D&D 5E How good is the healer feat compared to Hit Dice?

[Olrox17]

Greetings, I'm going to share this little comparative analysis I've made. I wanted to find out how the healing granted by the healer feat compares to the healing that a party can expect from hit dice expenditure.

Assumptions for the sake of the analysis:

• PC parties are assumed to get 2,5 short rests per day. The DMG assumes 2 rests per day, but in my experience parties often need a third short rest to get through a challenging adventuring day, so I'm going to assume 2,5 rests: sometimes 2 rests, sometimes 3.
• The average PC I'm going to use for the comparison is a d8 character with 14 Con at levels 1-11, 16 Con at levels 12-18, 18 Con at levels 19-20. I think this is a decent representation of a 5e PC of average toughness, but YMMV.
• No song of rest.

Average healing done by healer feat over 2,5 short rests (so, 3,5 uses) on a single character

Spoiler

1. 1d6+5*3,5 (29,75)
2. 1d6+6*3,5 (33,25)
3. 1d6+7*3,5 (36,75)
4. 1d6+8 *3,5(40,25)
5. 1d6+9*3,5 (43,75)
6. 1d6+10*3,5 (47,25)
7. 1d6+11 *3,5(50,75)
8. 1d6+12*3,5 (54,25)
9. 1d6+13 *3,5(57,75)
10. 1d6+14 *3,5(61,25)
11. 1d6+15 *3,5(64,75)
12. 1d6+16 *3,5(68,25)
13. 1d6+17*3,5 (71,75)
14. 1d6+18*3,5 (75,25)
15. 1d6+19*3,5 (78,75)
16. 1d6+20 *3,5(82,25)
17. 1d6+21*3,5 (85,75)
18. 1d6+22*3,5 (89,25)
19. 1d6+23*3,5 (92,75)
20. 1d6+24*3,5 (96,25)

Average healing done by using all HDs of a D8 character with 14-16-18 Con

Spoiler

1. 1d8+2 (6,5)
2. 2d8+4 (13)
3. 3d8+6 (19,5)
4. 4d8+8 (26)
5. 5d8+10 (32,5)
6. 6d8+12 (39)
7. 7d8+14 (45,5)
8. 8d8+16 (52)
9. 9d8+18 (58,5)
10. 10d8+20 (65)
11. 11d8+22 (71,5)
12. 12d8+36 (90)
13. 13d8+39 (97,5)
14. 14d8+42 (105)
15. 15d8+45 (112,5)
16. 16d8+48 (120)
17. 17d8+51 (127,5)
18. 18d8+54 (135)
19. 19d8+76 (161,5)
20. 20d8+80 (170)

Comparison

Spoiler

1. 1d8+2 (6,5) 1d6+5 (29,75) (X4,5)
2. 2d8+4 (13) 1d6+6 (33,25) (X2,6)
3. 3d8+6 (19,5) 1d6+7 (36,75) (X1,9)
4. 4d8+8 (26) 1d6+8 (40,25) (X1,6)
5. 5d8+10 (32,5) 1d6+9 (43,75) (X1,4)
6. 6d8+12 (39) 1d6+10 (47,25) (X1,2)
7. 7d8+14 (45,5) 1d6+11 (50,75) (X1,1)
8. 8d8+16 (52) 1d6+12 (54,25) (X1)
9. 9d8+18 (58,5) 1d6+13 (57,75) (X1)
10. 10d8+20 (65) 1d6+14 (61,25) (X0,9)
11. 11d8+22 (71,5) 1d6+15 (64,75) (X0,9)
12. 12d8+36 (90) 1d6+16 (68,25) (X0,8)
13. 13d8+39 (97,5) 1d6+17 (71,75) (X0,7)
14. 14d8+42 (105) 1d6+18 (75,25) (X0,7)
15. 15d8+45 (112,5) 1d6+19 (78,75) (X0,7)
16. 16d8+48 (120) 1d6+20 (82,25) (X0,7)
17. 17d8+51 (127,5) 1d6+21 (85,75) (X0,7)
18. 18d8+54 (135) 1d6+22 (89,25) (X0,7)
19. 19d8+76 (161,5) 1d6+23 (92,75) (X0,6)
20. 20d8+80 (170) 1d6+24 (96,25) (X0,6)

So, the healer feat appears to heal vastly more than total HD at very low levels, a bit more at low-mid levels, gradually going down at higher levels. At level 20, the healer feat heals a bit more than half of all daily HDs.
Over 20 levels, the average multiplier is 1,215: the feat is basically the equivalent of a little more than doubling your party's HD total.
If a campaign never reaches high levels, the average multiplier is much higher: for a level 1 - level 7 campaign, the multiplier would be 2,04: basically the equivalent of tripling your party's HD total (although the earliest levels, the ones where the feat is most powerful, require relatively low amounts of xp to go through).

So, why this comparison? I was entertaining the idea of a house rule that bans the healer feat, while increasing PC's HD total as compensation. Looking at these numbers, doubling the HD total might be fair enough, tripling might be overcompensation.

 

[NotAYakk]

Healer's big advantage over HD is the ability to bring people up from 0 (the first time with 1d6+4+level HP, after that with 1 HP).

 

[DND_Reborn]

So, why this comparison? I was entertaining the idea of a house rule that bans the healer feat, while increasing PC's HD total as compensation. Looking at these numbers, doubling the HD total might be fair enough, tripling might be overcompensation.

Are you doing this because you find PCs aren't using enough HD during short rests?

A feat is a hefty expense IMO, and it does rely on having sufficient healer's kits to heal an entire party each a few times daily. So personally I don't think it is too strong, but instead of banning the feat, what about lessening its impact? If you removed the +4, and just made it a d6 + character level, would that make it more reasonable?

 

[Olrox17]

I'm going to give a little background.
We've concluded a level 3-level 11 campaign not too long ago. I was the DM. Healer feat was allowed.
We decided to try another campaign, this time starting from level 1 and with Healer banned. This time, I'm a player.

The campaign is ongoing, we're halfway through level 4, and the absence of the healer feat is very noticeable. The land druid has to invest almost all his slots into goodberry to keep us alive (healing spirit really isn't much good after the errata). Yes we're aware of the MC disciple of life combo or how much better a moon druid would be, but the point of this campaign was to try out non-top tier options.
We ended up having to take much more short rests than usual, just so my fighter can regain his second wind and take punishment on the frontline.

So, I wanted to measure more exactly the impact of the healer feat in terms of daily healing, and made this thread to share my findings.

Healer's big advantage over HD is the ability to bring people up from 0 (the first time with 1d6+4+level HP, after that with 1 HP).

Yes, it's a very powerful feat outside of the daily healing it contributes, I'm never going to deny that.

 

[Helldritch]

You assume that a character will use all of its HD for healing. It can be true but not always. Most of the time players will refrain from using all the HD of their character because the characters only regain half of their HD. This means that a character of level 10 will in effect only have 5 HD to spend. They tend to refrain to use all of their HD unless they are in dire circumstances. You should add a column with half spend HD and another with the average of full HD spend and Half HD spend. This would give a better and more accurate view of the feat.

The feat is extremely strong but it also have its drawbacks. This makes it quite ok in my book.

Edit: Ho and 3 short rests is way more than the average. 1 or 2 short rests is the norm (so I guess using 1.5 should be better?). I know that I restrict my players to a maximum of two short rests.

 

[Olrox17]

You assume that a character will use all of its HD for healing. It can be true but not always. Most of the time players will refrain from using all the HD of their character because the characters only regain half of their HD. This means that a character of level 10 will in effect only have 5 HD to spend. They tend to refrain to use all of their HD unless they are in dire circumstances. You should add a column with half spend HD and another with the average of full HD spend and Half HD spend. This would give a better and more accurate view of the feat.

The feat is extremely strong but it also have its drawbacks. This makes it quite ok in my book.

Edit: Ho and 3 short rests is way more than the average. 1 or 2 short rests is the norm (so I guess using 1.5 should be better?). I know that I restrict my players to a maximum of two short rests.

Well, I suppose every table plays the game a little differently. We generally assume that 2 short rests are a given and a third might sometimes be achieved, and also generally assume multiple long rests after an hard adventuring day.

If we reduced expected short rests to 1,5 (down from 2,5) and reduce HD expenditure from full to half, the numbers change substantially (but not too much) in favor of the healer feat.

Edit: after 4 levels of gameplay without the healer feat, one of my fellow players is becoming quite vocal in saying, basically, that 5e is "meant" to be played with the healer feat, and the game is no fun without it. A exaggerated reaction, but I can see his point.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm going to give a little background.
We've concluded a level 3-level 11 campaign not too long ago. I was the DM. Healer feat was allowed.
We decided to try another campaign, this time starting from level 1 and with Healer banned. This time, I'm a player.

The campaign is ongoing, we're halfway through level 4, and the absence of the healer feat is very noticeable. The land druid has to invest almost all his slots into goodberry to keep us alive (healing spirit really isn't much good after the errata). Yes we're aware of the MC disciple of life combo or how much better a moon druid would be, but the point of this campaign was to try out non-top tier options.
We ended up having to take much more short rests than usual, just so my fighter can regain his second wind and take punishment on the frontline.

So, I wanted to measure more exactly the impact of the healer feat in terms of daily healing, and made this thread to share my findings.


Yes, it's a very powerful feat outside of the daily healing it contributes, I'm never going to deny that.

Given the info you've shared, it seems more like keeping the feat would be better, wouldn't it?

Without it, your Druid becomes the "dedicated healer" and your party requires more short-rest (slowing down the game for the PCs) because the Fighter needs a breather.

In our main game, our Sorcerer took the Healer feat at first level because we had no cleric or other healing available at level 1. Without it, we probably wouldn't have survived.

Anyway, like @Helldritch , we limit two short rests per long rest, and I would say average about 1.5 SR / LR.

Banning the feat puts too much emphasis on having a dedicated healer and wanting more SR IMO. Even then, HD will be depleted quickly, and you only recover half your max HD back on a long rest (as you know), so it makes players less likely to spend them.

Personally, I think reducing the +4 bonus from the feat (or removing it entirely) might "balance" it out for you. You'd have to run the math and see.

FWIW, we've had 3 other campaigns, and no one selected the Healer feat in those. I think it is strong, but unless you want it, you can get by without it (as painful as that might be... ).

 

[Olrox17]

Given the info you've shared, it seems more like keeping the feat would be better, wouldn't it?

Without it, your Druid becomes the "dedicated healer" and your party requires more short-rest (slowing down the game for the PCs) because the Fighter needs a breather.

In our main game, our Sorcerer took the Healer feat at first level because we had no cleric or other healing available at level 1. Without it, we probably wouldn't have survived.

Anyway, like @Helldritch , we limit two short rests per long rest, and I would say average about 1.5 SR / LR.

Banning the feat puts too much emphasis on having a dedicated healer and wanting more SR IMO. Even then, HD will be depleted quickly, and you only recover half your max HD back on a long rest (as you know), so it makes players less likely to spend them.

Personally, I think reducing the +4 bonus from the feat (or removing it entirely) might "balance" it out for you. You'd have to run the math and see.

FWIW, we've had 3 other campaigns, and no one selected the Healer feat in those. I think it is strong, but unless you want it, you can get by without it (as painful as that might be... ).

Well, let's just say that this campaign was meant to be a little experimental we literally never played 5e without a character with Healer, and we really wanted to try it out...and tbh, it is a little painful, as you said. At times it feels like the DM has to play softball with us or else we would get trounced (and the party, while refraining from picking top tier builds, is far from unoptimized).
As reference, the DM is following Xanathar's encounter building rules rather religiously, and again, at times he has to intentionally play the enemies stupidly.

The idea of a 5e campaign with no healer feat but doubled or tripled HD fascinates me. I'll probably suggest it to the group.

 

[Oofta]

Personally I like the feat both as DM and player. It gives minor in-combat healing and means that the caster that would be spending all of their slots can instead spend them on something more fun. Also helpful if it's someone other than the caster that has it in case the healer goes down. It's still limited to an action and being adjacent to the target, I don't see the the problem.

Yes, that means the caster is ever-so-slightly more powerful in comparison, but so what? Someone also has to give up one of the few limited feat slots. Banning healer feat just means people spend more money on healing potions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The idea of a 5e campaign with no healer feat but doubled or tripled HD fascinates me. I'll probably suggest it to the group.

I would suggest maybe having HD heal maximum hit point when spent instead of rolling. Also, if you want them really good, have PCs recover all their spent HD following a long rest.