Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8033133" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Given the info you've shared, it seems more like keeping the feat would be better, wouldn't it?Without it, your Druid becomes the &quot;dedicated healer&quot; and your party requires more short-rest (slowing down the game for the PCs) because the Fighter needs a breather.In our main game, our Sorcerer took the Healer feat at first level because we had no cleric or other healing available at level 1. Without it, we probably wouldn't have survived.Anyway, like [USER=6855114]@Helldritch[/USER] , we limit two short rests per long rest, and I would say average about 1.5 SR / LR.Banning the feat puts too much emphasis on having a dedicated healer and wanting more SR IMO. Even then, HD will be depleted quickly, and you only recover half your max HD back on a long rest (as you know), so it makes players less likely to spend them.Personally, I think reducing the +4 bonus from the feat (or removing it entirely) might &quot;balance&quot; it out for you. You'd have to run the math and see.FWIW, we've had 3 other campaigns, and no one selected the Healer feat in those. I think it is strong, but unless you want it, you can get by without it (as painful as that might be... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8033133, member: 6987520"] Given the info you've shared, it seems more like keeping the feat would be better, wouldn't it? Without it, your Druid becomes the "dedicated healer" and your party requires more short-rest (slowing down the game for the PCs) because the Fighter needs a breather. In our main game, our Sorcerer took the Healer feat at first level [I]because[/I] we had no cleric or other healing available at level 1. Without it, we probably wouldn't have survived. Anyway, like [USER=6855114]@Helldritch[/USER] , we limit two short rests per long rest, and I would say average about 1.5 SR / LR. Banning the feat puts too much emphasis on having a dedicated healer and wanting more SR IMO. Even then, HD will be depleted quickly, and you only recover half your max HD back on a long rest (as you know), so it makes players less likely to spend them. Personally, I think reducing the +4 bonus from the feat (or removing it entirely) might "balance" it out for you. You'd have to run the math and see. FWIW, we've had 3 other campaigns, and no one selected the Healer feat in those. I think it is strong, but unless you want it, you [I]can[/I] get by without it (as painful as that might be... :) ). [/QUOTE]

Verification