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

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW I would also like to mention in our main game, even though we have our Sorcerer/Druid with the Healer Feat, we have the following spells always available by someone:

Cure Wounds
Healing Word
Healing Spirit
Prayer of Healing
Beacon of Hope
Mass Cure Wounds

So, even with the Healer feat available, we go through a lot of healing, not to mention spending HD, using Second Winds, etc.

Also, I ran my own numbers using 2.5 uses on average, and lower CONs at higher levels since most PCs rarely exceed CON 16 IME. MY results were that by level 5, fulling using HD outstrips the used of the Healer's feat, and that by Tier 4, it is valued at a bit over 50% of using all HD. This more corresponds with my experience, where in Tier 1 the Healer's feat is invaluable, but by Tier 3 it isn't used as often due to other ways of healing.

In conclusion, I think it is a great feat, to be certain, but would never bother banning it as I've never seen it really abused (which is the only reason why I would ban anything in the game).

 

[Helldritch]

My personal experience with the feat has been quite different than what a lot of you seem to have with it. Out of more than 8 campaigns with 3 different groups of players and DMs we have seen the feat get taken a grand total of...twice. And it has NEVER felt in any extend to be a required feat by any means, even in the campaigns where we have stuck to a closer to the 6-8 medium encounter guidelines as suggested. Hell, one of our DMs even decreases healing rules per day and not giving us any extra Short Rest hit dice to compensate and we STILL haven't felt any healing shortage, and that is even with one of these groups not having a single dedicated healer character.

Often what tends to happen in our games seems to be the healing burden is split up among multiple characters, gold is spent on healing potions, short rests are taken (despite this we still average maybe 1 rest per day as it ends up being like trying to pull teeth to get players to take a second short rest each day.

In my personal games where I am DM'ing, I have never had a single player take the feat, though one did consider it. The only time it ever has seen play while I'm DMing was when I gave it to an NPC is Curse of Strahd just to make them more entertaining, and even then she used it maybe twice the entire campaign, though I will say for my DM'ing style I tend to run 2 or 3 deadly or 2x deadly encounters each day and usually view the 6-8 encounters guidelines as not interpreting them all to be combat focused. It might just be my particular group but the current group I play with HATES dungeon crawls and actively groans when forced to do one without a strong roleplaying reason.

My point is to automatically assume healer is "required" by any stretch is I think a false assumption.

And my groups only take the feat if there is only one healer in the group. I run two groups of 6 players. They love dungeon crawl as it enables them to use tactics such as dodge to effectively block an entryway, or two characters will block access to other characters by effectively blocking a corridor, using death trap etc... The feat is not taken often but it is useful. Party composition usually have one dedicated healer and one other that will usually double as damage dealer. This has worked out pretty well so far.

 

[jgsugden]

….
We never interpreted the healer's kit (and healer feat) to(require two hands). I mean, it would be a pretty reasonable house rule, but it's a house rule, correct?

It does not specify the number of hands required, but does specify what you do with it. I would call it an interpretation, not a house rule.

It also doesn't solve my personal main concern with the feat: it's a semi-feat tax (a party with the feat is strictly better than a party without the feat), and it, a single feat, taken by a single party member, is overall more powerful (or just as powerful) than the HD healing mechanic of all party members combined.

At low levels - true. But the cost to get it at low levels is a lot of offense or utility lost.

I find that healing, in general, in 5E is a losing proposition in combat unless you can do it as a bonus action. MOst of the time, you lose one action to heal and the amount you heal is less than the damage inflicted the following round by the enemy. It may buy you an extra round for other combatants to act, but an effective offensive spell or ability that shortens the combat by a round may do as much, or more, for the PCs.

And this is not universally superior to other healing. Let's look at a common scenario - Bob and his allies go into a dungeon and fight a solo monster. Bob is the tank, and Bob draws most of the attacks. Bob is 12th level and has 100 hps, and takes 80 in damage while everyone else is undamaged. This feat will restore d6+16 hps. What would a cleric ally be able to restore? More than 20 hps, right?

It is a big investment. It is effective. It does not break the game. However, if you feel it is too strong, you may want to consider what the use of the feat actually would entail and require PCs to make available enough hands and resources to pull it off.

 

[Shiroiken]

The Healer feat is a solid feat, but not one that automatically sees play. In about 9 campaigns that used feats, I've seen it taken twice. One was by a Rogue/Thief who could use it as a bonus action, and the other was by my Druid/Grassland who was entirely a support character. I've seen Inspiring Leader taken more frequently, because Temporary HP are just as good as healing, and sometimes even better.

 

[Todd Roybark]

I have never had the Healer feat taken. The game doesn't break, but the increased spell slot expenditure for healing, means Long Rests are taken faster.
I would recommend more scrolls/potions be "found"

Not to thread jack, but, Olrox17 are you enjoying the Psi Knight?
It is the closet 5e experience to the 4e Battlemind, in my opinion, with the Telekinetic Feat.

 

[Helldritch]

The Healer feat is a solid feat, but not one that automatically sees play. In about 9 campaigns that used feats, I've seen it taken twice. One was by a Rogue/Thief who could use it as a bonus action, and the other was by my Druid/Grassland who was entirely a support character. I've seen Inspiring Leader taken more frequently, because Temporary HP are just as good as healing, and sometimes even better.

I have seen the feat used a bit more than that. Way bit more. But almost every time, it is a rogue who takes the feat exactly because he can use it as a bonus action. It is really good when used this way.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

We've played for about 6 years now, and nobody has ever chosen the feat in a single game. I cannot imagine "needing" the feat. Just get rope trick and tiny hut and rest like normal people!

 

[Helldritch]

We've played for about 6 years now, and nobody has every chosen the feat in a single game. I cannot imagine "needing" the feat. Just get rope trick and tiny hut and rest like normal people!

My players learned that rope trick and tiny hut are not an almighty trope that they can abuse. They are useful spells for sure, but they can also be a death trap when facing intelligent monsters that will set up ambush and are ready to use dispel magic. What the player can do, so can their nemesis. This has been my moto for 37 years of DMing and it works.

Now they use these spells sparingly and only to avoid random encounters when going from one adventure site to the next. Once in the vicinity ofa dungeon or an organized lair, they actually search for a defensible position/site that is hidden enough or they simply make one.

 

[Todd Roybark]

nobody has ever chosen the feat in a single game.

That's a shame, I remember you were planning to combine the Healer feat with a Thief's Quick Hand's feature to make the healer of urchins and the downtrodden.

It was a cool character concept.

Only in D&D, does the phrase "Get a room!" becomes instead "Get a Rope Trick".
In a High Magic, Red Light district, " a Rope Trick" might very well be a real thing.

 

[Mistwell]

My players learned that rope trick and tiny hut are not an almighty trope that they can abuse. They are useful spells for sure, but they can also be a death trap when facing intelligent monsters that will set up ambush and are ready to use dispel magic. What the player can do, so can their nemesis. This has been my moto for 37 years of DMing and it works.

Now they use these spells sparingly and only to avoid random encounters when going from one adventure site to the next. Once in the vicinity ofa dungeon or an organized lair, they actually search for a defensible position/site that is hidden enough or they simply make one.

You can shoot out of a tiny hut you know.