D&D 5E Is the Healer Feat Broken?

[Zardnaar]

Other people's interpretations don't really matter if your DM is going with words from on high. If they don't like that they don't have to use it in their games.

 

[Asisreo]

Right and if you cast a spell which expends material components you are using those material components. It's just specifically stated you use them simultaneous with the spell casting. " A character can use a component pouch..." "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components...but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."

I am not claiming it's some other action. The opposite in fact. The feat is allowing you to do something special with the same action you'd normally use the Healer's Kit. It's part of that action - in this case a bonus action. You're using the kit though. Just as you are using the material components. It's obvious you're using the kit - it says directly you spend a use to tend the creature.

I'll ask again, do you apply a similar rule to other things which spend a use of a limited resource? If something says you can spend a bardic inspiration to do X, are you not using bardic inspiration? If it says spend a use of Channel Divinity to do X, are you not using Channel Divinity?

You are using the Healer's kit. I'm not arguing against that. What I am arguing is that you aren't using the "Use an Object" action and you don't need a free hand.

Likewise, you're using an arrow with an attack but you aren't using an interaction to knock it and you don't need a free hand to retrieve one (it's implied that you're quickly letting go of the two-handed bow with a hand, grabbing the arrow, and knocking it).

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've got a Rogue Vhuman who went the Healer route. Also an alchemist and makes some fun toys.

Been playing via post for a year now, and never had a single problem with it, so I don't know why people would decide not to allow it. It is fun, but nowhere near powerful enough to deserve a nerf.

 

[Mistwell]

You're not using the healer's kit, though.

You are using the Healer's kit. I'm not arguing against that.

Pick a position man.

As for arrows, that's because the arrow has a specific rule under ammunition and loading. Otherwise it would be a use an object. In this case, Healers Kit remains a use an object action. Because it's not ammunition.

 

[jgsugden]

So we just necro a thread from 4 years ago and do not notice?

Not broken. The only thing in 5E that is broken is the Rod of Seven Parts. And that is only because it is not officially in 5E. And if it was, it would be broken into 7 parts.

 

[Asisreo]

Pick a position man.

As for arrows, that's because the arrow has a specific rule under ammunition and loading. Otherwise it would be a use an object. In this case, Healers Kit remains a use an object action. Because it's not ammunition.

I'm saying that you're using a charge from the Healer's kit and therefore "using" it but you're not using the feature in the Healer's kit description.

Healer, the feat, gives you a new action that expends a healer's kit.

Casting a spell from a scroll uses the Cast a Spell action and destroys the spell, but you're not using the "Use an Item" action. There's specific wording in spell scroll uses, as there are with the Healer feat.

 

[Mistwell]

So we just necro a thread from 4 years ago and do not notice?

Not broken. The only thing in 5E that is broken is the Rod of Seven Parts. And that is only because it is not officially in 5E. And if it was, it would be broken into 7 parts.

So we just didn't read the necro post and complain about necroing the thread and not noticing?

It's not necro'ed to talk about it being broken.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm saying that you're using a charge from the Healer's kit and therefore "using" it but you're not using the feature in the Healer's kit description.

Healer, the feat, gives you a new action that expends a healer's kit.

Casting a spell from a scroll uses the Cast a Spell action and destroys the spell, but you're not using the "Use an Item" action. There's specific wording in spell scroll uses, as there are with the Healer feat.

As @TaranTheWanderer pointed out, it's the IDENTICAL language between the Healer feat and the Healer's Kit tool text. They both say, "As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to... " and the Fast Hands feat does in fact work to change the action to a bonus action for the kit, so why wouldn't it work the same way for the feat with the identical language?

 

[Asisreo]

As @TaranTheWanderer pointed out, it's the IDENTICAL language between the Healer feat and the Healer's Kit tool text. They both say, "As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to... " and the Fast Hands feat does in fact work to change the action to a bonus action for the kit, so why wouldn't it work the same way for the feat with the identical language?

One is using the Healer's kit description. The other is using the Healer's feat description. Two separate sources using the same type of charge.

Far be it for me to tell you how to rule your game but...it's pretty clear that you aren't using the Healer's kit's intended action, only using a new action that expends a healer's kit charge.

 

[Mistwell]

One is using the Healer's kit description. The other is using the Healer's feat description. Two separate sources using the same type of charge.

Two separate sources using the same exact language, with a class ability about that very language, which changes the action to a bonus action. What is the in-game justification for it working with one but not the other? What is even your argument that this makes sense, if it's not "I don't like this combination"? Because if it's just that let's talk about the costs and benefits of taking a feat and taking this subclass to get this kind of result rather than this silly debate about how two identical sentences should be treated differently for apparently...reasons?