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

[jgsugden]

Out of curiosity - how many of the DMs that find this feat to be a problem require the user to have both hands free to apply the bandages, salves and splints? I require the kit to be accessible and both hands to be free to use it, meaning the kit must be open on the floor, worn so that it can be accessed, etc... and nothing else can be held in the hands. That seems like the reasonable interpretation of what is going on... unless you think you can properly bandage a wound with one hand in the middle of combat.

 

[jayoungr]

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.

I've played a lot of 5E, including a 1-20 campaign, and have never played or DM'd for a group where anyone took the healer feat. And PC deaths have been extremely rare. I can testify that 5E is not designed around the assumption that someone in the party will have the healer feat.

What replaces it? Well, almost all of my groups have had some combination of paladin, cleric, or bard for healing. Sometimes multiple bards. Song of Rest can make a pretty big difference, especially at lower levels.

 

[Helldritch]

Out of curiosity - how many of the DMs that find this feat to be a problem require the user to have both hands free to apply the bandages, salves and splints? I require the kit to be accessible and both hands to be free to use it, meaning the kit must be open on the floor, worn so that it can be accessed, etc... and nothing else can be held in the hands. That seems like the reasonable interpretation of what is going on... unless you think you can properly bandage a wound with one hand in the middle of combat.

You are right in your assertion. The healing kit requires both hands. This means no shields, no focus and if you are patching a fallen ally in the middle of combat, you are prone. The healer feat is, in a sense, a hell of a risk to do in combat. But if it can save a character from dying, then it is worth the risk.

 

[Oofta]

Another benefit of the healer's kit I thought I'd mention is that at least for some players it gives them an option to be a partial support character. In my current campaign my wife wanted to run a rogue, but she also likes the support aspect of helping others.

Healer kits let her do both and let's her feel like she's contributing more to the team effort. Obviously may not matter in different groups, but it's a nice side benefit for some players.

 

[Olrox17]

I've played a lot of 5E, including a 1-20 campaign, and have never played or DM'd for a group where anyone took the healer feat. And PC deaths have been extremely rare. I can testify that 5E is not designed around the assumption that someone in the party will have the healer feat.

What replaces it? Well, almost all of my groups have had some combination of paladin, cleric, or bard for healing. Sometimes multiple bards. Song of Rest can make a pretty big difference, especially at lower levels.

That's usually what our current DM replies to the complaining player. I usually add that feats are an optional rule, and as such, no feat can possibly be required to play the game. But then, he insists that regardless, the game is less fun without the healer feat, for some of the reasons that @Oofta pointed out, mainly less strain on caster slots, more freedom on character building, no need for a dedicated healing spellcaster etc.

Out of curiosity - how many of the DMs that find this feat to be a problem require the user to have both hands free to apply the bandages, salves and splints? I require the kit to be accessible and both hands to be free to use it, meaning the kit must be open on the floor, worn so that it can be accessed, etc... and nothing else can be held in the hands. That seems like the reasonable interpretation of what is going on... unless you think you can properly bandage a wound with one hand in the middle of combat.

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

 

[jayoungr]

But then, he insists that regardless, the game is less fun without the healer feat, for some of the reasons that @Oofta pointed out, mainly less strain on caster slots, more freedom on character building, no need for a dedicated healing spellcaster etc.

I sincerely hope your DM realizes that "less fun" is a subjective judgment. My players don't mind devoting some spell slots to healing, and at least one of the bard players really loves being the main party healer. Frankly, I think my players would be more annoyed at having to spend one of their precious feats on the healer feat than setting aside some of their much-more-common spell slots for it.

We've also had parties where people invest heavily in damage prevention. A glamour bard or an abjuration wizard, for example, can prevent a lot of damage from even hitting the party.

Out of curiosity, what is your typical party composition?

 

[Olrox17]

I sincerely hope your DM realizes that "less fun" is a subjective judgment. My players don't mind devoting some spell slots to healing, and at least one of the bard players really loves being the main party healer. Frankly, I think my players would be more annoyed at having to spend one of their precious feats on the healer feat than setting aside some of their much-more-common spell slots for it.

We've also had parties where people invest heavily in damage prevention. A glamour bard or an abjuration wizard, for example, can prevent a lot of damage from even hitting the party.

Out of curiosity, what is your typical party composition?

Current composition is psi knight fighter (the telekinetic shield is helping a lot), kensei monk, Arctic land druid, dragon sorcerer.

 

[Oofta]

Current composition is psi knight fighter (the telekinetic shield is helping a lot), kensei monk, Arctic land druid, dragon sorcerer.

@jayoungr has a point - I'd ask your players what they think. In addition it may not even matter if no one wants to take the feat.

 

[Olrox17]

@jayoungr has a point - I'd ask your players what they think. In addition it may not even matter if no one wants to take the feat.

The decision to ban the healer feat for this campaign was taken during session zero. The sorcerer player was skeptical, but everyone else wanted to try it.

We wasted about 30 mins of our last session because the sorcerer player is annoyed about the no healer feat campaign rule. The rest of the group still wants to go along with it, although I (the party fighter) can see where the complaining player is coming from, and being a long time Dm (This is one of the rare instances of me playing) I always try to find solutions rather than problems

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

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.