Worse than Apostle's Blessing in two ways (no and can't protect against artifacts) and better in one (can protect enchantments or planeswalkers). I'd normally rather have Apostle's Blessing, but the simpler version has its place.

Oh, wait, this can hit opponents' creatures? o.o That's a lot more versatile then. It can counter pump spells, make auras fall off, all sorts of good stuff. Wizards normally don't do that, but they did with Vines of Vastwood and a lot of people loved those extra sideways uses, so go for it :)

"Normally doesn't do that", really? I agree it's easy to forget that Stave Off can hit opponents' creatures, though. I didn't realize that until very late into costing this.

Mmm, wizards does try nowadays to move the more interesting stuff out to uncommon. It's, uh, less common for them to do it at common.

But yeah; they do do it, and this is interesting because of it.

Mmm, Stave Off is another example. I'd still argue it's unusual, the exception rather than the rule, so my "normally don't" statement was still accurate; there were just one or two more exceptions than I mentioned :)

I think stave off is one of those "different strokes" card. Timmy/new players see an Apostle's Blessing or Gods Willing, but more experienced players see a Hindering Light that can affect the opponent's permanent.

Basic protection is usually common these days. Mass (Brave the Elements, Faith's Shield), repeated (Emerge Unscathed) or longer-term (Holy Mantle) protection, on the other hand, get pushed up.

Even though this implementation is a bit unusual in its flexibility (I could see or a slightly higher cost), it's not the effect that is complex, so if Stave Off can be done at common from time to time, this can certainly happen at common too IMO.