No way. The first part of the feat would serve zero purpose with your interpretation. Why would anyone, ever, choose the first use of the feat instead of the second use if using either prevented that creature from being able to benefit form this feat again until after the next long rest? It’s like if I offered you free money once a day, and you can choose either $1 or $10. Why would you ever pick $1?
I typically dislike using JC references for rules discussions, but here it goes:
No way. The first part of the feat would serve zero purpose with your interpretation. Why would anyone, ever, choose the first use of the feat instead of the second use if using either prevented that creature from being able to benefit form this feat again until after the next long rest? It’s like if I offered you free money once a day, and you can choose either $1 or $10. Why would you ever pick $1?
I typically dislike using JC references for rules discussions, but here it goes:
I'm not sure what your point is, because I don't think the previous poster was saying what you think they were saying. It seems to me that they were taking the position that using the second effect turns off the healing from the first effect, not that the first effect does it too.
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.
Using the feat refers to the second bullet point. The first bullet point applies to the normal healer's kit use.
Tell me this, folks. Assuming your interpretation is correct, in what situation would you use the first part of the feat instead of the second?
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.
Using the feat refers to the second bullet point. The first bullet point applies to the normal healer's kit use.
Tell me this, folks. Assuming your interpretation is correct, in what situation would you use the first part of the feat instead of the second?
That is incorrect. The feat contains both parts of the feat. A use of the healer's kit without the feat can only stabilize a creature and does not immediately provide a hitpoint.
Tell me this, folks. Assuming your interpretation is correct, in what situation would you use the first part of the feat instead of the second?
When an ally is unconscious and making death saves and you're trying to save their life rather than provide them HP to rejoin the fight.
You can do that with the second part of the feat as well. And WOULD every time as it gives more hit points. Rendering the first part of the feat (per your interpretation) useless.
While odds are between any class besided your wizard reliably having healing magic. This feat is actually good!
Your party members should all have a healers kit at level 1. Litterally no dang reason or excuse not to! (guaranteed stabilizing an ally is a thing that they should do)
As for the feat. While things like healing spells or a potion are nifty, if a party actually uses them appropriatly, people going down means you gotta get them up. Sets say second death save, you get them up so they can have a turn too. Sure your fancy healing magic is there...but little known detail. Counterspell exists. As in your heal to save someone from risking that last death save can be nullified. Your spell wasted and a 50 50 that someone at your table dies. That aid kit not only stabilizes but brings them back up without magic.
Sure other options exist for a band of adventurers. Yet random person in unknown languages doing magic stuff. Yes, let us trust that nonsense with the strange collection of people in unnatural equipment and holding bizzare loot... non magic healing works for trust gaining without magic! Especially useful in all locations and all species.
So the bonus healing per level. Sure a level 4 cure wounds will average more than that. But if at higher levels those hit dice are actually calculated and recovered normally, you may be low after constant assaults and tough fights. Imagine healing up to full without your casters using spells, or your potions running lower to simply use traditional aid?
but despite most classes in the game having a spell available to heal(as in if can cast spells, that heal is an option to pick) Can take a feat to help people despite hoping that a quarter of the spell casting classes in the game with a healing spell available to them since if they go down, a whole whopping stabilize or a potion really doesn't help much.
No way. The first part of the feat would serve zero purpose with your interpretation. Why would anyone, ever, choose the first use of the feat instead of the second use if using either prevented that creature from being able to benefit form this feat again until after the next long rest? It’s like if I offered you free money once a day, and you can choose either $1 or $10. Why would you ever pick $1?
I typically dislike using JC references for rules discussions, but here it goes:
I'm not sure what your point is, because I don't think the previous poster was saying what you think they were saying. It seems to me that they were taking the position that using the second effect turns off the healing from the first effect, not that the first effect does it too.
Original Tweet: "...is the second feature of the Healer feat intended to work on/revive unconscious characters? If so, what's the benefit of the first feature? Just that it doesn't prevent the regaining of further hit points like the second feature does?"
JC's Response: "Yes, and yes"
So let me fold these tweets together in a question/answer+question/answer. Like this...
Is the second feature of the Healer feat intended to work on/revive unconscious characters? Yes.
Is the benefit of the first feature that it doesn't prevent the regaining of further hit points like the second feature does? Yes.
Tell me this, folks. Assuming your interpretation is correct, in what situation would you use the first part of the feat instead of the second?
When an ally is unconscious and making death saves and you're trying to save their life rather than provide them HP to rejoin the fight.
You can do that with the second part of the feat as well. And WOULD every time as it gives more hit points. Rendering the first part of the feat (per your interpretation) useless.
Once. Then you cannot provide hitpoints to that player again via the feat.
You can stabilize and bring to consciousness with one HP over and over again using the first part of the feat. So again, when saving the life is the priority and not healing, then the first option is better.
Is the benefit of the first feature that it doesn't prevent the regaining of further hit points like the second feature does? Yes.
You would use the first feature anytime you think you might need the first feature again. Since using the second feature prevents you from regaining further hit points (as JC confirmed).
Tell me this, folks. Assuming your interpretation is correct, in what situation would you use the first part of the feat instead of the second?
When an ally is unconscious and making death saves and you're trying to save their life rather than provide them HP to rejoin the fight.
You can do that with the second part of the feat as well. And WOULD every time as it gives more hit points. Rendering the first part of the feat (per your interpretation) useless.
The first one allows the person to be brought up and be able to act, without the limitation of not being able to use the feat again. It doesn't turn off gaining HP from the feat. The second gives more HP, but does turn off gaining HP from the feat. Healer's kits do not give HP by default, they only allow the character to automatically be stabilized without requiring a medicine check.
What I'm getting out of this is the best time to use the healer's kit with this feat is right before taking a short rest. Use it on everyone and save some hit dice!
What I'm getting out of this is the best time to use the healer's kit with this feat is right before taking a short rest. Use it on everyone and save some hit dice!
As long as you have enough healer's kits. You wouldn't want to run out them after your short rest is over.
What I'm getting out of this is the best time to use the healer's kit with this feat is right before taking a short rest. Use it on everyone and save some hit dice!
As long as you have enough healer's kits. You wouldn't want to run out them after your short rest is over.
At 5g a piece with 10 uses...it’s a bargain. Way cheaper than stocking up on potions.
I know this is late to the party but I would like to add my interpretation of this feat:
I will start by addressing the Stabilize action.
Stabilizing a Creature
You can use your action to administer first aid to an unconscious creature and attempt to stabilize it, which requires a successful DC 10 Wisdom (Medicine) check. A stable creature doesn't make death saving throws, even though it has 0 hit points, but it does remain unconscious.
Now... adding the Healer's Kit...
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 written... the ONLY change this makes is that it allows you stabilize a creature without having to make the Wisdom check.
Adding the Healer feat...
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 creature, they also regain 1 hit point
• As an action, you can spend one use of a healer's kit to tend to a creature and heal 1d6+4 hit points to it, plus a number of hit points equal to the creature's maximum number of Hit Dice. That creature can't regain hit points from this feat again until they finish a short or long rest.
The change when using bullet point 1 of this feat is that instead of stabilizing to 0HP the target is now stabilized to 1HP. That same target could then be reduced to 0HP in the next combat and still be stabilized, using this feat, back to 1HP. That cycle could go on as long as needed. If the healer then decide to stabilize to 1HP THEN use bullet point 2 to heal for the 1d6++ that target now "can't regain hit points from this feat again until they finish a short or long rest."
The distinction is that the creature can't regain hit points from this feat. The feat being Healer. Bullet point 1 being part of the Healer feat. That creature could still be stabilized using the healer's kit meaning that no Wisdom check is needed. But the creature would NOT gain the 1HP, as part of the Healer feat, until after a rest. It would be stabilized to 0HP and could be healed using other means (cure wounds, etc.)
I'm sure I will get flamed for this interpretation but it seems plain as day. Not sure why some people are having a hard time understanding it.
You would use the first part to make someone able to take their own actions instead of just being stable but unconscious. At 1HP the creature could take actions like drinking a potion, second wind, disengaging, etc. It gets someone up and moving and possibly back into the fight instead of laying on the ground for the rest of the fight. Leaving the possibility of another use of the feat on them.
No way. The first part of the feat would serve zero purpose with your interpretation. Why would anyone, ever, choose the first use of the feat instead of the second use if using either prevented that creature from being able to benefit form this feat again until after the next long rest? It’s like if I offered you free money once a day, and you can choose either $1 or $10. Why would you ever pick $1?
I typically dislike using JC references for rules discussions, but here it goes:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/18/is-the-second-feature-of-the-healer-feat-intended-to-work-on-revive-unconscious-characters/
I'm not sure what your point is, because I don't think the previous poster was saying what you think they were saying. It seems to me that they were taking the position that using the second effect turns off the healing from the first effect, not that the first effect does it too.
That is correct.
A Dungeon Master's most useful sentence. "You can try."
Using the feat refers to the second bullet point. The first bullet point applies to the normal healer's kit use.
Tell me this, folks. Assuming your interpretation is correct, in what situation would you use the first part of the feat instead of the second?
That is incorrect. The feat contains both parts of the feat. A use of the healer's kit without the feat can only stabilize a creature and does not immediately provide a hitpoint.
Tell me this, folks. Assuming your interpretation is correct, in what situation would you use the first part of the feat instead of the second?
If a player made the argument that they are regaining a hit point (singular), not hit points (plural), I’d let them have it.
When an ally is unconscious and making death saves and you're trying to save their life rather than provide them HP to rejoin the fight.
You can do that with the second part of the feat as well. And WOULD every time as it gives more hit points. Rendering the first part of the feat (per your interpretation) useless.
In my own opinion:
While odds are between any class besided your wizard reliably having healing magic. This feat is actually good!
Your party members should all have a healers kit at level 1. Litterally no dang reason or excuse not to! (guaranteed stabilizing an ally is a thing that they should do)
As for the feat. While things like healing spells or a potion are nifty, if a party actually uses them appropriatly, people going down means you gotta get them up. Sets say second death save, you get them up so they can have a turn too. Sure your fancy healing magic is there...but little known detail. Counterspell exists. As in your heal to save someone from risking that last death save can be nullified. Your spell wasted and a 50 50 that someone at your table dies. That aid kit not only stabilizes but brings them back up without magic.
Sure other options exist for a band of adventurers. Yet random person in unknown languages doing magic stuff. Yes, let us trust that nonsense with the strange collection of people in unnatural equipment and holding bizzare loot... non magic healing works for trust gaining without magic! Especially useful in all locations and all species.
So the bonus healing per level. Sure a level 4 cure wounds will average more than that. But if at higher levels those hit dice are actually calculated and recovered normally, you may be low after constant assaults and tough fights. Imagine healing up to full without your casters using spells, or your potions running lower to simply use traditional aid?
but despite most classes in the game having a spell available to heal(as in if can cast spells, that heal is an option to pick) Can take a feat to help people despite hoping that a quarter of the spell casting classes in the game with a healing spell available to them since if they go down, a whole whopping stabilize or a potion really doesn't help much.
Original Tweet: "...is the second feature of the Healer feat intended to work on/revive unconscious characters? If so, what's the benefit of the first feature? Just that it doesn't prevent the regaining of further hit points like the second feature does?"
JC's Response: "Yes, and yes"
So let me fold these tweets together in a question/answer+question/answer. Like this...
Is the second feature of the Healer feat intended to work on/revive unconscious characters? Yes.
Is the benefit of the first feature that it doesn't prevent the regaining of further hit points like the second feature does? Yes.
Once. Then you cannot provide hitpoints to that player again via the feat.
You can stabilize and bring to consciousness with one HP over and over again using the first part of the feat. So again, when saving the life is the priority and not healing, then the first option is better.
This:
You would use the first feature anytime you think you might need the first feature again. Since using the second feature prevents you from regaining further hit points (as JC confirmed).
The first one allows the person to be brought up and be able to act, without the limitation of not being able to use the feat again. It doesn't turn off gaining HP from the feat. The second gives more HP, but does turn off gaining HP from the feat. Healer's kits do not give HP by default, they only allow the character to automatically be stabilized without requiring a medicine check.
Ok. I concede.
What I'm getting out of this is the best time to use the healer's kit with this feat is right before taking a short rest. Use it on everyone and save some hit dice!
As long as you have enough healer's kits. You wouldn't want to run out them after your short rest is over.
At 5g a piece with 10 uses...it’s a bargain. Way cheaper than stocking up on potions.
I know this is late to the party but I would like to add my interpretation of this feat:
I will start by addressing the Stabilize action.
You can use your action to administer first aid to an unconscious creature and attempt to stabilize it, which requires a successful DC 10 Wisdom (Medicine) check. A stable creature doesn't make death saving throws, even though it has 0 hit points, but it does remain unconscious.
Now... adding the Healer's Kit...
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 written... the ONLY change this makes is that it allows you stabilize a creature without having to make the Wisdom check.
Adding the Healer feat...
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 creature, they also regain 1 hit point
• As an action, you can spend one use of a healer's kit to tend to a creature and heal 1d6+4 hit points to it, plus a number of hit points equal to the creature's maximum number of Hit Dice. That creature can't regain hit points from this feat again until they finish a short or long rest.
The change when using bullet point 1 of this feat is that instead of stabilizing to 0HP the target is now stabilized to 1HP. That same target could then be reduced to 0HP in the next combat and still be stabilized, using this feat, back to 1HP. That cycle could go on as long as needed. If the healer then decide to stabilize to 1HP THEN use bullet point 2 to heal for the 1d6++ that target now "can't regain hit points from this feat again until they finish a short or long rest."
The distinction is that the creature can't regain hit points from this feat. The feat being Healer. Bullet point 1 being part of the Healer feat. That creature could still be stabilized using the healer's kit meaning that no Wisdom check is needed. But the creature would NOT gain the 1HP, as part of the Healer feat, until after a rest. It would be stabilized to 0HP and could be healed using other means (cure wounds, etc.)
I'm sure I will get flamed for this interpretation but it seems plain as day. Not sure why some people are having a hard time understanding it.
You would use the first part to make someone able to take their own actions instead of just being stable but unconscious. At 1HP the creature could take actions like drinking a potion, second wind, disengaging, etc. It gets someone up and moving and possibly back into the fight instead of laying on the ground for the rest of the fight. Leaving the possibility of another use of the feat on them.