D&D 5E Ban Variant-Human! Impact?


log in or register to remove this ad


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.
That's why we have the Bard, Druid, and Paladin - because it's wrong to force someone to play a Cleric, but fine to force them to play a caster.
 

Goodberry + DoL is still likely to restore fewer HP out of combat than Rope Trick. Granted it's a higher level slot, but I don't hear a lot of people saying that's unbalanced.

Gets it done quicker.

Healing rate is borked in 5E anyway even without trying to abuse stuff.

Low level healing spells suck, out if combat healing is a bit good and healing spirits more or less better than everything else.

Healer feats just another example of wonky healing rules.
 

Goodberry + DoL is still likely to restore fewer HP out of combat than Rope Trick. Granted it's a higher level slot, but I don't hear a lot of people saying that's unbalanced.

It takes an hour for your rope trick. It takes 6-12 seconds for the goodberrys.
 


Love it when you only quote half the story from the powers that be.

WTF are you talking about? That's the ENTIRE quote. There is nothing else in that article on that topic.

WOTC has chosen to follow the "But-for" test, which is used in many fields for deciding if something is sourced back. It's a common test and not a "compromise" type test.

With Goodberry and Discipline of Life, if but-for the spell the goodberries would still exist and heal, then it's not sourced to the spell. However if but-for the spell the berries wouldn't exist or wouldn't heal, then it's source includes the spell. Discipline of Life is concerned with spells that heal, and since the goodberries wouldn't exist or heal but-for the spell, then Discipline of Life works on it as well because the source of the healing includes the spell. Which is the ruling we got.

Similarly for the Healing Feat, you ask "But for this feat, would the PC have received that healing? If yes, then it's not sourced to the feat. If no, then it's source includes the feat. Meaning anything which limits healing from the feat limits that hit point healing if but-for the feat they wouldn't have otherwise received those hit points. The ultimate source of the healing includes the feat, so that portion of healing is limited to once per rest.
 
Last edited:

BTW a Healer's Kit weighs 3 pounds and includes 10 uses each and costs 5 gp each. So if you're using it during a short rest to heal tons of hit points, you're going to burn through your quantity of healer's kits very quick. It's not like you would lug around much more than, say, 30 pounds of kits.
 

BTW a Healer's Kit weighs 3 pounds and includes 10 uses each and costs 5 gp each. So if you're using it during a short rest to heal tons of hit points, you're going to burn through your quantity of healer's kits very quick. It's not like you would lug around much more than, say, 30 pounds of kits.

30 is normally enough.


So DoL works with spirit guardians? IDK either way just wondering.
 

I think it's goodness goes beyond the first few levels.
Absolutely. Healer is one role you can fill with a cleric. But fortunately (for my taste) it's not the only one.
That's why we have the Bard, Druid, and Paladin - because it's wrong to force someone to play a Cleric, but fine to force them to play a caster.

That's why I would never remove the healer feat from the game. I think it's important to have a non-magical option for healing and this one is good, the mechanics aren't awkward for me, and it has the right level of flavor.

Some feats are obviously better than others. It's the amount of healing granted at 1st level that concerns me. Taking it at 4th level I could agree with, or a "combat medic" fighter subclass that picks it up at 3rd level I could live with. ;)
 

Remove ads

Top