The way I interpret the wording is the equivalent to using a low dose of medicine vs a high one. The low dose does its job and wears off much sooner, allowing a reapplication on a following turn, while the stronger dose stays in your system much longer, making further small doses ineffective and another strong one too risky due to overdosing.
I'd agree mechanically that RAI the second bullet's limitations should only apply to itself, but I can accept the RAW. It's still a powerful feat, and just like GWM or SS it carries a risk to using the preferred effect.
If you stabilize a creature, but they remain at 0 hitpoints, (as they would if you did not have this feat, but used a healer's kit) what happens? I know if they get 3 successful death saves they get back up, but if they just remain unconscious at 0, are they essentially out of the fight until they get some healing?
If you stabilize a creature, but they remain at 0 hitpoints, (as they would if you did not have this feat, but used a healer's kit) what happens? I know if they get 3 successful death saves they get back up, but if they just remain unconscious at 0, are they essentially out of the fight until they get some healing?
You either need to heal them somehow or they will regain 1 HP in 1d4 hours and wake up (then still need a short or long rest to get more natural healing).
This is why I am of the opinion that healing (as in a healer) is a necessary resource for a party more so than "tank" or "DPS".
Okay, I hate to reopen this can of worms. But I've heard several character builders addressed this feat. And there is a argument that the maximum hit dice is the maximum number on the hit die not the total number of hit dice can someone confirm which one is the correct way I have players arguing both ways at the moment as a DM I have made the stipulation it is the maximum number of hit dice that the character has. If I am incorrect please let me know thank you. Also I'm still new to the five East system as a DM so forgive me if this is too simple of a question.
Okay, I hate to reopen this can of worms. But I've heard several character builders addressed this feat. And there is a argument that the maximum hit dice is the maximum number on the hit die not the total number of hit dice can someone confirm which one is the correct way I have players arguing both ways at the moment as a DM I have made the stipulation it is the maximum number of hit dice that the character has. If I am incorrect please let me know thank you. Also I'm still new to the five East system as a DM so forgive me if this is too simple of a question.
It very,very,very clearly states this it is the total number of hit dice you can potientally have.
Okay, I hate to reopen this can of worms. But I've heard several character builders addressed this feat. And there is a argument that the maximum hit dice is the maximum number on the hit die not the total number of hit dice can someone confirm which one is the correct way I have players arguing both ways at the moment as a DM I have made the stipulation it is the maximum number of hit dice that the character has. If I am incorrect please let me know thank you. Also I'm still new to the five East system as a DM so forgive me if this is too simple of a question.
"Number of dice" never means highest roll of a die.
I don't know if you or anyone else arguing noticed, but those are very different phrases.
It was a few online class builders that caused the discussion in my group, but it did raise a question why doesn't it say leve instead of saying maximum number of hit dice.
It was a few online class builders that caused the discussion in my group, but it did raise a question why doesn't it say leve instead of saying maximum number of hit dice.
Because NPCs don’t have levels. They only have hit dice.
Thanks I guess, but that has exactly zero bearing on the discussion at hand, so I’m really not sure what your point is.
Then how is "Because NPCs don’t have levels. They only have hit dice." relevant?
Because the question was “why does it say maximum number of hit dice instead of level?”
I do apologize if my tenor is a bit short here, but your entry into this discussion was honestly bizarrely rude. When people say things as part of a conversation, they’re saying those things in the context of that conversation. When I say “NPCs don’t have levels, they have hit dice,” that’s not an absolute statement; can you build an NPC as you would a PC? Sure, but that’s not important to the question. The overwhelming majority of statblocks in the Monster Manual and other sources do not have levels; of the ones that do (only spellcasters, as far as I’m aware), an even more vanishingly small number (if any; I’m not checking) have the same number of hit dice as their level. If the Healer feat just said level, it would become unusable on the vast majority of creatures in the game. That’s why what I said was relevant.
Whereas what you said was weird, off topic, and apparently driven by some need to remove my statement from the context in which it was stated, misconstrue it as an absolute, and then “prove it wrong.” I just don’t get it.
It was a few online class builders that caused the discussion in my group, but it did raise a question why doesn't it say leve instead of saying maximum number of hit dice.
Because not everything you might try to heal posses levels.Including the vast majority of monsters.
You are an able physician, allowing you to mend wounds quickly and get your allies back in the fight. You gain the following benefits:
When you use a healer's kit to stabilize a dying creature, that creature also regains 1 hit point.
As an action, you can spend one use of a healer's kit to tend to a creature and restore 1d6 + 4 hit points to it, plus additional hit points equal to the creature's maximum number of Hit Dice. The creature can't regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest.
If you use the action to heal a character for the 1d6+4+HD, do they no longer gain the benefit regaining HP when stabilized (till after rest ofc)? my concern is that the heal action references the entire feat and not just the action.
Technically, and I mean by the skin of its teeth, no. It says they don't gain hit point(s) for the feat, they gain a (single) hit point when you stabalize them though.
Technically, and I mean by the skin of its teeth, no. It says they don't gain hit point(s) for the feat, they gain a (single) hit point when you stabalize them though.
Nah. You are (intentionally) misrepresenting English here. In English, only exactly one of something is treated as singular. Any other number, including undetermined numbers, are treated as plural. One is an allowed value for undetermined numbers to take. One hit point is some amount of hit points (that you can no longer regain after benefiting from the healing in the second bullet).
Im a noob but, you could also make the argument that it says cant regain hit pointS (s meaning plural) meaning you could stabilize them and give them a (1 singular) Hitpoint as many times as you have uses for your healers kit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The way I interpret the wording is the equivalent to using a low dose of medicine vs a high one. The low dose does its job and wears off much sooner, allowing a reapplication on a following turn, while the stronger dose stays in your system much longer, making further small doses ineffective and another strong one too risky due to overdosing.
I'd agree mechanically that RAI the second bullet's limitations should only apply to itself, but I can accept the RAW. It's still a powerful feat, and just like GWM or SS it carries a risk to using the preferred effect.
Question:
If you stabilize a creature, but they remain at 0 hitpoints, (as they would if you did not have this feat, but used a healer's kit) what happens? I know if they get 3 successful death saves they get back up, but if they just remain unconscious at 0, are they essentially out of the fight until they get some healing?
You either need to heal them somehow or they will regain 1 HP in 1d4 hours and wake up (then still need a short or long rest to get more natural healing).
This is why I am of the opinion that healing (as in a healer) is a necessary resource for a party more so than "tank" or "DPS".
Okay, I hate to reopen this can of worms. But I've heard several character builders addressed this feat. And there is a argument that the maximum hit dice is the maximum number on the hit die not the total number of hit dice can someone confirm which one is the correct way I have players arguing both ways at the moment as a DM I have made the stipulation it is the maximum number of hit dice that the character has. If I am incorrect please let me know thank you. Also I'm still new to the five East system as a DM so forgive me if this is too simple of a question.
It very,very,very clearly states this it is the total number of hit dice you can potientally have.
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
"Number of dice" never means highest roll of a die.
I don't know if you or anyone else arguing noticed, but those are very different phrases.
It was a few online class builders that caused the discussion in my group, but it did raise a question why doesn't it say leve instead of saying maximum number of hit dice.
Because NPCs don’t have levels. They only have hit dice.
Thanks I guess, but that has exactly zero bearing on the discussion at hand, so I’m really not sure what your point is.
Because the question was “why does it say maximum number of hit dice instead of level?”
I do apologize if my tenor is a bit short here, but your entry into this discussion was honestly bizarrely rude. When people say things as part of a conversation, they’re saying those things in the context of that conversation. When I say “NPCs don’t have levels, they have hit dice,” that’s not an absolute statement; can you build an NPC as you would a PC? Sure, but that’s not important to the question. The overwhelming majority of statblocks in the Monster Manual and other sources do not have levels; of the ones that do (only spellcasters, as far as I’m aware), an even more vanishingly small number (if any; I’m not checking) have the same number of hit dice as their level. If the Healer feat just said level, it would become unusable on the vast majority of creatures in the game. That’s why what I said was relevant.
Whereas what you said was weird, off topic, and apparently driven by some need to remove my statement from the context in which it was stated, misconstrue it as an absolute, and then “prove it wrong.” I just don’t get it.
Because not everything you might try to heal posses levels.Including the vast majority of monsters.
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
Then how about because 99.99% of NPCs don't have levels and 0% have hit dice/hp based on level, but the feature needed to be expected to work on them.
Also Saga never said they can't have levels, just that they generally don't, which is true and actually relevant to the question.
Technically, and I mean by the skin of its teeth, no. It says they don't gain hit point(s) for the feat, they gain a (single) hit point when you stabalize them though.
Nah. You are (intentionally) misrepresenting English here. In English, only exactly one of something is treated as singular. Any other number, including undetermined numbers, are treated as plural. One is an allowed value for undetermined numbers to take. One hit point is some amount of hit points (that you can no longer regain after benefiting from the healing in the second bullet).
Im a noob but, you could also make the argument that it says cant regain hit pointS (s meaning plural) meaning you could stabilize them and give them a (1 singular) Hitpoint as many times as you have uses for your healers kit.