In our current campaign, I am playing a Lawtouched race character. It is a homebrew race of my DM that has combined features of being organic (half-Human) and mechanical/construct (half-Warforged).
We want him to be a partial construct only, so that he will have penalties on all healing received since it is a "Cyborg" and not fully mechanical race.
There are two options to choose from - but we do not know which one is more harsh:
1. All dice thrown from any healing received will be halved, rounded up in this case. (e.g. If I am the subject of a 1-st level Cure Wounds spell from a healer with, let's say, +4 mod and he rolls 5 on 1d8 - to show the rounding in example as well - I would receive only 7 HP, i.e. 3 HP from a roll of 5 halved and rounded up, and +4 HP for his ability modifier.)
2. Disadvantage on all thrown dices when being healed. (e.g. In the same case as above, the caster rolls 5 with his first dice and then another 1d8, let's say 4, thus I would receive 8 HP, i.e. 4 - the lower roll from disadvantage - with +4 from his ability modifier.)
Since I am not really mathematical proficient, I would like to gain feedback from someone who has invested his PB into it, and know which one is more harsh so we can pick the "softer" condition.
This is tricky especially when you start to roll 2d8 and more variable dices get involved with less emphasis on ability modifiers; and I am unable to do such complex comparison.
Why not just say he has resistance to healing, so you halve healing received from all sources. It makes it much easier to remember and calculate. Basically what you have for option 1 but halve the total and not just the roll. I don't see why the modifier to a healing roll wouldn't reduce as well?
Halving is worse, and the larger the dice involved the bigger the difference (though not by much) - you'd lose 20-25% healing more than what you'll lose with disadvantage (dice only, so with the non-halved modifiers it will be less than that).
For 1d4: expected result when rolled with disadvantage = 30/16 = 1.875 expected result when halving (rounded up) = 6/4 = 1.5 (80% of the result with disadvantage)
For 1d6: expected result when rolled with disadvantage = 91/36 = 2.528 expected result when halving (rounded up) = 12/6 = 2 (79% of the result with disadvantage)
I would go with the „resitance to healing“ calculation as well. It‘s just easier that way - less dice rolled. Keep in mind that advantage/disadvantage is only used by single-die rolls. Just think of the nightmare that would be a flamestrike hitting targets that are vulnerable, normal, and resitant to its damage types.
Disadvantage wouldn't be all that hard if healing was more uniform. Rolling two dice instead of one is not a big deal. The issue is that not all healing is based on dice rolls - Lay on Hands for instance, or Preserve Life.
I would not like to have to roll twice as much die for a mass cure wounds and then have to figure out which set has the higher number and therefor is used by my „normal“ PCs and which set is used by the „resitant“ PC — that sounds like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Halving is worse, and the larger the dice involved the bigger the difference (though not by much) - you'd lose 20-25% healing more than what you'll lose with disadvantage (dice only, so with the non-halved modifiers it will be less than that).
For 1d4: expected result when rolled with disadvantage = 30/16 = 1.875 expected result when halving (rounded up) = 6/4 = 1.5 (80% of the result with disadvantage)
For 1d6: expected result when rolled with disadvantage = 91/36 = 2.528 expected result when halving (rounded up) = 12/6 = 2 (79% of the result with disadvantage)
That sort of works but also doesn't. you can roll 2d6 and remove the highest a million times, and you'll never get one result of 2.528. Probabilities work well for large amounts of results, not so well on discrete results. Whilst the average roll of 1d6 is 3.5, no d6 in history has ever actually rolled this number (assuming a d6 numbered 1 to 6).
I'm not an expert on statistics, but I feel that discrete results need to be treated differently because of this - you shoud give "X" chance of "Y", not an average number.
Rolling d4 with disadvantage has 16 possible results: 7 of them are 1, 5 are 2, 3 are 3 and 1 is 4. So you have a 7/16 chance of 1, 5/16 chance of a 2, 3/16 chance of 3 and 1/16 chance of 4.
rolling a d4 and halving it (rounding up) gives you 4 possible results; 1, 1, 2, 2. so 50% chance of 1 and 50% chance of 2.
So you have a 9/16 chance of 2 or more with disadvantage and a 8/16 chance of 2 with halving. You have no chance of 3+ with halving, and you have 4/16 chance of it (1/4) with disadvantage.
It draws the same conclusion - disadvantage is better than halving.
It draws the same conclusion - disadvantage is better than halving.
It's really the same info, just a slightly different perspective. Doing it non-discretely allows me to check how much of a difference it'll likely have made over many healings (about 20-25%), that's all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It draws the same conclusion - disadvantage is better than halving.
It's really the same info, just a slightly different perspective. Doing it non-discretely allows me to check how much of a difference it'll likely have made over many healings (about 20-25%), that's all.
agreed, it's just the same info in a different format. I draw a similar conclusion; over 16 healings, I would expect to get get 30hp from disadvantage and 24hp from halving - as you say, 20% difference.
I'm pretty sure Warforged gain full healing from all sources, from what I remember they are considered living creatures for all magical effects. If full living robots get healing, then surely a half robot should as well? There were some homebrew alternative healing options with mechanical repair kits, but nothing official.
The only other group that comes to mind with reduced healing is the undead. Some cannot be effected by healing and others are harmed by it. They then have alternative rules such as healing over time, life drain abilities, healing via inflict wounds or just simply enough power from their skills and abilities to make up for the disadvantage. If you are homebrewing the class then perhaps he gains no benefit from healing magic but absorbs an amount of life per hit or some such (you'd have to work our a balanced method and have it scale with his level).
If resistance is too harsh, maybe a healer (or another character working in tandem) could negate that resistance out of combat if they also had proficiency with tinker's tools or the Mending cantrip or whatever else you might equate with mechanical repair.
But Wert is right, there's no precedent for construct PCs to take a penalty to healing so it's not necessary unless you're trying to balance out another really good feature.
But Wert is right, there's no precedent for construct PCs to take a penalty to healing so it's not necessary unless you're trying to balance out another really good feature.
There is in a previous editions (healing had half effect on warforged and Cure spells only affected living creatures in 3E). I wouldn't bring it back myself, but "no precedent" isn't 100% accurate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Why not just say he has resistance to healing, so you halve healing received from all sources. It makes it much easier to remember and calculate. Basically what you have for option 1 but halve the total and not just the roll. I don't see why the modifier to a healing roll wouldn't reduce as well?
Resistance to healing would also mean that the 6th level Heal spell or Lay on Hands would be penalized as well.
What we are looking for should be a mere inconvenience when it comes to accessible low level healing options, not a complete nerf to the character.
Making it work as resistance would be perhaps more easy-to-use but we don't have a problem to roll disadvantages even with 4d8 heals.
Halving is worse, and the larger the dice involved the bigger the difference (though not by much) - you'd lose 20-25% healing more than what you'll lose with disadvantage (dice only, so with the non-halved modifiers it will be less than that).
For 1d4: expected result when rolled with disadvantage = 30/16 = 1.875 expected result when halving (rounded up) = 6/4 = 1.5 (80% of the result with disadvantage)
For 1d6: expected result when rolled with disadvantage = 91/36 = 2.528 expected result when halving (rounded up) = 12/6 = 2 (79% of the result with disadvantage)
Thanks, Pangurjan. This is something that I have been looking for. I don't know if you are 100% right but you confirmed my inner feeling that disadvantage is the way to go.
Halving is worse, and the larger the dice involved the bigger the difference (though not by much) - you'd lose 20-25% healing more than what you'll lose with disadvantage (dice only, so with the non-halved modifiers it will be less than that).
For 1d4: expected result when rolled with disadvantage = 30/16 = 1.875 expected result when halving (rounded up) = 6/4 = 1.5 (80% of the result with disadvantage)
For 1d6: expected result when rolled with disadvantage = 91/36 = 2.528 expected result when halving (rounded up) = 12/6 = 2 (79% of the result with disadvantage)
That sort of works but also doesn't. you can roll 2d6 and remove the highest a million times, and you'll never get one result of 2.528. Probabilities work well for large amounts of results, not so well on discrete results. Whilst the average roll of 1d6 is 3.5, no d6 in history has ever actually rolled this number (assuming a d6 numbered 1 to 6).
I'm not an expert on statistics, but I feel that discrete results need to be treated differently because of this - you shoud give "X" chance of "Y", not an average number.
Rolling d4 with disadvantage has 16 possible results: 7 of them are 1, 5 are 2, 3 are 3 and 1 is 4. So you have a 7/16 chance of 1, 5/16 chance of a 2, 3/16 chance of 3 and 1/16 chance of 4.
rolling a d4 and halving it (rounding up) gives you 4 possible results; 1, 1, 2, 2. so 50% chance of 1 and 50% chance of 2.
So you have a 9/16 chance of 2 or more with disadvantage and a 8/16 chance of 2 with halving. You have no chance of 3+ with halving, and you have 4/16 chance of it (1/4) with disadvantage.
It draws the same conclusion - disadvantage is better than halving.
And also thanks to you ThorukDuckSlayer for confirming.
So, in the end, we will go with the disadvantages on all rolled dices.
As for why we decided to give him a penalty on heals, it is based on the fact that we are currently trying to give 5e a try and we are veterans of 2-3.5 editions. So, even Warforged would be penalized (if some party member would be playing it - which is not the case).
Thanks, Pangurjan. This is something that I have been looking for. I don't know if you are 100% right but you confirmed my inner feeling that disadvantage is the way to go.
And also thanks to you ThorukDuckSlayer for confirming.
So, in the end, we will go with the disadvantages on all rolled dices.
As for why we decided to give him a penalty on heals, it is based on the fact that we are currently trying to give 5e a try and we are veterans of 2-3.5 editions. So, even Warforged would be penalized (if some party member would be playing it - which is not the case).
How exactly will you be implementing that? Disadvantage makes the assumption that there is one dice being rolled, as it affects skill checks and attack rolls. How will you implement disadvantage on, say, healing 5d6? My preference would be to have them roll one additional die and discard the highest - otherwise you have to either roll 5d6 twice, add them both up and select the lowest group, or roll 5 lots of 2d6 and pick the lowest.
Come to think of it, we didn't run any numbers for multitudes of dice, only for singles. I'll run it on 4d4, with both techniques and halving, and see what we get:
There was masses of text here, and no-one wants to read, that; so here's a graph instead, as testament to me overthinking this whole thing:
Hopefully this makes sense for you! The further right the peak of the line is, the better your chances of rolling higher. Rolling in groups is quite comparable to rolling 1 extra dice and discarding the highest, so I'd choose that for ease of implementation!
How exactly will you be implementing that? Disadvantage makes the assumption that there is one dice being rolled, as it affects skill checks and attack rolls. How will you implement disadvantage on, say, healing 5d6? My preference would be to have them roll one additional die and discard the highest - otherwise you have to either roll 5d6 twice, add them both up and select the lowest group, or roll 5 lots of 2d6 and pick the lowest.
There is no reason why advantage/disadvantage cannot work with multiple dice. Players attack multiple times throughout a combat encounter and often gain advantage/disadvantage multiple times. The only difference is that the attacks are spread out over multiple instances instead of all at once. There is nothing stopping a player from rolling 2d6 five times in a row for healing, and there is nothing wrong with rolling 10d6 all at once and noting which ones are paired either.
With physical dice, it is super easy to just roll five different pairs of dice, and each pair has its own color/pattern/size/etc.
Digitally, you can roll 10d6 on Google, and it usually lays it out in two rows of five dice, and then you can pick the highest in each column.
The problem I see with disadvantage to healing is you're just making a lot more work to anyone who uses healing and it doesn't make sense for non-dice healing (such as from Aasimar or Paladin, the Heal spell, or Mass Heal spell). It's a clunky rule.
Just consider "resistance to healing" and you, rather than others, are the only one having to do anything inconvenient and that is just a slight bit of more math for you which can still be easy and quick.
Or maybe consider the reason they did away with this in 5th edition and just don't implement this at all. A half-warforged-half-human isn't going to suddenly be more powerful than either: it should just be a base human with a warforged-like trait or two, so there's no reason to so heavily nerf the character at all. Humans get full healing, warforged get full healing. This was a deliberate design choice. So this "nerf healz" trait coming out of nowhere is barmy.
If I was a dedicated healer in a game with your character, I would not be bothering to "roll disadvantage" for my heals. Screw that. I have enough with all the heals, spell preps/tracking, and so on. I shouldn't be slowing rolls down by rolling twice all the time just because you wanted this character.
If you're deadset on this disadvantage nonsense rolling: the healer rolls once as normal, you note the figure and roll the dice again yourself. That way your character decision isn't having a negative impact on others and you're the one doing the extra work.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The problem I see with disadvantage to healing is you're just making a lot more work to anyone who uses healing and it doesn't make sense for non-dice healing (such as from Aasimar or Paladin, the Heal spell, or Mass Heal spell). It's a clunky rule.
Just consider "resistance to healing" and you, rather than others, are the only one having to do anything inconvenient and that is just a slight bit of more math for you which can still be easy and quick.
If you're deadset on this disadvantage nonsense rolling: the healer rolls once as normal, you note the figure and roll the dice again yourself. That way your character decision isn't having a negative impact on others and you're the one doing the extra work.
I have to agree with this. Just halve the roll result or numbers generated and be done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
But Wert is right, there's no precedent for construct PCs to take a penalty to healing so it's not necessary unless you're trying to balance out another really good feature.
There is in a previous editions (healing had half effect on warforged and Cure spells only affected living creatures in 3E). I wouldn't bring it back myself, but "no precedent" isn't 100% accurate.
I meant in 5e. How it works in a whole different system would need to take the whole system into account as to why it worked that way. But fair point.
Cyber has a good point about the burden of the math though. Your racial feature shouldn't impose complications on how other PCs work. However you do it, they should be able to just roll the heal, tell you the value, and move on with their lives.
In our current campaign, I am playing a Lawtouched race character. It is a homebrew race of my DM that has combined features of being organic (half-Human) and mechanical/construct (half-Warforged).
We want him to be a partial construct only, so that he will have penalties on all healing received since it is a "Cyborg" and not fully mechanical race.
There are two options to choose from - but we do not know which one is more harsh:
1. All dice thrown from any healing received will be halved, rounded up in this case. (e.g. If I am the subject of a 1-st level Cure Wounds spell from a healer with, let's say, +4 mod and he rolls 5 on 1d8 - to show the rounding in example as well - I would receive only 7 HP, i.e. 3 HP from a roll of 5 halved and rounded up, and +4 HP for his ability modifier.)
2. Disadvantage on all thrown dices when being healed. (e.g. In the same case as above, the caster rolls 5 with his first dice and then another 1d8, let's say 4, thus I would receive 8 HP, i.e. 4 - the lower roll from disadvantage - with +4 from his ability modifier.)
Since I am not really mathematical proficient, I would like to gain feedback from someone who has invested his PB into it, and know which one is more harsh so we can pick the "softer" condition.
This is tricky especially when you start to roll 2d8 and more variable dices get involved with less emphasis on ability modifiers; and I am unable to do such complex comparison.
Why not just say he has resistance to healing, so you halve healing received from all sources. It makes it much easier to remember and calculate. Basically what you have for option 1 but halve the total and not just the roll. I don't see why the modifier to a healing roll wouldn't reduce as well?
Halving is worse, and the larger the dice involved the bigger the difference (though not by much) - you'd lose 20-25% healing more than what you'll lose with disadvantage (dice only, so with the non-halved modifiers it will be less than that).
For 1d4:
expected result when rolled with disadvantage = 30/16 = 1.875
expected result when halving (rounded up) = 6/4 = 1.5 (80% of the result with disadvantage)
For 1d6:
expected result when rolled with disadvantage = 91/36 = 2.528
expected result when halving (rounded up) = 12/6 = 2 (79% of the result with disadvantage)
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would go with the „resitance to healing“ calculation as well. It‘s just easier that way - less dice rolled. Keep in mind that advantage/disadvantage is only used by single-die rolls. Just think of the nightmare that would be a flamestrike hitting targets that are vulnerable, normal, and resitant to its damage types.
#OpenDnD
Resistance to healing is by far the simplest way of going about it.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Disadvantage wouldn't be all that hard if healing was more uniform. Rolling two dice instead of one is not a big deal. The issue is that not all healing is based on dice rolls - Lay on Hands for instance, or Preserve Life.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would not like to have to roll twice as much die for a mass cure wounds and then have to figure out which set has the higher number and therefor is used by my „normal“ PCs and which set is used by the „resitant“ PC — that sounds like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
#OpenDnD
That sort of works but also doesn't. you can roll 2d6 and remove the highest a million times, and you'll never get one result of 2.528. Probabilities work well for large amounts of results, not so well on discrete results. Whilst the average roll of 1d6 is 3.5, no d6 in history has ever actually rolled this number (assuming a d6 numbered 1 to 6).
I'm not an expert on statistics, but I feel that discrete results need to be treated differently because of this - you shoud give "X" chance of "Y", not an average number.
Rolling d4 with disadvantage has 16 possible results: 7 of them are 1, 5 are 2, 3 are 3 and 1 is 4. So you have a 7/16 chance of 1, 5/16 chance of a 2, 3/16 chance of 3 and 1/16 chance of 4.
rolling a d4 and halving it (rounding up) gives you 4 possible results; 1, 1, 2, 2. so 50% chance of 1 and 50% chance of 2.
So you have a 9/16 chance of 2 or more with disadvantage and a 8/16 chance of 2 with halving. You have no chance of 3+ with halving, and you have 4/16 chance of it (1/4) with disadvantage.
It draws the same conclusion - disadvantage is better than halving.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
It's really the same info, just a slightly different perspective. Doing it non-discretely allows me to check how much of a difference it'll likely have made over many healings (about 20-25%), that's all.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
agreed, it's just the same info in a different format. I draw a similar conclusion; over 16 healings, I would expect to get get 30hp from disadvantage and 24hp from halving - as you say, 20% difference.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Of course, the standard rules for a resistance are round down, not up.
I'm pretty sure Warforged gain full healing from all sources, from what I remember they are considered living creatures for all magical effects. If full living robots get healing, then surely a half robot should as well? There were some homebrew alternative healing options with mechanical repair kits, but nothing official.
The only other group that comes to mind with reduced healing is the undead. Some cannot be effected by healing and others are harmed by it. They then have alternative rules such as healing over time, life drain abilities, healing via inflict wounds or just simply enough power from their skills and abilities to make up for the disadvantage. If you are homebrewing the class then perhaps he gains no benefit from healing magic but absorbs an amount of life per hit or some such (you'd have to work our a balanced method and have it scale with his level).
If resistance is too harsh, maybe a healer (or another character working in tandem) could negate that resistance out of combat if they also had proficiency with tinker's tools or the Mending cantrip or whatever else you might equate with mechanical repair.
But Wert is right, there's no precedent for construct PCs to take a penalty to healing so it's not necessary unless you're trying to balance out another really good feature.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
There is in a previous editions (healing had half effect on warforged and Cure spells only affected living creatures in 3E). I wouldn't bring it back myself, but "no precedent" isn't 100% accurate.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Resistance to healing would also mean that the 6th level Heal spell or Lay on Hands would be penalized as well.
What we are looking for should be a mere inconvenience when it comes to accessible low level healing options, not a complete nerf to the character.
Making it work as resistance would be perhaps more easy-to-use but we don't have a problem to roll disadvantages even with 4d8 heals.
Thanks, Pangurjan. This is something that I have been looking for. I don't know if you are 100% right but you confirmed my inner feeling that disadvantage is the way to go.
And also thanks to you ThorukDuckSlayer for confirming.
So, in the end, we will go with the disadvantages on all rolled dices.
As for why we decided to give him a penalty on heals, it is based on the fact that we are currently trying to give 5e a try and we are veterans of 2-3.5 editions. So, even Warforged would be penalized (if some party member would be playing it - which is not the case).
How exactly will you be implementing that? Disadvantage makes the assumption that there is one dice being rolled, as it affects skill checks and attack rolls. How will you implement disadvantage on, say, healing 5d6? My preference would be to have them roll one additional die and discard the highest - otherwise you have to either roll 5d6 twice, add them both up and select the lowest group, or roll 5 lots of 2d6 and pick the lowest.
Come to think of it, we didn't run any numbers for multitudes of dice, only for singles. I'll run it on 4d4, with both techniques and halving, and see what we get:
There was masses of text here, and no-one wants to read, that; so here's a graph instead, as testament to me overthinking this whole thing:
Hopefully this makes sense for you! The further right the peak of the line is, the better your chances of rolling higher. Rolling in groups is quite comparable to rolling 1 extra dice and discarding the highest, so I'd choose that for ease of implementation!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
There is no reason why advantage/disadvantage cannot work with multiple dice. Players attack multiple times throughout a combat encounter and often gain advantage/disadvantage multiple times. The only difference is that the attacks are spread out over multiple instances instead of all at once. There is nothing stopping a player from rolling 2d6 five times in a row for healing, and there is nothing wrong with rolling 10d6 all at once and noting which ones are paired either.
With physical dice, it is super easy to just roll five different pairs of dice, and each pair has its own color/pattern/size/etc.
Digitally, you can roll 10d6 on Google, and it usually lays it out in two rows of five dice, and then you can pick the highest in each column.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
The problem I see with disadvantage to healing is you're just making a lot more work to anyone who uses healing and it doesn't make sense for non-dice healing (such as from Aasimar or Paladin, the Heal spell, or Mass Heal spell). It's a clunky rule.
Just consider "resistance to healing" and you, rather than others, are the only one having to do anything inconvenient and that is just a slight bit of more math for you which can still be easy and quick.
Or maybe consider the reason they did away with this in 5th edition and just don't implement this at all. A half-warforged-half-human isn't going to suddenly be more powerful than either: it should just be a base human with a warforged-like trait or two, so there's no reason to so heavily nerf the character at all. Humans get full healing, warforged get full healing. This was a deliberate design choice. So this "nerf healz" trait coming out of nowhere is barmy.
If I was a dedicated healer in a game with your character, I would not be bothering to "roll disadvantage" for my heals. Screw that. I have enough with all the heals, spell preps/tracking, and so on. I shouldn't be slowing rolls down by rolling twice all the time just because you wanted this character.
If you're deadset on this disadvantage
nonsenserolling: the healer rolls once as normal, you note the figure and roll the dice again yourself. That way your character decision isn't having a negative impact on others and you're the one doing the extra work.Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I have to agree with this. Just halve the roll result or numbers generated and be done.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I meant in 5e. How it works in a whole different system would need to take the whole system into account as to why it worked that way. But fair point.
Cyber has a good point about the burden of the math though. Your racial feature shouldn't impose complications on how other PCs work. However you do it, they should be able to just roll the heal, tell you the value, and move on with their lives.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm