Return to Answer

Healer's Kit. This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, slaves, and splints.

Edward Krusling: Can Mage Hand use a Healer's kit to stabilize at range? if so, can Arcane Tricksters use the kit with a bonus action?

Jeremy Crawford: I'd allow (1) mage hand to use a healer's kit it's not holding & (2) an Arcane Trickster to do it w/ a bonus action.

Now, first of all, tweets by game designers are unofficial guidance in general, unless they are collected into the Sage Advice Compendium (which this is not). And second of all, by saying "Id' allow," Crawford is indicating what he would permit as a DM, which can go beyond rules interpretations (and via "rule 0" can even contradict the Rules as Written).¹ Specifically, saying "I'd allow" means he is making a judgement call which is not demanded by the rules. That could mean that the rules are silent or unclear on the issue (which certainly seems to be the case to me), or that the rules require some other conclusion but he is overriding them as DM. In the absence of further commentary², we have no way of knowing which way he meant the comment.

Healer's Kit. This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints.

Edward Krusling: Can Mage Hand use a Healer's kit to stabilize at range? If so, can Arcane Tricksters use the kit with a bonus action?

Jeremy Crawford: I'd allow (1) mage hand to use a healer's kit it's not holding & (2) an Arcane Trickster to do it w/ a bonus action.

Now, first of all, tweets by game designers are unofficial guidance in general, unless they are collected into the Sage Advice Compendium (which this is not). And second of all, by saying "I'd allow," Crawford is indicating what he would permit as a DM, which can go beyond rules interpretations (and via "rule 0" can even contradict the Rules as Written).¹ Specifically, saying "I'd allow" means he is making a judgement call which is not demanded by the rules. That could mean that the rules are silent or unclear on the issue (which certainly seems to be the case to me), or that the rules require some other conclusion but he is overriding them as DM. In the absence of further commentary², we have no way of knowing which way he meant the comment.

_{1.) It's also worth noting that the caveat written into his response (that mage hand can use a healer's kit "it's not holding") points to a possible high cost for this tactic in terms of the action economy. The text of the spell indicates it might take an action to open the kit ("open a... container"), another action to remove the object needed to treat the wound ("stow or retrieve an item from an open container") and a third action to actually use that item (" manipulate an object"). It also takes an action to even cast the spell, and the consensus (which I'd probably rule differently as a DM but is accurate via RAW) is that the Action taken to cast Mage Hand is separate from the Action required to control it. Thus, depending on your DM's assessment of how a Healer's Kit is "used," it could take up three or four rounds for someone to "use" the kit with Mage Hand (which is a long time for a creature to be unstable and dying).}

_{1.) It's also worth noting that the caveat written into his response (that mage hand can use a healer's kit "it's not holding") points to a possible high cost for this tactic in terms of the action economy. The text of the spell indicates it might take an action to open the kit ("open a... container"), another action to remove the object needed to treat the wound ("stow or retrieve an item from an open container") and a third action to actually use that item (" manipulate an object"). It also takes an action to even cast the spell, and the consensus (which I'd probably rule differently as a DM but is accurate via RAW) is that the Action taken to cast Mage Hand is separate from the Action required to control it. Thus, depending on your DM's assessment of how a Healer's Kit is "used," it could take three or four rounds for someone to "use" the kit with Mage Hand (which is a long time for a creature to be unstable and dying).}

Now, medically, it would be entirely unrealistic to suggest that most treatments for serious wounds could be achieved with a single isolated object (I only have first aid training, but still this is easily apparent). Even bandages are actually several layered items, often gauze followed by a bandage to hold it on, sometimes preceded by salve. But actual medical training is only somewhat helpful here, because no realistic assessment of injuries is going to match with this game's rules for their treatment (e.g. no realistic injury system would have a person be entirely unimpaired in terms of their ability to perform tasks after one hour of unconsciousness, when they were previously inches from death). At best, we need to see this as another case of ambiguity.

Now, medically, it would be entirely unrealistic to suggest that most treatments for serious wounds could be achieved with a single isolated object (I only have first aid training, but still this is easily apparent). Even bandages are actually several layered items, often gauze followed by a bandage to hold it on, sometimes preceded by salve. MivaScott points this out clearly and convincingly in their excellent answer. However, the application of actual medical logic is complicated here, because no realistic assessment of injuries is going to match with this game's rules for their treatment (e.g. no realistic injury system would have a person be entirely unimpaired in terms of their ability to perform tasks after one hour of unconsciousness, when they were previously inches from death).

Also, unlike any real world medical interventions, a Healer's Kit is (normally infallible at stabilizing a dying patient: it requires no skill Check to succeed, or proficiency to use, but simply always works (as long as the user expends one of its ten "uses"). Thus, we have real world medical materials (splints, salve, etc.) being applied in an unrealistic way: it's unclear exactly how this is done, and thus how many "objects" are involved. At best, we need to see this as another case of ambiguity.