I am making an argument based on a premise that is clear and simple: a rule does what it says. There is no room to bring in what the English language says about bulleted lists as a syntactic construct when the sentences in the bullet describe exactly how the rule is to be applied. End of story.
If one uses the feat to heal for the 1d6++, then they can't use this feat to heal the same creature.
The feat includes both bullet points.
So if one uses a medicine kit to stabilize the same creature they already healed with this feat, then they are only stabilized, not healed for 1 hp until that creature takes a rest.
The bullet points don't make it two separate feats...
The sage advice linked actually doesn't even say anything about healing and then stabilizing. He only confirms that you can stabilize and heal for 1 hp the same creature as much as you want, as has already been established.
I am making an argument based on a premise that is clear and simple: a rule does what it says. There is no room to bring in what the English language says about bulleted lists as a syntactic construct when the sentences in the bullet describe exactly how the rule is to be applied. End of story.
Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition is written with the English language as the source for logical syntax. End of story.
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.”
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.
This is the invalid premise. There is nothing in the rules to suggest this is the case. And there is evidence (fade away) that different wording would have been used if it was.
Bullet points do not separate the two abilities from being the same feat.
Ok here is what you are trying to not understand. The bullet points are inside the Feat. You choose to use the feat, then you choose which bullet point you are using. Because bullet point two clearly states that you can no longer heal this creature when you use this feat, that means that no option inside the feat can provide healing. It doesn't matter if there were twenty bullets or just two, you can't provide healing to that creature again until it finishes a short or long rest. Period. That said, it's your game, play it the way you feel best.
And that is specifically how bullet points work in the english language. They are a sub category of a main point. The main point, the feat, is modified when bullet point two says that you can not heal the same creature until it takes a short or long rest. That modification then applies to all sub categories. You can still stabilize that creature with the med kit. You can still provide healing to other creatures that haven't previously had bullet point two applied to them. Once bullet point two is used on a creature, you can no longer provide healing to the same creature from "this Feat" and all of it's subcategories until that creature takes a short or long rest.
And that is specifically how bullet points work in the english language.
No, it is not. A bulleted list is a compilation of things that are related, but independent of one another.
Agenda:
Buy Eggs
Buy Milk
Buy Bread
Go home, pay monthly bills, and go to sleep.
If you buy milk then go home, is it suddenly impossible for you to go back out and buy eggs? If you go to sleep, is it impossible for you to wake up and remember you forgot the bread? No, because that's not how bulleted lists work. Are they related? Yes. Are they dependent? NO. It is not a sequence.
If they were dependent, the entire feat would be formatted as a singular paragraph:
Healer
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.
Funny, huh? If both aspects of the entire feat were meant to be dependent, why wouldn't they have just written it like this to begin with? Maybe because that's not how the feat works, and they used a bulleted list because that's how they do it for all feats that have multiple, independent features? 🤔
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.
function(Feat) provideHealing() If shortRest provideHealing = true ElseIf longRest provideHealing = true ElseIf giveStabilize function(Stabilize) + provideHealing(+1 HP) ElseIf giveHeals provideHealing(+1d6 + 4 hit points to it, plus additional hit points equal to the creature's maximum number of Hit Dice), provideHealing = false
when function(Feat) is called on a creature, it checks if the creature has had a short or long rest since the last time this function was called upon it. If the answer is yes (and it will be if this the very first time it is used on this creature) then provideHealing is true and you can apply healing. If giveStabilize then they will be stabalized and recieve the healing indicated. provideHealing stays true. If giveHeals provideHealing is true so the creature gets the HP indicated, but what's this? provideHealing is changed to false after the healing is done. So now, the next time function(Feat) is called on this creature provideHealing is false. So we check for short and long rest. If the creature has not done those things then provideHealing remains false. when you get to giveStabalize it's still false so no HP. When you get to giveHeals it's still false so no HP. It is not until a short or long rest that provideHealing can be set to true once again.
Real coders out there, I am sorry. I know there should be more nested loops or something. Don't hate on me. I'm not a coder.
And that is specifically how bullet points work in the english language.
No, it is not. A bulleted list is a compilation of things that are related, but independent of one another.
Agenda:
Buy Eggs
Buy Milk
Buy Bread
Go home, pay monthly bills, and go to sleep.
If you change a property of the list, it affects all of the items on that list. If it readbuy eggs, spend no more money with this agenda until a short or long rest, Then you could not buy milk, bread, or pay monthly bills until you took a short or long rest. You could still go home and go to sleep.
FunctionAgenda spendmoney() If hasSlept then spendmoney() = true If buyEggs If spendmoney() = true buy the eggs, spendmoney() = false else don't buy the eggs if buyMilk If spendmoney() = true buy the milk else don't buy the milk if buyBread If spendmoney() = true buy the bread else don't buy the bread if go home go home if spendmoney() = true pay bills else don't pay bills go to sleep
Ok so it needs some work so you don't just keep buying eggs and going home to sleep. But it illustrates that the part of the bullet that changes the property of the list affects all of the items on the list. It's extremely basic logic.
function(Feat) provideHealing() If shortRest provideHealing = true ElseIf longRest provideHealing = true ElseIf giveStabilize function(Stabilize) + provideHealing(+1 HP) ElseIf giveHeals provideHealing(+1d6 + 4 hit points to it, plus additional hit points equal to the creature's maximum number of Hit Dice), provideHealing = false
when function(Feat) is called on a creature, it checks if the creature has had a short or long rest since the last time this function was called upon it. If the answer is yes (and it will be if this the very first time it is used on this creature) then provideHealing is true and you can apply healing. If giveStabilize then they will be stabalized and recieve the healing indicated. provideHealing stays true. If giveHeals provideHealing is true so the creature gets the HP indicated, but what's this? provideHealing is changed to false after the healing is done. So now, the next time function(Feat) is called on this creature provideHealing is false. So we check for short and long rest. If the creature has not done those things then provideHealing remains false. when you get to giveStabalize it's still false so no HP. When you get to giveHeals it's still false so no HP. It is not until a short or long rest that provideHealing can be set to true once again.
Real coders out there, I am sorry. I know there should be more nested loops or something. Don't hate on me. I'm not a coder.
You are trying to parse this as if it is a sequential process. It. Is. Not.
Look, bottom line: you are trying to shoehorn an argument in from an end result that is incorrect. I clearly can't convince you of that, so I'm not going to waste the energy. This is what the feat does by both RAW & RAI. Accept it or not; I don't care.
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.
Why is there an argument about the function of bullet points?
In this particular argument - the function of the feat - it's irrelevant.
The second bullet point says you can't heal with the feat after you use that function. The first bullet point is part of the feat. Thus, you can't heal the same creature with it.
And that is specifically how bullet points work in the english language.
No, it is not. A bulleted list is a compilation of things that are related, but independent of one another.
Agenda:
Buy Eggs
Buy Milk
Buy Bread
Go home, pay monthly bills, and go to sleep.
If you buy milk then go home, is it suddenly impossible for you to go back out and buy eggs? If you go to sleep, is it impossible for you to wake up and remember you forgot the bread? No, because that's not how bulleted lists work. Are they related? Yes. Are they dependent? NO. It is not a sequence.
If they were dependent, the entire feat would be formatted as a singular paragraph:
Healer
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.
Funny, huh? If both aspects of the entire feat were meant to be dependent, why wouldn't they have just written it like this to begin with? Maybe because that's not how the feat works, and they used a bulleted list because that's how they do it for all feats that have multiple, independent features? 🤔
Lol.
Why not use a comparable example?
Agenda:
Buy Eggs
Buy Milk
Buy Bread
Go home, pay monthly bills, and go to sleep. (If you decide to go home you can't perform any other task on the agenda until after completing a short or a long rest)
Healer feat:
Stabilize a character and restore 1 hp
Heal a character for (1d6+4+level hit points) (If you heal a character you can't use the feat on the same character again until after completing a short or a long rest)
Does that make more sense? The last choice in the Agenda list prevents you from doing any of the other items in the Agenda until after you complete a short or a long rest. Doing that one task on the list has effects that extend beyond the one task and affect the performance of the other tasks on the list because it explicitly says so. The healer feat can easily be read to be exactly the same. If you use the healing feature of the feat on a character then you can't apply any aspect of the feat to the same character until after a short or a long rest.
DMs can choose to play it any way they like. However, RAW, the feat states that you can't use the FEAT again on a character until after they complete a short or a long rest. It does not say you can't use the healing aspect of the feat rather than the stabilizing aspect.
Finally, it has nothing to do with the presentation as a bulleted list.
Look, bottom line: you are trying to shoehorn an argument in from an end result that is incorrect. I clearly can't convince you of that, so I'm not going to waste the energy. This is what the feat does by both RAW & RAI. Accept it or not; I don't care.
And we can't convince you that both bulleted abilities belong to the same feat (for some reason) that as written can not restore HP after using the second ability. Not wasting energy arguing with someone who has already decided they won't consider alternatives is why I only posted every 10 comments or so when some new flawed argument was made.
Dont resort to personal insults guys. It is childish. Be better than that.
I normally agree with pretty much everything you say on this forum Sigred, but in this case you're in the wrong. The RAI is certainly clear, and is what you're saying, but the wording of the Feat is also very clear. The second point says if it is used on a creature, they can't benefit from the Feat until they take a short or long rest.
Extremely straightforward, yet you're arguing "Despite the fact that it clearly says they can't benefit from the Feat, they actually only can't benefit from the secondhalf of the Feat."
Jay, I respect your position. To clarify (I did say this at the beginning), I am not arguing whether the choice of including the word "feat" in the text of the second bullet is the correct choice or not. I am arguing that it does not matter.
The syntax of a bulleted list is such that the text of one bullet does not directly affect the text of another bullet in the same list. This is how a bulleted list functions in the English language, and it is how a bulleted list functions in a D&D5e published document. The conditionals of one point do not flow to another. If this was the case, as I mentioned earlier, there would be no bulleted list for this feat. It would be a single paragraph, as it is for every single feat/feature/spell/ability which has a restriction that applies to the entire thing. The use of a bulleted list is deliberate. There is no evidence of another feat where a bulleted list does not function this way.
Alternatively, the line "The creature can't regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest." would be placed in the introductory statement before the list even begins. If they wanted the restriction to apply to everything under the umbrella of "Healer", and still use a bulleted list, that's where they would have put it. They deliberately didn't.
For what it's worth, I do agree that choosing to use the word "feat" in that line was a poor decision. 10-to-1 what actually (speculating) happened was they meant to say "feature", auto-correct changed it to "feat", and it got through proofing because the word does not look like it would be out of place in that sentence. 🤷♂️
Side note: One thing that may help people understand is to not think about the individual components of a feat as being a singular thing; they really aren't. A "Feat" is really a collection of independent features that are just lumped together & acquired for the equivalent of one unit of currency (ASI). There is even a dev statement out there confirming that (in the development process) each bullet point of a feat is established independently with its own "value" in balancing the whole collection. +1 to an ability score is not ever impacted by anything else that another bullet in the same feat might say. I will absolutely post that if I (or anyone else) can find it. 🤷♂️
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.
But the problem is that a member of a list can refer outside of itself; it is only as self-contained as its text allows. The “feat” that bullet two refers to is not a bullet under “healer” it is all of the features of “healer.” The conditional in the second bullet says how it works, it turns off the healing from the feat. Just like the second bullet refers outside of its own rule text when it talks about hit dice and hit points and healer’s kits.
Edit: Lets look at some examples where parts of a bulleted list refer outside themselves:
Elemental adept bullet two doesn't tell you which element you can't select explicitly, you have to read the paragraph above (I can't tell if that's ok under your reading).
Lucky has fluff text, a bullet that describes what luck points are and one way to use them, then two more bullets telling you more about luck points, clearly referring back to the luck points from bullet one.
Magic Initiate has a paragraph granting cantrips, a bullet granting a restricted use first level spell, and a bullet telling you the spell casting ability for "these spells." Bullet two in Magic Initiate makes no other references to spells, you have to look outside that bullet's text to comprehend its meaning.
Resilient refers to the text above the bulleted list (I don't know if you think that is ok or not).
Ritual Caster has a paragraph and two bullets again. Again, text in the bullets refers to each other. One gives your class and spell casting trait, where the other says spells must be of the class you chose.
Sure there are many examples where the bullets don't refer to each other, but that is not due to something inherent to bulleted lists but due to the language choices that the authors made when writing those bullet points.
Hey guys! Just a reminder posting meme/troll images is against our site rules, and that it is not appropriate to resort to personal commentary about one another. We appreciate the interesting conversation, let's just ensure it remains a conversation about mechanics and rules, and not about one another. :) Thank you!
The reason that they are separate bullet points is that the nullification of healing from the feat only occurs once you have used the second ability.
You can heal using the first ability multiple times, up until such a time as you use the second ability. From then on, neither provides healing.
This is English syntax. It's RAW.
Menu
- Bread
- Steak
- Dessert (please note: after ordering dessert, nothing else from the menu can be ordered in the same booking so that we can use the table for other patrons)
The syntax of a bulleted list is such that the text of one bullet does not directly affect the text of another bullet in the same list. This is how a bulleted list functions in the English language, and it is how a bulleted list functions in a D&D5e published document. The conditionals of one point do not flow to another.
Please link to a respected source that explains the rule you've cited about bulleted lists, because I would sincerely love to read it.
I have never come across any rule in the English language that items in a bulleted list can't affect other items in a bulleted list. A bulleted list is simply distinguished by the fact that the order of the items in the list is not important. (If the order *is* important, it should be a numbered list to show that order.)
As an example, consider a recipe. The list of ingredients is a bulleted list (order doesn't matter), while the recipe itself *is* a numbered list because the order of operations is important to most recipes.
In a list of ingredients for a cookie (for example), one bulleted item could say "Chocolate chips, M&Ms, or nuts. (If you use nuts, use twice as much butter.)" Ignoring whether or not that recipe would taste good, that would be a legal bulleted list in the English language. The order of the ingredients doesn't matter, but one choice of ingredient could absolutely affect other ingredients above it or below it on the list.
Another example is a bulleted list along the lines of "Choose five fish for your aquarium from this bulleted list." It could be a list of 25 different fish in no particular order, but there could be some that would be incompatible with each other, because they might be predator and prey or have other incompatibilities. So one fish on that bulleted list could have a note that added "(If you choose this fish, you can't also choose Fish X or Fish Y.)"
The syntax of a bulleted list is such that the text of one bullet does not directly affect the text of another bullet in the same list. This is how a bulleted list functions in the English language, and it is how a bulleted list functions in a D&D5e published document. The conditionals of one point do not flow to another.
Please link to a respected source that explains the rule you've cited about bulleted lists, because I would sincerely love to read it.
I have never come across any rule in the English language that items in a bulleted list can't affect other items in a bulleted list. A bulleted list is simply distinguished by the fact that the order of the items in the list is not important. (If the order *is* important, it should be a numbered list to show that order.)
As an example, consider a recipe. The list of ingredients is a bulleted list (order doesn't matter), while the recipe itself *is* a numbered list because the order of operations is important to most recipes.
In a list of ingredients for a cookie (for example), one bulleted item could say "Chocolate chips, M&Ms, or nuts. (If you use nuts, use twice as much butter.)" Ignoring whether or not that recipe would taste good, that would be a legal bulleted list in the English language. The order of the ingredients doesn't matter, but one choice of ingredient could absolutely affect other ingredients above it or below it on the list.
Another example is a bulleted list along the lines of "Choose five fish for your aquarium from this bulleted list." It could be a list of 25 different fish in no particular order, but there could be some that would be incompatible with each other, because they might be predator and prey or have other incompatibilities. So one fish on that bulleted list could have a note that added "(If you choose this fish, you can't also choose Fish X or Fish Y.)"
Just to be fair, your examples where individual bullets (ingredients et al) could affect other bullets are specific examples and we all know that D&D says specific beats generic.
That said, the second bullet does say it turns off healing from the feat and not the ability. Therefore, healing all day with the first bullet until the second bullet is used, then that creature can't receive healing from either bullet until it rests.
Honestly I’m just gonna have to run this on my Warforged paladin, I’ll keep some healing spells to be safe, but I just wanna use some more of my smiting powers. I do like the idea of the feat in general. Doesn’t restrict someone to being a healer just because they play a certain class (technically it doesn’t but I generally play with newer players, who tend to stereotype the classes), which I think is wonderful. In its current form it’s broken, but wonderful nonetheless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am making an argument based on a premise that is clear and simple: a rule does what it says. There is no room to bring in what the English language says about bulleted lists as a syntactic construct when the sentences in the bullet describe exactly how the rule is to be applied. End of story.
It's written pretty clearly.
If one uses the feat to heal for the 1d6++, then they can't use this feat to heal the same creature.
The feat includes both bullet points.
So if one uses a medicine kit to stabilize the same creature they already healed with this feat, then they are only stabilized, not healed for 1 hp until that creature takes a rest.
The bullet points don't make it two separate feats...
The sage advice linked actually doesn't even say anything about healing and then stabilizing. He only confirms that you can stabilize and heal for 1 hp the same creature as much as you want, as has already been established.
Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition is written with the English language as the source for logical syntax. End of story.
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 the invalid premise. There is nothing in the rules to suggest this is the case. And there is evidence (fade away) that different wording would have been used if it was.
Bullet points do not separate the two abilities from being the same feat.
Ok here is what you are trying to not understand. The bullet points are inside the Feat. You choose to use the feat, then you choose which bullet point you are using. Because bullet point two clearly states that you can no longer heal this creature when you use this feat, that means that no option inside the feat can provide healing. It doesn't matter if there were twenty bullets or just two, you can't provide healing to that creature again until it finishes a short or long rest. Period. That said, it's your game, play it the way you feel best.
And that is specifically how bullet points work in the english language. They are a sub category of a main point. The main point, the feat, is modified when bullet point two says that you can not heal the same creature until it takes a short or long rest. That modification then applies to all sub categories. You can still stabilize that creature with the med kit. You can still provide healing to other creatures that haven't previously had bullet point two applied to them. Once bullet point two is used on a creature, you can no longer provide healing to the same creature from "this Feat" and all of it's subcategories until that creature takes a short or long rest.
Have fun with how you play your game.
No, it is not. A bulleted list is a compilation of things that are related, but independent of one another.
If you buy milk then go home, is it suddenly impossible for you to go back out and buy eggs? If you go to sleep, is it impossible for you to wake up and remember you forgot the bread? No, because that's not how bulleted lists work. Are they related? Yes. Are they dependent? NO. It is not a sequence.
If they were dependent, the entire feat would be formatted as a singular paragraph:
Funny, huh? If both aspects of the entire feat were meant to be dependent, why wouldn't they have just written it like this to begin with? Maybe because that's not how the feat works, and they used a bulleted list because that's how they do it for all feats that have multiple, independent features? 🤔
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.
Here to make it even more simple
function(Feat) provideHealing()
If shortRest provideHealing = true
ElseIf longRest provideHealing = true
ElseIf giveStabilize function(Stabilize) + provideHealing(+1 HP)
ElseIf giveHeals provideHealing(+1d6 + 4 hit points to it, plus additional hit points equal to the creature's maximum number of Hit Dice), provideHealing = false
when function(Feat) is called on a creature, it checks if the creature has had a short or long rest since the last time this function was called upon it. If the answer is yes (and it will be if this the very first time it is used on this creature) then provideHealing is true and you can apply healing. If giveStabilize then they will be stabalized and recieve the healing indicated. provideHealing stays true. If giveHeals provideHealing is true so the creature gets the HP indicated, but what's this? provideHealing is changed to false after the healing is done. So now, the next time function(Feat) is called on this creature provideHealing is false. So we check for short and long rest. If the creature has not done those things then provideHealing remains false. when you get to giveStabalize it's still false so no HP. When you get to giveHeals it's still false so no HP. It is not until a short or long rest that provideHealing can be set to true once again.
Real coders out there, I am sorry. I know there should be more nested loops or something. Don't hate on me. I'm not a coder.
If you change a property of the list, it affects all of the items on that list. If it readbuy eggs, spend no more money with this agenda until a short or long rest, Then you could not buy milk, bread, or pay monthly bills until you took a short or long rest. You could still go home and go to sleep.
FunctionAgenda spendmoney()
If hasSlept then spendmoney() = true
If buyEggs
If spendmoney() = true
buy the eggs, spendmoney() = false
else don't buy the eggs
if buyMilk
If spendmoney() = true
buy the milk
else don't buy the milk
if buyBread
If spendmoney() = true
buy the bread
else don't buy the bread
if go home
go home
if spendmoney() = true
pay bills
else don't pay bills
go to sleep
Ok so it needs some work so you don't just keep buying eggs and going home to sleep. But it illustrates that the part of the bullet that changes the property of the list affects all of the items on the list. It's extremely basic logic.
You are trying to parse this as if it is a sequential process. It. Is. Not.
Look, bottom line: you are trying to shoehorn an argument in from an end result that is incorrect. I clearly can't convince you of that, so I'm not going to waste the energy. This is what the feat does by both RAW & RAI. Accept it or not; I don't care.
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.
Why is there an argument about the function of bullet points?
In this particular argument - the function of the feat - it's irrelevant.
The second bullet point says you can't heal with the feat after you use that function. The first bullet point is part of the feat. Thus, you can't heal the same creature with it.
Like, forget the bullet points. Read the words...
Lol.
Why not use a comparable example?
Does that make more sense? The last choice in the Agenda list prevents you from doing any of the other items in the Agenda until after you complete a short or a long rest. Doing that one task on the list has effects that extend beyond the one task and affect the performance of the other tasks on the list because it explicitly says so. The healer feat can easily be read to be exactly the same. If you use the healing feature of the feat on a character then you can't apply any aspect of the feat to the same character until after a short or a long rest.
DMs can choose to play it any way they like. However, RAW, the feat states that you can't use the FEAT again on a character until after they complete a short or a long rest. It does not say you can't use the healing aspect of the feat rather than the stabilizing aspect.
Finally, it has nothing to do with the presentation as a bulleted list.
And we can't convince you that both bulleted abilities belong to the same feat (for some reason) that as written can not restore HP after using the second ability. Not wasting energy arguing with someone who has already decided they won't consider alternatives is why I only posted every 10 comments or so when some new flawed argument was made.
Dont resort to personal insults guys. It is childish. Be better than that.
I normally agree with pretty much everything you say on this forum Sigred, but in this case you're in the wrong. The RAI is certainly clear, and is what you're saying, but the wording of the Feat is also very clear. The second point says if it is used on a creature, they can't benefit from the Feat until they take a short or long rest.
Extremely straightforward, yet you're arguing "Despite the fact that it clearly says they can't benefit from the Feat, they actually only can't benefit from the second half of the Feat."
Jay, I respect your position. To clarify (I did say this at the beginning), I am not arguing whether the choice of including the word "feat" in the text of the second bullet is the correct choice or not. I am arguing that it does not matter.
The syntax of a bulleted list is such that the text of one bullet does not directly affect the text of another bullet in the same list. This is how a bulleted list functions in the English language, and it is how a bulleted list functions in a D&D5e published document. The conditionals of one point do not flow to another. If this was the case, as I mentioned earlier, there would be no bulleted list for this feat. It would be a single paragraph, as it is for every single feat/feature/spell/ability which has a restriction that applies to the entire thing. The use of a bulleted list is deliberate. There is no evidence of another feat where a bulleted list does not function this way.
Alternatively, the line "The creature can't regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest." would be placed in the introductory statement before the list even begins. If they wanted the restriction to apply to everything under the umbrella of "Healer", and still use a bulleted list, that's where they would have put it. They deliberately didn't.
For what it's worth, I do agree that choosing to use the word "feat" in that line was a poor decision. 10-to-1 what actually (speculating) happened was they meant to say "feature", auto-correct changed it to "feat", and it got through proofing because the word does not look like it would be out of place in that sentence. 🤷♂️
Side note: One thing that may help people understand is to not think about the individual components of a feat as being a singular thing; they really aren't. A "Feat" is really a collection of independent features that are just lumped together & acquired for the equivalent of one unit of currency (ASI). There is even a dev statement out there confirming that (in the development process) each bullet point of a feat is established independently with its own "value" in balancing the whole collection. +1 to an ability score is not ever impacted by anything else that another bullet in the same feat might say. I will absolutely post that if I (or anyone else) can find it. 🤷♂️
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.
But the problem is that a member of a list can refer outside of itself; it is only as self-contained as its text allows. The “feat” that bullet two refers to is not a bullet under “healer” it is all of the features of “healer.” The conditional in the second bullet says how it works, it turns off the healing from the feat. Just like the second bullet refers outside of its own rule text when it talks about hit dice and hit points and healer’s kits.
Edit: Lets look at some examples where parts of a bulleted list refer outside themselves:
Sure there are many examples where the bullets don't refer to each other, but that is not due to something inherent to bulleted lists but due to the language choices that the authors made when writing those bullet points.
Hey guys! Just a reminder posting meme/troll images is against our site rules, and that it is not appropriate to resort to personal commentary about one another. We appreciate the interesting conversation, let's just ensure it remains a conversation about mechanics and rules, and not about one another. :) Thank you!
The reason that they are separate bullet points is that the nullification of healing from the feat only occurs once you have used the second ability.
You can heal using the first ability multiple times, up until such a time as you use the second ability. From then on, neither provides healing.
This is English syntax. It's RAW.
Menu
- Bread
- Steak
- Dessert (please note: after ordering dessert, nothing else from the menu can be ordered in the same booking so that we can use the table for other patrons)
Please link to a respected source that explains the rule you've cited about bulleted lists, because I would sincerely love to read it.
I have never come across any rule in the English language that items in a bulleted list can't affect other items in a bulleted list. A bulleted list is simply distinguished by the fact that the order of the items in the list is not important. (If the order *is* important, it should be a numbered list to show that order.)
As an example, consider a recipe. The list of ingredients is a bulleted list (order doesn't matter), while the recipe itself *is* a numbered list because the order of operations is important to most recipes.
In a list of ingredients for a cookie (for example), one bulleted item could say "Chocolate chips, M&Ms, or nuts. (If you use nuts, use twice as much butter.)" Ignoring whether or not that recipe would taste good, that would be a legal bulleted list in the English language. The order of the ingredients doesn't matter, but one choice of ingredient could absolutely affect other ingredients above it or below it on the list.
Another example is a bulleted list along the lines of "Choose five fish for your aquarium from this bulleted list." It could be a list of 25 different fish in no particular order, but there could be some that would be incompatible with each other, because they might be predator and prey or have other incompatibilities. So one fish on that bulleted list could have a note that added "(If you choose this fish, you can't also choose Fish X or Fish Y.)"
Just to be fair, your examples where individual bullets (ingredients et al) could affect other bullets are specific examples and we all know that D&D says specific beats generic.
That said, the second bullet does say it turns off healing from the feat and not the ability. Therefore, healing all day with the first bullet until the second bullet is used, then that creature can't receive healing from either bullet until it rests.
Honestly I’m just gonna have to run this on my Warforged paladin, I’ll keep some healing spells to be safe, but I just wanna use some more of my smiting powers. I do like the idea of the feat in general. Doesn’t restrict someone to being a healer just because they play a certain class (technically it doesn’t but I generally play with newer players, who tend to stereotype the classes), which I think is wonderful. In its current form it’s broken, but wonderful nonetheless.