D&D 5E Is the Healer Feat Broken?

[Olrox17]

Every single 5e party I've DMed so far had the healer feat, usually on a thief or a cleric. It's incredibly powerful at low levels, but it remains useful at higher levels (my 10th level party still considers it useful).

 

[cmad1977]

As usual, the answer is
“No.”

 

[Mistwell]

As usual, the answer is
“No.”

It's not worth it at level 4?

 

[ccs]

Here we are four years later and I am finally considering taking the healer feat and making a Thief rogue to use Fast Hands with it.

The question is, is it worth it at 4th level instead of boosting Dex? I am a halfling lightfoot rogue. Will it still be effective to begin using this at 4th level? We don't have any other dedicated healers, though we do have a Druid PC and a Wizard with a single level in Cleric.

I'll start by asking my usual question: Does taking this option fit your character? Not your pile-o-stats/abilities, or how you play tactically, the person those things represent. If yes, take it. If no, take something else.

Next up; Wich will be more useful? Another +1 to things you already do well? Or another entire mechanical option?
Opinion: In a game like 5e where good enough is often fine, I know what I'd pick....

Answer those & you'll have your answer about its worth.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here we are four years later and I am finally considering taking the healer feat and making a Thief rogue to use Fast Hands with it.

The question is, is it worth it at 4th level instead of boosting Dex? I am a halfling lightfoot rogue. Will it still be effective to begin using this at 4th level? We don't have any other dedicated healers, though we do have a Druid PC and a Wizard with a single level in Cleric.

Your thoughts @Zardnaar ?

Depends on the situation. Also if you have higher than normal rolled stats.

These days I consider the feat top 5 and it's never bad even in a higher level game. It's essentially mass cure wounds later on. Plus a short range at will healing word on a thief.

A lot of games don't go high level.

I like it YMMV. Alot of rogue players like using mobility (badly) instead of doing some thing more relevant line dealing damage.

Depends how much dual wielding and running around you like doing.

 

[FarBeyondC]

The best part about the Healer feat's healing?

It's 100 percent non-magical healing that works on any creature not somehow explicitly unable to regain hit points. Which, while I've (funnily enough) been in more scenarios that have required explicitly magical healing than I have scenarios where non-magical healing was the only possible healing (chalk that up to antimagic areas / fields being really rare), the value of being able to quickly heal someone in places where magic doesn't work or isn't desirable shouldn't be underestimated at higher levels.

 

[Mistwell]

I'll start by asking my usual question: Does taking this option fit your character? Not your pile-o-stats/abilities, or how you play tactically, the person those things represent. If yes, take it. If no, take something else.

It's a brand new character starting at level 1 and I have not developed the RPG elements enough to know that, beyond the fact he's a rogue who swipes from the wealthy to give to the poor and his family. So it could fit fine, but as we are just beginning it could also be I fit the characters concept around the mechanics.

Next up; Wich will be more useful? Another +1 to things you already do well? Or another entire mechanical option?
Opinion: In a game like 5e where good enough is often fine, I know what I'd pick....

Answer those & you'll have your answer about its worth.

I don't have that answer. If I did, I wouldn't have asked about it

 

[Guest 6801328]

Here we are four years later and I am finally considering taking the healer feat and making a Thief rogue to use Fast Hands with it.

The question is, is it worth it at 4th level instead of boosting Dex? I am a halfling lightfoot rogue. Will it still be effective to begin using this at 4th level? We don't have any other dedicated healers, though we do have a Druid PC and a Wizard with a single level in Cleric.

Your thoughts @Zardnaar ?

@Kreinas had some excellent observations about this on page 1.
Basically, if the Thief isn’t wielding the kit, there are rules about stowing (or dropping) weapons and retrieving items from packs.

The result is that the primary benefit of Fast Hands is that the Thief is the only one who can dig the kit out of his pack and use it in the same turn.

Of course, now your weapons are on the ground. There’s an inconvenient rule around that, too.

Things also depend on how many hands your DM says a kit requires. I would rule 2.

 

[Mistwell]

@Kreinas had some excellent observations about this on page 1.
Basically, if the Thief isn’t wielding the kit, there are rules about stowing (or dropping) weapons and retrieving items from packs.

The result is that the primary benefit of Fast Hands is that the Thief is the only one who can dig the kit out of his pack and use it in the same turn.

Of course, now your weapons are on the ground. There’s an inconvenient rule around that, too.

Things also depend on how many hands your DM says a kit requires. I would rule 2.

If you needed two hands to use the kit, then you couldn't hold the kit at all, right?

The general rule is things take one hand to use them (the hand with the thing in it) unless otherwise specified. Here, it's not otherwise specified. I am not saying it would be unfair to rule otherwise, but my read of the rules says that's how it's normally done.

I think both the rule and the intent is to have a weapon or other object in one hand (like a rapier or spell focus) and nothing in the other, withdraw the kit as a free action along with your movement or action for that round, and then use an action (or a bonus action with the feat) to use the kit. I do not think you ever need to drop your weapon or focus, provided you have one free hand. Just like a component pouch or a potion use or a poison application use, which all take just one free hand and no need to have both hands free.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you needed two hands to use the kit, then you couldn't hold the kit at all, right?

Put kit on ground. Open it up. Use two hands to administer it.

Hold kit in one hand, dig around in it and find the things you need with the other hand.

Etc.

There's a few ways you could fluff it, but in general it doesn't seem to me that wrapping a bandage around somebody's ankle (or whatever the heck you do with a healer's kit) is something you do with one hand.

The general rule is things take one hand to use them (the hand with the thing in it) unless otherwise specified. Here, it's not otherwise specified. I am not saying it would be unfair to rule otherwise, but my read of the rules says that's how it's normally done.

Where is it written that non-weapon objects only require one hand? (I'm totally willing to be wrong on this, I just don't recall ever seeing that written.). Do you think that applies to all the other kits as well? (Forgery, Herbalism, Climbers', etc.)

I think both the rule and the intent is to have a weapon or other object in one hand (like a rapier or spell focus) and nothing in the other, withdraw the kit as a free action along with your movement or action for that round, and then use an action (or a bonus action with the feat) to use the kit. I do not think you ever need to drop your weapon or focus, provided you have one free hand. Just like a component pouch or a potion use or a poison application use, which all take just one free hand and no need to have both hands free.

Even if you (or your DM) rule that it only takes one hand, sheathing a weapon uses your free action, and drawing something from your pack uses your free action. So if your rogue dual wields the only option is to drop one of the weapons. Now, whether or not you and your DM decide that you can use a Healer's Kit not only with one hand but your offhand, is up to you.