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.
That looks like the correct reading to me, and my guess would be that this clause is intended to keep you from spamming the heals until really needed. On the other hand, short rests should be available every combat or two, so this is really only going to be an issue if you heal someone in combat or just before, and then they go down.
Considering that stabilizing doesn't normally give hp, it's not a big deal. Consider Spare the Dying:
You touch a living creature that has 0 hit points. The creature becomes stable. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
It says nothing of adding hit points, just that the creature becomes stable (no longer makes death saving throws). At this point, I'd consider the creature remains unconscious but will regain hit points whenever they normally would (at the end of a long rest, for example). I'd even allow a short rest hit dice roll to regain hit points, along with spells.
Further, the healer's kit doesn't normally add hp either:
This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 Hit Points, without needing to make a Wisdom(Medicine) check.
As a recipient, you only get to take advantage of the feat one per long/ short rest. The healer can use the feat as often as resources and creatures are available.
My reading of this skill is that you could use the kit to stabilize with one hp, then use the kit on the same creature in a different action to heal more hp, but if the same creature needed to be stabilized after the heal more hp action it would not receive the one hp and you could not use the kit to heal more hp on that creature again until after a short or long rest. So... stabilize then heal yes, heal then stabilize no, heal then heal no. I think though, if you only stabilize and don't use the heal action from this feat on the creature, you can keep stabilizing that creature with the one hp. Use healer's kit to stabilize with one hp, use magic or a healing potion to heal, repeat until healer's kit uses are expended.
My reading of this skill is that you could use the kit to stabilize with one hp, then use the kit on the same creature in a different action to heal more hp, but if the same creature needed to be stabilized after the heal more hp action it would not receive the one hp and you could not use the kit to heal more hp on that creature again until after a short or long rest. So... stabilize then heal yes, heal then stabilize no, heal then heal no. I think though, if you only stabilize and don't use the heal action from this feat on the creature, you can keep stabilizing that creature with the one hp. Use healer's kit to stabilize with one hp, use magic or a healing potion to heal, repeat until healer's kit uses are expended.
Stabilize with 1 HP all day every day (so long as you have uses on the kit remaining, of course).
Heal a creature (with a use of the kit, regardless of their current HP) for 1d6+4+HD once per short/long rest.
The order in which these things can happen is irrelevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
My reading of this skill is that you could use the kit to stabilize with one hp, then use the kit on the same creature in a different action to heal more hp, but if the same creature needed to be stabilized after the heal more hp action it would not receive the one hp and you could not use the kit to heal more hp on that creature again until after a short or long rest. So... stabilize then heal yes, heal then stabilize no, heal then heal no. I think though, if you only stabilize and don't use the heal action from this feat on the creature, you can keep stabilizing that creature with the one hp. Use healer's kit to stabilize with one hp, use magic or a healing potion to heal, repeat until healer's kit uses are expended.
Stabilize with 1 HP all day every day (so long as you have uses on the kit remaining, of course).
Heal a creature (with a use of the kit, regardless of their current HP) for 1d6+4+HD once per short/long rest.
The order in which these things can happen is irrelevant.
This is RAI, but RAW says they cant regain any HP from this feat after using the second option until after a rest.
Until there is an errata or official Sage Advice, Jerry is correct.
Remember that just because 100% of the community doesn't read a rule in exactly the same way does not mean that there isn't a definitive consensus on what the rule actually is. Bullet points on a feat separate portions of the text that are not dependent. If they were dependent, the entire text block would be written as a paragraph. The function of bullet #1 does not depend on bullet #2, or vice versa.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Remember that just because 100% of the community doesn't read a rule in exactly the same way does not mean that there isn't a definitive consensus on what the rule actually is. Bullet points on a feat separate portions of the text that are not dependent. If they were dependent, the entire text block would be written as a paragraph. The function of bullet #1 does not depend on bullet #2, or vice versa.
Right, the bullet points are seperate things. You do not have to use bullet point two at the same time as bullet point one, and vice versa. When you use the feat you choose which bullet point you are using. But bullet point two specifically says that after using bullet point two on a creature you can no longer give any healing from this feat to that creature until it takes a short or long rest. That means that neither bullet point one or two can give healing, even a single point, to a creature that has received healing from bullet point two previously until after that creature takes a short or long rest. That is the creature taking a short or long rest, not the healer. The healer can keep applying bullet point two to different creatures all day. Also, as I said, if you don't use bullet point two on a creature, you can keep using bullet point one to stabilize and give one hp to that same creature all day. The healer can use this feat as many times as they want in the day, but a creature can only benefit from healing up until it receives bullet point two. The creature must then take a short or long rest to get further healing from this feat.
Remember that just because 100% of the community doesn't read a rule in exactly the same way does not mean that there isn't a definitive consensus on what the rule actually is. Bullet points on a feat separate portions of the text that are not dependent. If they were dependent, the entire text block would be written as a paragraph. The function of bullet #1 does not depend on bullet #2, or vice versa.
Right, the bullet points are seperate things. You do not have to use bullet point two at the same time as bullet point one, and vice versa. When you use the feat you choose which bullet point you are using. But bullet point two specifically says that after using bullet point two on a creature you can no longer give any healing from this feat to that creature until it takes a short or long rest. That means that neither bullet point one or two can give healing, even a single point, to a creature that has received healing from bullet point two previously until after that creature takes a short or long rest. That is the creature taking a short or long rest, not the healer. The healer can keep applying bullet point two to different creatures all day. Also, as I said, if you don't use bullet point two on a creature, you can keep using bullet point one to stabilize and give one hp to that same creature all day. The healer can use this feat as many times as they want in the day, but a creature can only benefit from healing up until it receives bullet point two. The creature must then take a short or long rest to get further healing from this feat.
No, they are independent. This is not hard to grasp. Bullet point #2 does not prevent bullet point #1 from being used on the same creature.
Look at other feats, and how they are structured. Here's a sample:
Drow High Magic, Bountiful Luck are written as paragraphs. The sentences are sequential, and conditionals presented in the paragraph apply to the entire thing.
Athlete, Crossbow Expert are written as a bulleted list. These are all independent features that do not directly interact.
Fade Away, Flames of Phlegethos are written as bulleted lists with some of the bullets being written as paragraphs. The bullets are independent. The bullets which also have a paragraph are internally dependent on that paragraph, but not on other bullets.
This is about as straight-forward as it gets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It is interesting that you selected fade away as an example, because it’s wording is different. One of its bullets specifically mentions that you only get one use “of this ability” (which I take to mean the bullet) per rest whereas healer specifically says “feat.”
I think no one disagrees on RAI on this, but RAW is different and JC’s tweet (the one that has been linked, anyway) doesn’t really address the issue.
It is interesting that you selected fade away as an example, because it’s wording is different. One of its bullets specifically mentions that you only get one use “of this ability” (which I take to mean the bullet) per rest whereas healer specifically says “feat.”
Which is what some people are getting hung up on, and getting hung up on that is an invalid premise. Whether it says "feat" or "ability" is completely irrelevant as the content of one bullet does not apply to the content of another bullet. There is no conflict to parse out. Bullet #2 only prevents bullet #2 from being applied again to the same creature. It does not prevent bullet #1 from being applied.
I think no one disagrees on RAI on this, but RAW is different and JC’s tweet (the one that has been linked, anyway) doesn’t really address the issue.
I don't think anyone disagrees on RAI either, but this is indeed RAW too. The rule itself is not unclear in any legitimate manner.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Bullet 2 is an ability that gives a specific rule that you have to ignore in order to interpret in any way besides “the creature can’t regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a long or short rest.”
I’m not sure why they chose to word this feat in this manner, but if they wanted the feat to work like fade away and turn off just one bullet, then it should say “this ability” rather than “this feat.”
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Whether it says "feat" or "ability" is completely irrelevant as the content of one bullet does not apply to the content of another bullet.
If that were a general rule for 5e then we still have a case of a specific rule (bullet 2) that states that it applies outside of it’s specific rule text, I.e. the feat.
Edit: if a rule says it applies to a thing then we should probably apply it to that thing.
Whether it says "feat" or "ability" is completely irrelevant as the content of one bullet does not apply to the content of another bullet.
🤦♂️🤷♂️
This is an assumption that you brought and not necessarily a part of D&D. Look at the structure of magic initiate feats: The second bullet point clearly applies to the first bullet point and the preceding paragraph.
edit: and I would say that any time a rule explicitly says what it applies to, no matter your preconceived notions or what general rules tell us, specific beats general.
Whether it says "feat" or "ability" is completely irrelevant as the content of one bullet does not apply to the content of another bullet.
🤦♂️🤷♂️
This is an assumption that you brought and not necessarily a part of D&D. Look at the structure of magic initiate feats: The second bullet point clearly applies to the first bullet point and the preceding paragraph.
It's not an assumption; it's a facet of the English language.
You are making an argument, based on a false premise, stemming from incorrect reading comprehension. That's not a dig; that's just what is happening.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You are an able physician, allowing you to mend wounds quickly and get your allies back in the fight. You gain the following benefits:
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.
That looks like the correct reading to me, and my guess would be that this clause is intended to keep you from spamming the heals until really needed. On the other hand, short rests should be available every combat or two, so this is really only going to be an issue if you heal someone in combat or just before, and then they go down.
That is rules as written, but probably not rules as intended. I would rule that they still get 1 hp when stabilized, but ask your DM.
Considering that stabilizing doesn't normally give hp, it's not a big deal. Consider Spare the Dying:
It says nothing of adding hit points, just that the creature becomes stable (no longer makes death saving throws). At this point, I'd consider the creature remains unconscious but will regain hit points whenever they normally would (at the end of a long rest, for example). I'd even allow a short rest hit dice roll to regain hit points, along with spells.
Further, the healer's kit doesn't normally add hp either:
This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 Hit Points, without needing to make a Wisdom(Medicine) check.
Sage advice:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/18/is-the-second-feature-of-the-healer-feat-intended-to-work-on-revive-unconscious-characters/
You can use bullet one all day every day, but you only get to use bullet 2 once per short/long rest.
I know this is a "necro" but good guidance should be spread far and wide and this was the top hit on google when I looked for this info.
As a recipient, you only get to take advantage of the feat one per long/ short rest. The healer can use the feat as often as resources and creatures are available.
Unfortunately, this is not RAW. I already mentioned it was intended to still work.
(Thread necromancy is defined as a thread concluding over 6 months prior, so you are good.)
My reading of this skill is that you could use the kit to stabilize with one hp, then use the kit on the same creature in a different action to heal more hp, but if the same creature needed to be stabilized after the heal more hp action it would not receive the one hp and you could not use the kit to heal more hp on that creature again until after a short or long rest. So... stabilize then heal yes, heal then stabilize no, heal then heal no. I think though, if you only stabilize and don't use the heal action from this feat on the creature, you can keep stabilizing that creature with the one hp. Use healer's kit to stabilize with one hp, use magic or a healing potion to heal, repeat until healer's kit uses are expended.
Stabilize with 1 HP all day every day (so long as you have uses on the kit remaining, of course).
Heal a creature (with a use of the kit, regardless of their current HP) for 1d6+4+HD once per short/long rest.
The order in which these things can happen is irrelevant.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
This is RAI, but RAW says they cant regain any HP from this feat after using the second option until after a rest.
Until there is an errata or official Sage Advice, Jerry is correct.
No, it's RAW, and Crawford has confirmed it.
Remember that just because 100% of the community doesn't read a rule in exactly the same way does not mean that there isn't a definitive consensus on what the rule actually is. Bullet points on a feat separate portions of the text that are not dependent. If they were dependent, the entire text block would be written as a paragraph. The function of bullet #1 does not depend on bullet #2, or vice versa.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Right, the bullet points are seperate things. You do not have to use bullet point two at the same time as bullet point one, and vice versa. When you use the feat you choose which bullet point you are using. But bullet point two specifically says that after using bullet point two on a creature you can no longer give any healing from this feat to that creature until it takes a short or long rest. That means that neither bullet point one or two can give healing, even a single point, to a creature that has received healing from bullet point two previously until after that creature takes a short or long rest. That is the creature taking a short or long rest, not the healer. The healer can keep applying bullet point two to different creatures all day. Also, as I said, if you don't use bullet point two on a creature, you can keep using bullet point one to stabilize and give one hp to that same creature all day. The healer can use this feat as many times as they want in the day, but a creature can only benefit from healing up until it receives bullet point two. The creature must then take a short or long rest to get further healing from this feat.
No, they are independent. This is not hard to grasp. Bullet point #2 does not prevent bullet point #1 from being used on the same creature.
Look at other feats, and how they are structured. Here's a sample:
Drow High Magic, Bountiful Luck are written as paragraphs. The sentences are sequential, and conditionals presented in the paragraph apply to the entire thing.
Athlete, Crossbow Expert are written as a bulleted list. These are all independent features that do not directly interact.
Fade Away, Flames of Phlegethos are written as bulleted lists with some of the bullets being written as paragraphs. The bullets are independent. The bullets which also have a paragraph are internally dependent on that paragraph, but not on other bullets.
This is about as straight-forward as it gets.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It is interesting that you selected fade away as an example, because it’s wording is different. One of its bullets specifically mentions that you only get one use “of this ability” (which I take to mean the bullet) per rest whereas healer specifically says “feat.”
I think no one disagrees on RAI on this, but RAW is different and JC’s tweet (the one that has been linked, anyway) doesn’t really address the issue.
Which is what some people are getting hung up on, and getting hung up on that is an invalid premise. Whether it says "feat" or "ability" is completely irrelevant as the content of one bullet does not apply to the content of another bullet. There is no conflict to parse out. Bullet #2 only prevents bullet #2 from being applied again to the same creature. It does not prevent bullet #1 from being applied.
I don't think anyone disagrees on RAI either, but this is indeed RAW too. The rule itself is not unclear in any legitimate manner.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Bullet 2 is an ability that gives a specific rule that you have to ignore in order to interpret in any way besides “the creature can’t regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a long or short rest.”
I’m not sure why they chose to word this feat in this manner, but if they wanted the feat to work like fade away and turn off just one bullet, then it should say “this ability” rather than “this feat.”
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
If that were a general rule for 5e then we still have a case of a specific rule (bullet 2) that states that it applies outside of it’s specific rule text, I.e. the feat.
Edit: if a rule says it applies to a thing then we should probably apply it to that thing.
This is an assumption that you brought and not necessarily a part of D&D. Look at the structure of magic initiate feats: The second bullet point clearly applies to the first bullet point and the preceding paragraph.
edit: and I would say that any time a rule explicitly says what it applies to, no matter your preconceived notions or what general rules tell us, specific beats general.
It's not an assumption; it's a facet of the English language.
You are making an argument, based on a false premise, stemming from incorrect reading comprehension. That's not a dig; that's just what is happening.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.