D&D 5E Durable Feat is weak, Healer feat is too strong

[Shiroiken]

Feats run the gambit from really bad to really good, and Durable is near the bottom while Healer is near the top. The problem was that they didn't have a good bar to measure feats against, and IIRC they weren't part of the public playtest.

I've tried rebalancing feats, and have come to the conclusion that the ones near the top are really where feats should be. Sharpshooter is the only one I feel needs tuned down, and only a little (double short range and reduce cover by 3 AC). This makes increasing some of the weaker feats a bit harder, and honestly it's easier to combine like-minded feats. Stacking Durable and Toughness together puts them right about on par with Healer. Healer is only really OP when used by a Thief as a Bonus Action.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I just joined Toughness and Durable into 1 feat.

Same. I use feats as character-defining traits, and thus have no desire to spread out that definition over several feats. If there's going to be a "exceedingly healthy and hearty" feat, I only need/want the one. So I removed the CON bonus from Durable then combined the two feats into a single one.

And as far as Healer is concerned... frankly I don't care if its as powerful as most healing spells because very few players take it unless the group can't get healing spells (which is what was the situation in my last Curse of Strahd campaigns.) But my tables run with enough players that there are always at least two (if not 3 or 4) PCs that have healing spells / effects available for the group, and thus the need for anyone to give up one of their feats for Healer is just not there and nobody wastes their feat slot for it.

 

[Fenris-77]

The power of the feat is one thing, and Healer is good, but the other part, as mentioned above, is who is actually going to take it and when. A lot of builds have less ASIs then they'd probably like to get their concept online. Melee/Ranged characters, for example, probably aren't taking Healer ever, regardless of how good it is. Most spellcasters have their first three ASIs penciled in as stat-stat-concentration boost, so in those cases they don't have a 'spare' feat until 16th level. Characters who take Healer before that are giving up significant general character advancement to do so (even Clerics). So in that party without a dedicated healer it would make sense for someone to take it, and someone probably should, but what they are giving up to do so isn't someone random crap feat, but one of the select few sky blue feats that most builds are aimed at, in other words a key component in their build. At that point I don't have any problem with Healer being an excellent feat.

 

[Garthanos]

This makes increasing some of the weaker feats a bit harder, and honestly it's easier to combine like-minded feats. Stacking Durable and Toughness together puts them right about on par with Healer.

Giving more is almost always better than Nerfing ... The flavors of those are obviously the same.

 

[bedir than]

Same. I use feats as character-defining traits, and thus have no desire to spread out that definition over several feats. If there's going to be a "exceedingly healthy and hearty" feat, I only need/want the one. So I removed the CON bonus from Durable then combined the two feats into a single one.

What else have you combined in this way?

 

[Eubani]

With Actor I add Proficiency in Deception or Persuasion and Disguise Kit. Weapon Master, I remove 2 of the weapon proficiency and add a fighting style. Keen Mind I add 2 Int skills. Quite a few feats only need a light touch to make them more competiive or balanceed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Splitting out the combat feats and non combat ones seems step 1 in getting the feats to be even better than 4e.

Step one was clearing out the chaff. I suspect that was part of the impetus to have 'big' feats: it means characters get fewer feats, so make fewer feat choices, which means you can publish only a handful of them.

 

[tglassy]

The healer feat's healing is equivalent to a cure spell at the following levels:

Cure 1st (9.5) - level 2
Cure 2nd (14) - level 6-7
Cure 3rd (18.5) - level 11
Cure 4th (23) - level 15-16
Cure 5th (27.5) - level 20

So the Healer Feat is worth a lvl 1 Cure Wounds at lvl 2? And isn't worth a 5th lvl Cure Wounds until lvl 20?

I suppose your point is that the Healer Feat can do it once to every party member, though a Healer Kit only has so many uses. I guess it isn't that expensive, but still. A Party of Five can only use it for two days before it's used up. Cure Wounds can be cast as long as there are spell slots, which continue to regenerate every long rest (or short rest for Warlocks). But I think it's not fair to compare a skill at 20th lvl to a 1st lvl spell that's been upcast with a 5th lvl slot. A first lvl spell will never equal a 5th lvl spell, and Mass Cure Wounds is a 5th lvl spell that can heal 3d8+Mod to six people. I'm not sure about averages, but going by your chart there, that's an average of 18.5 to six different people with a single spell, at character lvl 9. Healer Feat at lvl 9 can heal 1d6+13, which is between 14 and 19 hp, to a single person per use. It would use up 6/10 uses to heal the same number, for likely fewer HP. And they're using money to "cast" it instead of spell points, because they have to buy the kit.

Nobody would ever use Cure Wounds in a 5th lvl spell slot unless they knew they weren't going to need that 5th lvl spell slot. Cure Wounds is ok for lower lvl healing, but at higher levels it's basically a "You're dying or unconscious, let me get you back up and in the game real quick". At higher lvls, there are other things you can use.

You need to compare lvl to lvl, not a lvl 5 spell to a lvl 20 ability, and certainly not a 1st lvl spell upcast with a 5th lvl slot to a lvl 20 ability. At lvl 20, you can cast Mass Heal, which doe 700 hp worth of healing. Per day. No gold spent. If you have 10 party members, which very few parties have that many, you'll go through an entire Healing Kit and heal, if your average is right, 275 hp total.

So yeah, healer can make you an effective healer, if you're willing to carry around a bunch of healing kits, and will outstrip Cure Wounds after lvl 6, but to be honest, if it didn't outstrip a lvl 1 spell by lvl 6 then it would be useless and nobody would get it. A Cleric or Druid will always be a better healer because they get better healing spells as they get higher level.

I just looked up Regenerate. 4d8+15 and then 1hp every six seconds for an hour, no concentration. 10 hp per minute is 600 hp, plus the initial healing. At lvl 13. My goodness, throw taht on the tank and let him solo the BBEG! He'd never die! Even if he went below 0 hp every round, he'd get up at the beginning of every turn! So yeah, having a healing caster is much better than just the Healer Feat. I don't see how Healer is at all over powered.

 

[CapnZapp]

Heck, even Mike Mearls waffled on it in the following twitter exchange

MMearls does make great waffles!

 

[Ristamar]

I modified the Durable feat to restore all Hit Dice after a long rest. It's much simpler and allows more characters to take advantage of its benefits. Even in this form, it's only appealing to those looking for renewable non-magical healing resources. It might not be a bad choice if your safe points for a long rest are often limited or you're incentivized to tackle multiple encounters.

Durable
Hardy and resilient, you gain the following benefits:

• Increase your Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• At the end of a long rest, you regain all spent Hit Dice.