D&D 5E Ban Variant-Human! Impact?

[Esker]

Healer feat level 1 it's the equivalent of 15 additional cure spells assuming a 5 person party and the 2 short rest expectation.

I think this says more about how bad Cure Wounds is than anything else.

 

[Yaarel]

The point is, it is wrong to force a player to play a Cleric.

There needs to be viable alternatives for the sake of many players to enjoy the game.

Healer is a reasonable option for a healer, especially at low levels, when everyone is hyper fragile.

 

[Esker]

The point is, it is wrong to force a player to play a Cleric.

There needs to be viable alternatives for the sake of many players to enjoy the game.

Healer is a reasonable option for a healer, especially at low levels, when everyone is hyper fragile.

I would add to that that it's also wrong to expect a Cleric to spend their spell slots on healing.

 

[MoonSong]

I've considered this before, players point blank said it's fine but they wouldn't play humans.

I have 6 players but only 2 variant humans with a ravenfolk, Minotaur, half orc and aasimar being the other 4.

Just ban the problematic feats then.

Sorcerer with warcaster great buffer but once again featless game the Sorcerer built in con save is huge.

I think that Magic Initiate is more important to a sorcerer. A whole extra spell known at low level makes you way more viable.

And anyway, how many people do you know who relish the healer mantle when they play clerics?

Myself at least. But recently cleric has begun to feel too vanilla for my tastes.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The point is, it is wrong to force a player to play a Cleric.

There needs to be viable alternatives for the sake of many players to enjoy the game.

Healer is a reasonable option for a healer, especially at low levels, when everyone is hyper fragile.

All Druids, Bards, Paladins and Rangers, and one subclass each of Sorcerer and Warlock all have viable healing options in-class.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes it is; it may not be RAI, but it is RAW: "the creature cannot regain HP from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest". The part I was missing is the reference to "the creature", which doesn't have a meaning until the second bulletpoint has been invoked.

I mean if you want to get pedantic - the 2nd bullet point is not the creature regaining hp - it restores hp. The only regaining of hp mentioned is when you stabilize a dying creature. I suppose that means infinite 1d6+4 healing by RAW right?

 

[MoonSong]

I would add to that that it's also wrong to expect a Cleric to spend their spell slots on healing.

I think that is also wrong to force a cleric to spend slots on not healing. I want to play a healer, not someone who sometimes heals on the side

 

[Esker]

I mean if you want to get pedantic - the 2nd bullet point is not the creature regaining hp - it restores hp. The only regaining of hp mentioned is when you stabilize a dying creature. I suppose that means infinite 1d6+4 healing by RAW right?

"Regain" and "restore" mean the same thing in this context. I don't know how "from this feat" doesn't mean "the healer feat"; not "this use of the healer feat".

 

[Esker]

I think that is also wrong to force a cleric to spend slots on not healing. I want to play a healer, not someone who sometimes heals on the side

Absolutely. Healer is one role you can fill with a cleric. But fortunately (for my taste) it's not the only one.

 

[Esker]

That's why Life Cleric is a subclass, not a class.