They are separate bullet points so they are not connected. Only the 1d6+4+HD is limited to once per rest per creature. The first bullet point is unlimited.
They are separate bullet points so they are not connected. Only the 1d6+4+HD is limited to once per rest per creature. The first bullet point is unlimited.
Wthout providing any additional argument, you're just repeating something that was already said in this thread. I suggest you read the other couple of pages of responses.
Barring that, your houserule is fine for your table, but to interpret the feat that way is incorrect. That interpretation of the text requires you to ignore words in the feat and also ignore how other feats work. Take Lucky or magic initiate for examples: the bullets refer outside of their text in those feats.
Barring that, your houserule is fine for your table, but to interpret the feat that way is incorrect. That interpretation of the text requires you to ignore words in the feat and also ignore how other feats work. Take Lucky or magic initiate for examples: the bullets refer outside of their text in those feats.
Lucky and Magic Initiate don't have bullets, at least not on DnD Beyond. Healer's language is unique in the PHB or the XGTE. The closest that I found among bulleted feats was second chance where it says, "When a creature you can see hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to force that creature to reroll. Once you use this ability, you can’t use it again until you roll initiative at the start of combat or until you finish a short or long rest."
It uses Ability instead of feat, but isn't a complete parallel since the other bullet is a stat bump. At best, this is an example that they can use other words to describe what feats bestow, particularly when it's across books. I don't think we'll get any help from other feats since they typically don't turn off abilities and usually do with language that clearly says that it's just pertaining to this ability or that ability, usually by name.
They don't? They sure do on the feats page. Maybe then we shouldn't be using the formatting of text as rules evidence.
That's hilarious that on the App and the first link they don't use bullets and on the feat link they do.
Yeah, I didn't even realize it until you pointed it out, since I had been looking at the second link only. But there are other feats (Martial Adept) that show up as bulleted lists in both and obviously have text referring to other bullets. I really think the text of the feature is what matters.
Is the players handbook in other languages? If so that might be the easiest way to confirm it. Otherwise this could go on forever. If anybody has it in another language they might be able to confirm it. Since this is based on the English language then based on the rules of another language it might be easier. Or maybe not. It all depends.
Bulleted lists are not a language feature, they do not have "syntax", in English or otherwise. If there was something in the text of the PHB or another core book that explicitly stated that each bullet point in a list was separate from the other, then maybe an argument could be made--but that's clearly not the case since, as pointed out above, some text is formatted differently in different official sources. It's only a matter of presentation, it doesn't mean anything.
The only rules that apply are in the text itself, specifically the choice to use "this feat" instead of "this ability". That may have been the wrong choice, especially since (as pointed out by JC's tweet), the feat's second ability can also be used to stabilise an unconscious ally, and thus is in all ways superior to the first ability unless you think you'll need to do so again on the same ally before the next short or long rest. In that case you shouldn't be using the second ability at all until just before said rest.
If it were up to me I'd change "feat" into "ability" with a house rule and let that be an end of it, but the RAW clearly says otherwise.
This fascinating, i mean the feat states you cannot benefit from the feat after using the heal. You can still stabilise someone they just do't get the extra 1HP from the feat. Using second can revive but after that that same character can only be stabilised. Jeremy answered this specific case on twitter:
As a dm I'd rule this one of two ways. Possibly changing the rules a bit. Either you go as you use it you loose the ability to do the 1hp ability (Still being able to stabilize them without a role) Or you keep using that ability but rolling the hit dice consumes them.
Either one of these are still very powerful. However the second one is arguably worse if your dm knows that you only regain half your hit dice after a long rest
I think the thing everyone is missing here is that bullet point 1 directly alters what the healers kit already does, and bullet point 2 adds a new ability to use of the kit, so let's look at what the Helers kit says-
"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."
So when you read that with bullet point one, it means when you use a healers kit as intended you don't have to make a check, and they are brought to 1hp instead of 0hp.
The second bullet point being an all new ability is restricted to once per S/L rest per person you use it on, but you can continue to use your healers kit as normal, you're just better at using it than most.
A rogue with cunning action can just add "pick up and unconcious ally with 1 HP" as a bonus action...
You basically get 10 Potions of greater healing for 5 gold, only downside you can only give them to a person once per long rest... but hey, you get 2000 gold in value for 5 gold, that is almost broken...
A rogue with cunning action can just add "pick up and unconcious ally with 1 HP" as a bonus action...
You basically get 10 Potions of greater healing for 5 gold, only downside you can only give them to a person once per long rest... but hey, you get 2000 gold in value for 5 gold, that is almost broken...
Cunning Action can only be used to Dash, Disengage, or Hide. No healer's kit on Cunning Action. It does allow you to use a healer's kit with your action and then use one of those other actions to try to avoid damage through movement or stealth, though.
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.
In the last sentence "hit points" is plural. A creature can regain a hit point from this feat again before it finishes a short or long rest
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.
In the last sentence "hit points" is plural. A creature can regain a hit point from this feat again before it finishes a short or long rest
Ha ha ha.
Let's see any DM allow that :-)
What would your wording be to prevent 1 hit point? :)
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.
In the last sentence "hit points" is plural. A creature can regain a hit point from this feat again before it finishes a short or long rest
Ha ha ha.
Let's see any DM allow that :-)
What would your wording be to prevent 1 hit point? :)
A creature can't benefit from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest.
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.
In the last sentence "hit points" is plural. A creature can regain a hit point from this feat again before it finishes a short or long rest
Ha ha ha.
Let's see any DM allow that :-)
What would your wording be to prevent 1 hit point? :)
A creature can't benefit from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest.
So you would change the wording so that they couldn't be stabilized by this feat more than once either? The PC would risk dying since the feat could not be used to staiblize them if they previous received any hit points from the feat or were previously stabilized?
Nah. The action to administer first aid can always still be used, with or without a healer's kit use. The second half the feat is what requires the "reset" via the rest. The first half of the feat can be used as much as is able with uses of the healer's kit(s) even on the same creature turn after turn. If you take this feat, a creature always regains 1 hit point when you use a healer's kit to stabilize them when they are at zero hit points. Once per rest per creature the creature can regain more than one hit point from the second part of this feat.
The feat specifically states: " The creature can't regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest." That is plain and concise, there is no room for argument on how this works. D&D 5e has been out for quite some time now, and most "mistakes" have already been fixed. I also feel like the individuals who create the content for this game are fairly intelligent and relatively highly educated. As someone who with a writer's background and a good knowledge of the English language, what it says it what it means.
To say that the wording is irrelevant leaves too much in the open. That would be opening the doors for challenges to almost every rule in the book and while the Dungeon Master does have the prerogative to change the rules as he sees fit, within the allowance of his players, that does not change the fact that it would be a change. To say that the people who wrote the Player's Handbook did not word this feat in this way on purpose would be insulting their intelligence.
Also, you are overusing the "Rules as Intended" versus "Rules as Written" argument. In a perfect world, those two align. Those two may deviate when wording is confusing, or when something the creators didn't foresee happening occurs. However, when wording is specific, as the Healer Feat is, There is no margin of error.
In short, the second ability of the Healer Feat prevents the same target creature from regaining hit points from the Healer Feat until it has completed a short or long rest.
To put this in terms of the English Language, for those of you pursuing that route of argument, certain words can be used in place of others when speaking or writing. In this instance we will look at the phrase, "From this feat." In this case the word this is being used interchangeably with what the sentence is referring to. Therefore, the sentence can be rewritten as such.
The creature cannot regain hit points from the Healer Feat again until it finishes a short or long rest.
This is not an argument, it is a fact. That is how the English language works.
That being said, if you, as a Dungeon Master, feel like the feat is under powered or may work better a different way, then by all means change it! The beauty of D&D is that it is a game and is meant to be played for fun. The most important job a Dungeon Master has is ensuring that the game is running in a way to provide the most fun at the table. However, it is always important to remember that the Player's Handbook and other source books released for this game, while not an absolute authority, were written with balance in mind. Changing the core rules is risky when it comes to game balance and could result in some unpleasant moments.In Dungeons and Dragons, healing is a must for any party. A Healer's Kit and the Healer Feat, are great additions to the game that can benefit a party without a dedicated healer. However there has to be limits. Fights are not meant to drag on forever. This feat works the way it does to prevent that exact outcome. If I, a rogue with the Healer feat and four Healer's Kits, were to run around getting everyone of my party members up with one hit point it would be an endless cycle. When you have zero hit points, you are unconscious and therefore out of the fight. But if you revive with one hit point every time you are continuously in the fight. This gets to be redundant and also doesn't make sense physically.
Before you shout "It's a game! It doesn't have to make sense!" Let me be clear. There is suspension of disbelief with any role playing game. However when the foundation of physics is thrown out the window, things get weird fast. In EVERY game I have ever played, there is an element of realism, some games stretch this further than others. Magic is magic, and magic isn't real so we can suspend our disbelief when it comes to magic. When it comes to a Healer's Kit, which is a physical item that is filled with bandages, salves, and other medical supplies, there are limits to what it can do. You can only bandage a wound so much until there is no point in doing so and suspension of disbelief becomes hard really fast. So yes, it does have to make sense physically, at least to a certain extent.
I will close with this.
You cannot change the meaning of words or infer intent when something is written clearly. This is one of those times. The creators of this game are intelligent and capable. They are fallible, but the game has been out long enough that most if not all mistakes have been fixed in the Errata. If you wish to argue your point based on balance and fun, then by all means do so. You cannot, however, argue the point on the "Rules as Intended" platform because the wording is not in the slightest confusing. Doing so insults the intelligence of the creators
They are separate bullet points so they are not connected. Only the 1d6+4+HD is limited to once per rest per creature. The first bullet point is unlimited.
Wthout providing any additional argument, you're just repeating something that was already said in this thread. I suggest you read the other couple of pages of responses.
Barring that, your houserule is fine for your table, but to interpret the feat that way is incorrect. That interpretation of the text requires you to ignore words in the feat and also ignore how other feats work. Take Lucky or magic initiate for examples: the bullets refer outside of their text in those feats.
Lucky and Magic Initiate don't have bullets, at least not on DnD Beyond. Healer's language is unique in the PHB or the XGTE. The closest that I found among bulleted feats was second chance where it says, "When a creature you can see hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to force that creature to reroll. Once you use this ability, you can’t use it again until you roll initiative at the start of combat or until you finish a short or long rest."
It uses Ability instead of feat, but isn't a complete parallel since the other bullet is a stat bump. At best, this is an example that they can use other words to describe what feats bestow, particularly when it's across books. I don't think we'll get any help from other feats since they typically don't turn off abilities and usually do with language that clearly says that it's just pertaining to this ability or that ability, usually by name.
They don't? They sure do on the feats page. Maybe then we shouldn't be using the formatting of text as rules evidence.
That's hilarious that on the App and the first link they don't use bullets and on the feat link they do.
Yeah, I didn't even realize it until you pointed it out, since I had been looking at the second link only. But there are other feats (Martial Adept) that show up as bulleted lists in both and obviously have text referring to other bullets. I really think the text of the feature is what matters.
Is the players handbook in other languages? If so that might be the easiest way to confirm it. Otherwise this could go on forever. If anybody has it in another language they might be able to confirm it. Since this is based on the English language then based on the rules of another language it might be easier. Or maybe not. It all depends.
When players get creative.
Bulleted lists are not a language feature, they do not have "syntax", in English or otherwise. If there was something in the text of the PHB or another core book that explicitly stated that each bullet point in a list was separate from the other, then maybe an argument could be made--but that's clearly not the case since, as pointed out above, some text is formatted differently in different official sources. It's only a matter of presentation, it doesn't mean anything.
The only rules that apply are in the text itself, specifically the choice to use "this feat" instead of "this ability". That may have been the wrong choice, especially since (as pointed out by JC's tweet), the feat's second ability can also be used to stabilise an unconscious ally, and thus is in all ways superior to the first ability unless you think you'll need to do so again on the same ally before the next short or long rest. In that case you shouldn't be using the second ability at all until just before said rest.
If it were up to me I'd change "feat" into "ability" with a house rule and let that be an end of it, but the RAW clearly says otherwise.
This fascinating, i mean the feat states you cannot benefit from the feat after using the heal. You can still stabilise someone they just do't get the extra 1HP from the feat. Using second can revive but after that that same character can only be stabilised. Jeremy answered this specific case on twitter:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/975832875869204480
As a dm I'd rule this one of two ways. Possibly changing the rules a bit.
Either you go as you use it you loose the ability to do the 1hp ability (Still being able to stabilize them without a role)
Or you keep using that ability but rolling the hit dice consumes them.
Either one of these are still very powerful.
However the second one is arguably worse if your dm knows that you only regain half your hit dice after a long rest
I think the thing everyone is missing here is that bullet point 1 directly alters what the healers kit already does, and bullet point 2 adds a new ability to use of the kit, so let's look at what the Helers kit says-
"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."
So when you read that with bullet point one, it means when you use a healers kit as intended you don't have to make a check, and they are brought to 1hp instead of 0hp.
The second bullet point being an all new ability is restricted to once per S/L rest per person you use it on, but you can continue to use your healers kit as normal, you're just better at using it than most.
This feat is just awesome...
A rogue with cunning action can just add "pick up and unconcious ally with 1 HP" as a bonus action...
You basically get 10 Potions of greater healing for 5 gold, only downside you can only give them to a person once per long rest... but hey, you get 2000 gold in value for 5 gold, that is almost broken...
Cunning Action can only be used to Dash, Disengage, or Hide. No healer's kit on Cunning Action. It does allow you to use a healer's kit with your action and then use one of those other actions to try to avoid damage through movement or stealth, though.
Sorry, I meant THIEF Rogue, forgot that part^^
In the last sentence "hit points" is plural. A creature can regain a hit point from this feat again before it finishes a short or long rest
Ha ha ha.
Let's see any DM allow that :-)
What would your wording be to prevent 1 hit point? :)
A creature can't benefit from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest.
So you would change the wording so that they couldn't be stabilized by this feat more than once either? The PC would risk dying since the feat could not be used to staiblize them if they previous received any hit points from the feat or were previously stabilized?
Nah. The action to administer first aid can always still be used, with or without a healer's kit use. The second half the feat is what requires the "reset" via the rest. The first half of the feat can be used as much as is able with uses of the healer's kit(s) even on the same creature turn after turn. If you take this feat, a creature always regains 1 hit point when you use a healer's kit to stabilize them when they are at zero hit points. Once per rest per creature the creature can regain more than one hit point from the second part of this feat.
The feat specifically states: " The creature can't regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest." That is plain and concise, there is no room for argument on how this works. D&D 5e has been out for quite some time now, and most "mistakes" have already been fixed. I also feel like the individuals who create the content for this game are fairly intelligent and relatively highly educated. As someone who with a writer's background and a good knowledge of the English language, what it says it what it means.
To say that the wording is irrelevant leaves too much in the open. That would be opening the doors for challenges to almost every rule in the book and while the Dungeon Master does have the prerogative to change the rules as he sees fit, within the allowance of his players, that does not change the fact that it would be a change. To say that the people who wrote the Player's Handbook did not word this feat in this way on purpose would be insulting their intelligence.
Also, you are overusing the "Rules as Intended" versus "Rules as Written" argument. In a perfect world, those two align. Those two may deviate when wording is confusing, or when something the creators didn't foresee happening occurs. However, when wording is specific, as the Healer Feat is, There is no margin of error.
In short, the second ability of the Healer Feat prevents the same target creature from regaining hit points from the Healer Feat until it has completed a short or long rest.
To put this in terms of the English Language, for those of you pursuing that route of argument, certain words can be used in place of others when speaking or writing. In this instance we will look at the phrase, "From this feat." In this case the word this is being used interchangeably with what the sentence is referring to. Therefore, the sentence can be rewritten as such.
The creature cannot regain hit points from the Healer Feat again until it finishes a short or long rest.
This is not an argument, it is a fact. That is how the English language works.
That being said, if you, as a Dungeon Master, feel like the feat is under powered or may work better a different way, then by all means change it! The beauty of D&D is that it is a game and is meant to be played for fun. The most important job a Dungeon Master has is ensuring that the game is running in a way to provide the most fun at the table. However, it is always important to remember that the Player's Handbook and other source books released for this game, while not an absolute authority, were written with balance in mind. Changing the core rules is risky when it comes to game balance and could result in some unpleasant moments.In Dungeons and Dragons, healing is a must for any party. A Healer's Kit and the Healer Feat, are great additions to the game that can benefit a party without a dedicated healer. However there has to be limits. Fights are not meant to drag on forever. This feat works the way it does to prevent that exact outcome. If I, a rogue with the Healer feat and four Healer's Kits, were to run around getting everyone of my party members up with one hit point it would be an endless cycle. When you have zero hit points, you are unconscious and therefore out of the fight. But if you revive with one hit point every time you are continuously in the fight. This gets to be redundant and also doesn't make sense physically.
Before you shout "It's a game! It doesn't have to make sense!" Let me be clear. There is suspension of disbelief with any role playing game. However when the foundation of physics is thrown out the window, things get weird fast. In EVERY game I have ever played, there is an element of realism, some games stretch this further than others. Magic is magic, and magic isn't real so we can suspend our disbelief when it comes to magic. When it comes to a Healer's Kit, which is a physical item that is filled with bandages, salves, and other medical supplies, there are limits to what it can do. You can only bandage a wound so much until there is no point in doing so and suspension of disbelief becomes hard really fast. So yes, it does have to make sense physically, at least to a certain extent.
I will close with this.
You cannot change the meaning of words or infer intent when something is written clearly. This is one of those times. The creators of this game are intelligent and capable. They are fallible, but the game has been out long enough that most if not all mistakes have been fixed in the Errata. If you wish to argue your point based on balance and fun, then by all means do so. You cannot, however, argue the point on the "Rules as Intended" platform because the wording is not in the slightest confusing. Doing so insults the intelligence of the creators
For Reference:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the word this
A Dungeon Master's most useful sentence. "You can try."