anyway it shouldn't really be a problem, just heals for a bit less that's all. 82.8.227.172 14:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You're no longer playing a whole profession because they alter one skill? Oh please. Firoas. 16:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I kindof have to agree, making this work for prot and DF only is a horrible nerf to the skill functionality. Changes like this make it feel like Anet only wants us to run prot, and not heal or an odd healing smiter (like Nobu, not the countless farmers and RoJ's). Pushing prot. builds annoyingly like this makes healing prayers a much less welcome healer except in places that really need that spike healing... Only your prot. prayers monk will likely just mitigate the damage and the healing prayer monk's job anyways. And then healing off the damage still taken with their next enchant and "bonus healing". 68.41.122.155 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Because prot should always be better than healing. Protting requires more skill than healing because it is a bigger effort to telegraph and follow damage. Also, considering HB stacks with UA, healing prayers heal for 300 per spell so protection has to buffed to keep up. Pika Fan 10:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Firoas, I'm not playing the profession anymore because I can't play the profession the way I'd like to play it anymore. I'm not saying, "I hate monks, now!" and stomping my feet like a petulant child. I'm just saying that previously, I had flexibility, and Divine Boon was the one skill which really made that possible. I certainly felt FAR from overpowered, and for seemingly no good reason, that flexibility is completely removed. I suppose I could run Divine Boon and also use Smiter's Boon, but it's not practical for obvious reasons and would feel clunky and stupid and cobbled together, and who wants to play a build like that? I was really enjoying myself with this class before, and I'm just a bit sad that I won't be having the same fun like I did. Nobu 13:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, I was running something like this:

Castigation Signet

Reversal of Fortune

Reversal of Damage

Smite Condition

Smite Hex

Ray of Judgment

Blank

Divine Boon

As you can see, this is pretty freaking far from being high-damage or high-healing, and the damage it does do is sort of situational, but I had a good time playing with it since I could at least be a little help most of the time and still defend myself while knocking stuff down. I want to smite, but it's seemingly not what the designers want for monks since the skill line is almost entirely unsupported, and I guess that's their call. But when I thought I had finally found a way to work smiting into my average game play, it gets another whack from the nerfbat... and a sort of inexplicable one, to boot. Honestly, though, if anyone can provide a good reason to remove smiting from the effects of Divine Boon, please explain. A big part of my disappointment here stems from being entirely unable to comprehend the reasoning behind the change. Nobu 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

what are you bringing arcane mimicry? they wont stack unless ya do that or steal the skill somehow... not that there's any real reason to heal for over 300 anyways unless you just really fail at monking. or of course if your healing guild lords or sumthin.

Well, I think your taking the whole buff/nerf to Divine Boon a bit too hard, but then again it's your choice. But to be honest, I have never been happy with smiting prayers in general. Some skills feel right to me, like the 3 smite skills that target allies on your bar. But the rest seem out of place for monks. If a lot if not all of the skills for smite attribute were along the lines of the ones on your bar we would have a viable smiter. However what we get are a few good smite skills, some crappy damage skills, and RoJ(ele ripoff). My guess for the "buff/nerf" is that heal monks raise red bars, prot monks prevent damage, and smite monks deal damage. However it does bother me that we can combine heal and prot with Divine Boon and get an efficient monk, but smiters are excluded? Instead of a prot/smiter backing up his team wile dishing some damage on top of getting a (kinda) Orison with every spell, we get RoJ, a ridiculous change that lets smiters feel like an ele, or a gdi commander.--Godfather XP 03:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed

Nerfing this skill cripples any reasonable healing capacity for smiters. Smiting with high DF made you more of a hybrid with style; now smiters are gimpy elementalists. For the guy who suggested smiters boon ... 25 energy for 5 seconds of bonus does not compare to the easily maintained 5e enchantment. Especially since smite healing gets energy hungry. Icefalc0n 01:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A character shouldn't be able to deal massive AoE damage while removing hexes/removing conditions/preventing damage/healing... did you never play against the 3-4 smite monk teams in TA? :/ – Emmett 01:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

yea those teams should not exist. i'd prefer the smite monk as a buff class, which was(in pve at least) made a bit more viable with the Strenght of Honor buff. if the cheap low-damage, high recharge smiting skills would be changed to more buff skills, it would remove the need to keep them as underpowered as they are because a team of 4 monks couldn't abuse them, and maybe bring smiting prayers into play some more. currently if you want to buff others as smite monk you can maybe keep strength of honor on your preferred melee character or 2, and do little else, maybe an aura of balthazar once in a while... with more non-upkeep buffs it'd be a lot more active smiting involved and interesting builds could be made. --83.77.160.217 01:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I could write a ton of multi-monk team builds that would be a pain in the rear to play against for the simple fact that playing against any well-designed team of monks is going to be extremely annoying, but if that's your argument, I'd like to hear how this skill specifically was being abused in multi-monk team play. If that's the reason it was nerfed, then it might be understandable, but it's still another heavy blow to a skill line which should be receiving the opposite treatment. Nobu 03:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Smiters still have powerful healing options through Divine Favor providing you're willing to max it out to 13-16 levels. If you really go all the way with 16DF then you get some eye-popping stuff like 200 point Blessed Light, 63 point Divine Healings and 106 point Sig of Devotion and +51 to all your friendly smites (RoD, SC, SH). There's also some good unlinked skills like Empathic Removal and Holy Veil and even things like Infuse Health and Healing Touch if you want something like that. A lot of choices depend on the format you're building for, naturally, but you can get a good amount of healing and cleaning into a divine/smite bar. Not much prot though, but hey, you give that up for damage reflection (RoD, SC, SH). Oh yeah, and in PvE... Smiter's Boon is still teh sickness at 16DF. 102 point heals on all your friendly smites should tell you why that got nerfed for PvP (Reversal of Damage becomes nearly as good as Glimmer... and reflects damage. Er, ok). Cirian 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have a sup rune as a monk, you are no longer viable in any form of PvP. -Auron 17:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Except pvp where you kill tightly grouped NPCs. And since he was talking about Smiter's Boon, he obviously wasn't talking about pvp. Manifold 06:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The only real issue I have with Divine Boon not affecting smite spells and Smiter's Boon being removed completly is the fact that those spells could encourage effective hybrid heal/smiter or prot/smiters. Currently smite monks have an odd place in the game, though they do have armor-ignoring damage, smite monks realy cannot utilize Divine Favor to their advantage in an effective way. Though a Divine Boon+Smiter's Boon combination would prove too powerful as Cirian said above, those skills could have been nerfed to limit their healing potential, but instead we saw their complete removal from smiting monk bars. So instead of getting an interesting hybrid monk that can prove effective, instead we get RoJ, the only encouragement I can think of to use smite monks that would prove completly useless in PvP unless attacking npcs or heroes that don't simply side step out of the small aoe to avoid RoJ's dmg.--Godfather XP 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rebirth

Does Rebirth get benefit from DB? --Teisei 「ページ」 「会話」 11:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Divine Favor's heal bonus lost?

Does Divine Boon's healing on skills it affects support Divine Favor's healing bonus? --51.15.37.97 23:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe only the skill that causes Divine Boon to trigger gets the benefit from DF, no separate DF healing package from the extra healing from Boon. Jeree95 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Mubin Healer

Protective Spirit

Spell Shield

Signet of Devotion

Draw Conditions

Deny Hexes

Blessed Light

Watchful Healing

Divine Boon

Protection Prayers 12+2, Divine Favor 12+1+3. [ OwAT4mHD5pe07KJ3kvXrDuyRAA ] --92.222.38.67 04:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the sic

Since the description of my edit was apparently misunderstood allow me to provide some clarity. The skill's description is only grammatically incorrect if you read the word "spell" as having both "Protection Prayer" and "Divine Favor" as antecedents, because "Protection Prayer spell" would be incorrect. If you read the sentence treating "Protection Prayer" as standalone and "Divine Favor spell" as standalone, then it is grammatically correct. To make it clearer, "whenever you cast a Protection Prayer that targets an ally..." would likely not be seen as a mistake. This was likely the intent of whoever wrote the skill description. As a result, I don't feel it's appropriate (or necessary) to label this as a "mistake". 216.58.117.162 10:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for being way late. The attribute line is called Protection Prayers, plural form. So it's a mistake. Steve1 (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, but the phrase "Protection Prayer" could be considered synonymous with "Protection Prayers spell". Considering the overall mess that is Prophecies, it wouldn't be surprising if this meaning was intended. Mist Y (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I'm trying to say. My main point is basically just that the sentence can be read in a way that is grammatically correct, unlike, say, Boon Signet which is both grammatically incorrect and commits the same "mistake" as this skill with the attribute names. So if the [sic] was put there solely because somebody thought the sentence was grammatically incorrect, it should be removed. To be clear, if the description of Boon Signet read any of the following, I would be also be arguing that it is not a mistake on this basis:

• "...Healing or Protection Prayers spell that..."
• "...Healing Prayer or Protection Prayer that..."
• "...Healing Prayer or Protection Prayers spell that..."
• "...Healing Prayers spell or Protection Prayer that..."

Of course, it's true that this can still be interpreted as a mistake if you are extremely strict and methodical about how skill descriptions should be formulated (e.g. if you take the position that attributes are proper nouns (hence the capitalization) and can't be used 'for parts' like here - or alternatively, if you argue that because there is no formal skill type "prayer" in the game, the single proper way to formulate this sentence is to explicitly say "Protection Prayers spell") but I think that's a bit overboard. I'll accept it if that is the (un)official wiki position. 216.58.117.162 00:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's another example: Flare. This sic also has a hover text that explains the rationale behind considering it a mistake, and I don't agree with it at all. The entire description is grammatically correct either way. Earlier in the description, the word happens to be used generically ("a flare") and later in the skill description, it appears as a proper noun (i.e. the skill "Flare"). Is this enough to warrant explicitly calling out the earlier instance as *an error* for using the word that also happens to be the skill's name in a common noun form? Not in my opinion. It's an eyesore at best and pedantic at worst. 216.58.117.162 01:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Final example, and there are a lot more like this: Shield of Judgment. Especially for a wiki where we are seeking to faithfully document what's in the game itself, I do think it's appropriate to use a [sic] when other editors might otherwise immediately think that the transcription is a mistake - i.e. when things are obviously grammatically incorrect. Healer's Boon is a good example of where it is appropriate - it's easy to conclude that another editor might have made a little typo with a period instead of a comma. However, in the case of Shield of Judgment there is no particular reason that a reader might immediately think that the description is wrong or needs correction. This [sic] represents a mistake only in the sense that the description is missing information that the editor felt should have been included (or in this case the wrong information about its functionality), and that is better documented as an anomaly in my opinion. Other editors aren't going to read that description, think it's an error, correct it, and thus disrupt the wiki as a reflection of what's actually in-game. That is the case where a [sic] is appropriate, in my opinion - as a sort of warning against correction impulses for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the wiki. Not as a kind of correction itself. 216.58.117.162 02:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sadly all protection prayers skills are spells, so we can't verify if your theory was correct. But this is not the only instance of such a thing happening. Healing burst has "Disables your Smiting Prayers (20 seconds).", while Gift of Health has "Disable your Healing Prayers skills". (both smiting and healing have a signet). For flare or Healers Boon it's more that it's not following the usual convention. It's not a mistake it's just odd.--Ruine Eternelle 09:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

SoJ: That's not a sic in my opinion either. It's a bug/anomaly. Sic shold be removed, note explains the issue.

Flare: While it's grammatically correct either way, I think the sic should stay - compare with Lightning Javelin.

Flare / LJ: Both are missing the subject of the sentence. It could be: (You) send out a ... or (The spell) sends out a ... and both cases would be correct (@RE deleted part).

HB, we agree. In the case of DB it's admittedly not quite as clear cut. I'd argue that a reader knowledgable about GW would expect PP with a plural s (since that's the name of teh attribute) in DB's description. I have serious doubts that a normal reader would start hypothesizing about what a develepor might or might not have thought or intended. Cheers, Steve1 (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So if we were to sketch out a basic policy based on our discussion so far, it might look something like this:

• Instances where [sic] should be kept
  • When a sentence is obviously grammatically incorrect in a way that people will be tempted to correct (e.g. Boon Signet, Healer's Boon, Dwarven Stability)
  • When the description is grammatically correct, but experienced players may be tempted to correct based on established patterns - these are usually about what should be considered a proper noun - skill names, attribute names, major mechanics (e.g. Flare, Arcane Conundrum)
• Borderline cases: leave alone for now
  • When the [sic] documents differences between the skill's full and concise description or missing information, where people might otherwise be tempted to edit in the missing information (e.g. Harrier's Grasp, Glimmering Mark)
  • When the description is grammatically correct, there is also not necessarily any clear and established pattern about use as a proper noun, but where experienced players might nevertheless be tempted to edit in what seem like obvious/minor corrections (e.g. Divine Boon)
  • When the description documents a grammatical error that is not immediately obvious or only appears under certain circumstances, and is unlikely to be seen as a transcription error and corrected by other editors (e.g. Keystone Signet, Star Burst)
• Instances where [sic] can be removed
  • When the [sic] only exists to document missing/wrong/anomalous functionality/information, this should be documented as an anomaly instead, and in most cases a note already exists anyway (e.g. Shield of Judgment, Sunspear Rebirth Signet, Finale of Restoration, "Together as One!", even Fylinn, Sworn to Winds)

In many cases there does not seem to be consistency with what is considered a proper noun (e.g. Weapon Spell is treated as one for the description of Weapons of Three Forges and this is not marked with a [sic], while for Mending Grip it has been marked as a mistake - admittedly there is even inconsistency in comparing the cases because spell is capitalized differently between them). Another edge case I said was "borderline" above is when a description reads something like "next 0...1...3 spells" and it's flagged with [sic] (Star Burst, Keystone Signet). Despite the fact that it is grammatically incorrect in the singular case, I don't feel it's the kind of thing people are going to interpret as a transcription error and try to correct, so the [sic] only serves to differentiate the descriptions from those that do change properly to accommodate non-plural cases (Lightning Touch). I feel that these instances would also be better documented as anomalies. I won't be changing any of these cases because that seems to be the direction this discussion is taking, but I do find the constant insistence on marking every mistake in an inline fashion, no matter how minor or inconspicuous, to negatively impact the readability of the wiki. The current wiki atmosphere seems to document things with a somewhat subjective editorial lens. The [sic]s often exist to serve as corrections themselves rather than more pragmatically serving only to signal to other editors that an obvious mistake is intended and properly documents the content.

Anyway, ignoring the previous paragraph for now which would make this discussion significantly more complicated, are there any objections if I follow the bullet points above in the future? 216.58.117.162 20:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)