D&D 5E Is the Healer Feat Broken?

[Asisreo]

Two separate sources using the same exact language, with a class ability about that very language, which changes the action to a bonus action. What is the in-game justification for it working with one but not the other? What is even your argument that this makes sense, if it's not "I don't like this combination"? Because if it's just that let's talk about the costs and benefits of taking a feat and taking this subclass to get this kind of result rather than this silly debate about how two identical sentences should be treated differently for apparently...reasons?

The language inside doesn't matter. We're comparing the actions. One is using the Healer's kit as-is. The other is in a feature and that feature does not explicitly say you're using the "Use an Item" action, therefore you're not.

Healing someone and stabilizing them are different tasks, even with mundane equipment. It's impressive someone can bring someone back from unconscious to conscious within 6 seconds, let alone being able to do it before or after firing a bow in that same 6 second round. But that's like quickly administering a bandage or something.

On the other hand, I view healing them a significant amount akin to a quick surgery. You're pulling out complex equipment that requires full attention to apply, rather than just alcohol and bandages or a medicinal herb.

I don't think it would break anything for it to be ruled that they can do it but I don't want people getting up-in-arms about a DM interpreting it this way, because this seems to be how it was meant to be.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The language inside doesn't matter. We're comparing the actions. One is using the Healer's kit as-is. The other is in a feature and that feature does not explicitly say you're using the "Use an Item" action, therefore you're not.

Healing someone and stabilizing them are different tasks, even with mundane equipment. It's impressive someone can bring someone back from unconscious to conscious within 6 seconds, let alone being able to do it before or after firing a bow in that same 6 second round. But that's like quickly administering a bandage or something.

On the other hand, I view healing them a significant amount akin to a quick surgery. You're pulling out complex equipment that requires full attention to apply, rather than just alcohol and bandages or a medicinal herb.

I don't think it would break anything for it to be ruled that they can do it but I don't want people getting up-in-arms about a DM interpreting it this way, because this seems to be how it was meant to be.

Fast hands is ridiculous in that respect though.

You can pick a 20 tumbler lock in a bonus action. Sure, you see people pop open simple locks in that amount of time, but the Thief is doing that to locks that would take an average person full minutes to attempt.

And a quick surgery is nowwhere near what the healer feat looks like to me. To me it is wrapping a poultice soaked bandage around a wounds, I mean, even at the most extreme end, this takes six seconds if it is an action. .

And I'm sorry, but saying that the Feat doesn't say you are taking the Use Item action is bogus. Nothing in the entire game states you are using the Use Item action. Throwing caltrops and ball bearings don't say you are using an item, drinking antitoxin doesn't say you are using an item, using a tinder box doesn't say you are using an item.

However, all of those have action uses, all of those are items, and hence, they are Use Item actions. Yes, magic items are different. I find that a bit dumb in a lot of respects, but that was the design teams choice. And the Healer kit doesn't give you an new action to use, it gives you a new way to use the item. And the biggest evidence for that is also the simplest. You can't use the Healer feat without the Healer's Kit. If they were separate like you seem to think, you could use the action without the Kit, but you cannot because the feat allows that character to modify the abilities of the Healer's Kit when they are using it. So you are still, using an item.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Crawford ruled a thief can do it as a bonus action years ago.

Yeah, I don’t follow people on Twitter, so the ruling would not have percolated into my information sphere.

I’m persuaded. Frankly it is a cool concept.

Are you planning on having a Role Playing hook with it? Like the feat, represents training in the hidden, healing lore of the Monks of farefenugen?

 

[Ancalagon]

So - I have real play experience on this: a Near 2 year campaign, level 2 to level 8, 1 session per 2 weeks, 3 hours, Yoon-Suin setting with 5e.

One player agreed to play cleric, but insisted that she would not be the only party healer. So one guy took a paladin (and played him like a healing gish) and the other a warlock (human) with the healer feat (the only feat I allowed in the game until level 8). The fourth player was initially a Barbarian but at level 4 dropped out and we gained a open hand monk (so some self-healing powers).

I had some "one encounter" days but during the "real" adventuring days encounters were about 3-5 a day, one or 2 short rests a day. The Paladin was a bit OP but increasing the pace took him down a notch.

I reduced natural healing: Sleeping restored Hit Dice as normal, but not the hitpoint themselves (you want to heal you have to spent hit dice).

The party had TONS of healing. It almost never was an issue - I mean they got hurt and had to heal a lot, but they were able to do it.

The warlock's healing feat was never "enough", but it was always the #1 go-to solution. For lightly injured PCs it was amply sufficient. However, medium or heavily injured PCs needed to spend hitdice or use magic. But by being almost constantly available, it really contributed a lot.

Despite the paladin's player changing to a fae warlock/battlemaster and gaining a 5th character with no healing watsoever, the party was still able to manage under pressure. The cleric had to cast a little bit more healing magic but still had a lot of non-healing magic to offer and use as needed.

So yes, the healing feat is very good, but it does cost a feat, and the warlock's stats were a bit subpar because of that, and it's never "enough" at mid-high levels.

 

[Xeviat]

I've found that groups cannot get through full XP adventuring days without potions or the Healer feat. I've seen groups with Healer and Inspiring Leader and they can power through 3 deadly or 6-8 medium encounters. Low level groups without healer struggle.

The feat is more powerful than comparable feats. I compare it to Spellcasting Initiate (Cure Wounds).

Because of that, in my growing list of house rules, I largely bake Healer into the Medicine skill. If I reintroduce the feat, I'll balance it to be on par with other HP boosting feats.

I feel like a spell once per short rest is a benchmark for a feat, so Healer needs to be scaled back since it works on the whole party.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've found that groups cannot get through full XP adventuring days without potions or the Healer feat. I've seen groups with Healer and Inspiring Leader and they can power through 3 deadly or 6-8 medium encounters. Low level groups without healer struggle.

The feat is more powerful than comparable feats. I compare it to Spellcasting Initiate (Cure Wounds).

Because of that, in my growing list of house rules, I largely bake Healer into the Medicine skill. If I reintroduce the feat, I'll balance it to be on par with other HP boosting feats.

I feel like a spell once per short rest is a benchmark for a feat, so Healer needs to be scaled back since it works on the whole party.

That seems like a wholly unfair comparison. I mean, the 1/day spell from Magic Initiate isn't even where the power of the feat is at, it is in the 2 cantrips, and the only cantrip that does healing is Spare the Dying which stabilizes, and that is what the base healing kit does without the feat.

Honestly, I can't think of a single feat that would be equivalent (in a measurable way like hp or damage) to 1st level spell per short rest. I mean, Take Cure wounds that is 1d8 with a +2 mod. That is about 6 hp of healing per short rest. Heavy Armor Master saves you 3 hp per hit. Which means that if the person who has it gets hit 3 times between short rests (2 fights between rest, 3 rounds per fight, 3 enemies meaning that we are talking about getting hit 3 times out of 18, which means that the enemy misses them 84% of the time) then the feat is overperforming according to your metric. And Heavy Armor Master is not considered a top tier feat

 

[the Jester]

I've run tons of 5e, and have seen probably 3 or so pcs with the Healer feat (although not a rogue with Fast Hands- I didn't even realize that Fast Hands would work with Healer until now). So far, my experience- running from 1st up to around 16th level- is that Healer is always good, but never too good.

Again, though, the Fast Hands rogue is the optimal build for it, and I haven't seen it, so I can't judge that one.

Anyway, if I were to rate the top feats in my game, I think I'd end up with a very different list than other people do, because Keen Mind would absolutely be on the list, along with Sharpshooter, GWM, Sentinel... and Healer. But that's fine. I don't think any of those are overpowered, though I know others have real issues with Sharpshooter and GWM.

@Mistwell, I'd recommend taking it, personally- among other things, it sounds like it really fits your character's "Robin Hood" style.

EDIT: Aargh, old habits, mention tags, sorry Russ.

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah, I don’t follow people on Twitter, so the ruling would not have percolated into my information sphere.

I’m persuaded. Frankly it is a cool concept.

Are you planning on having a Role Playing hook with it? Like the feat, represents training in the hidden, healing lore of the Monks of farefenugen?

More like, "Poor and downtrodden, as a protector of the other destitute children in Waterdeep he learned to steal food and clothing, and how to heal the mistreated beggers and abused and abandoned children of the city. When you're fleeing for your life from the city guard or an evil foster "parent", you want Henry Swiftfoot by your side to patch you up right quick so you can high tail it to the rooftops as he creates a distraction below."

 

[Ancalagon]

That seems like a wholly unfair comparison. I mean, the 1/day spell from Magic Initiate isn't even where the power of the feat is at, it is in the 2 cantrips, and the only cantrip that does healing is Spare the Dying which stabilizes, and that is what the base healing kit does without the feat.

Honestly, I can't think of a single feat that would be equivalent (in a measurable way like hp or damage) to 1st level spell per short rest. I mean, Take Cure wounds that is 1d8 with a +2 mod. That is about 6 hp of healing per short rest. Heavy Armor Master saves you 3 hp per hit. Which means that if the person who has it gets hit 3 times between short rests (2 fights between rest, 3 rounds per fight, 3 enemies meaning that we are talking about getting hit 3 times out of 18, which means that the enemy misses them 84% of the time) then the feat is overperforming according to your metric. And Heavy Armor Master is not considered a top tier feat

And you can use it once on every party member, so it's a bit like 3-5 spells per short rest...

 

[Chaosmancer]

And you can use it once on every party member, so it's a bit like 3-5 spells per short rest...

Yes, that is how Healer works, and I think that is why @Xeviat was calling it overpowered, because in their rankings, they believe a feat should only be as powerful as a single 1st level spell per short rest.

That is why most of my post was showing that that baseline is far too low for how feats are meant to operate. Personally, I think Healer is right about where you want it, it does it's job and is good enough you don't hate still having it by levels 12 and up.