The second bullet point of the Healer feat relates to healing a patient 1d6+4+Max HD and says that a "creature can't regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest."

The first bullet relates to stabilizing a dying character and says, "that creature also regains 1 hit point."

By the wording, it appears that if the healing of the second bullet is used, it will prevent the benefits of the first bullet from occurring later on if it's needed.

Is this an accurate reading, or is there a way to interpret this that allows the first bullet to continue working following use of the second bullet?

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If you get stabilized then recover 1 hit point, aren't you conscious and don't need to be stabilized (since you are no longer at 0 hit points)? So you can still stabilize the creature but then they have to wait to wake up (like normal). Not sure if that's what they were intending though... \$\endgroup\$
    – firedraco
    Jan 1, 2017 at 9:39
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @firedraco if you stabilize someone, they do not automatically gain 1 HP, they're just no longer required to make death saves. The gaining of that 1 HP is a boon of the Healer feat because not only does it stabilize the target, it also gets them back into the fight. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 1, 2017 at 17:13

2 Answers 2


Using the second benefit prevents any use of the feat on the same creature.

The description of the Healer feat's benefits is:

  • 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.

"This feat" includes both benefits, and both of them cause creatures to regain hit points. So the only reasonable interpretation of the last sentence of the last feat is that its use on a creature prevents either benefit (that is, "this feat") from causing that creature to regain hit points until they finish a rest.

In case it isn't clear, the resulting play pattern will be something like this, featuring the fighter Lucinda the Luckless and her pal, Harriet the Helpful.

Lucinda: Ack! That last hit dropped me, and then I took another arrow, so one more failed death save and I'm toast!

Harriet: No problem, I'll use a charge from my healer's kit to stabilize you, and also give you one hit point.

Lucinda: Cool! I'm back up! Take that, enemies! ... aaand I'm down again. Help pleeease!

Harriet: Again? Okay, one more charge, you are again stable and have one HP. Be careful out there!

Lucinda: Nice! Uh, I'm gonna disengage for a sec and hide behind that table. Wanna meet me there so you can give me more heals?

Harriet: Okay, sure, I'll move there, use the healing kit again ... have ten hit points.

Lucinda: Perfect! Okay, I'll jump over the table and wade into the fray again ... and I'm down. Haaaaariet, help please.

Harriet: (sigh) Alrighty, once more I crawl into danger and use a healing kit to charge to stabilize you.

Lucinda: You're the best! Back into the fight ...

DM: Nope, you're still at zero HP, prone, and unconscious.


This post has been revised due to a ruling by Jeremy Crawford. See the revision at the bottom of this answer, which has been upheld by the ruling.

Original answer: using the second point probably shouldn't prevent the first point from being used later.

That the phrase "a creature can't regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest" is in the second bullet point and not affixed as an addendum after both bullet points strongly suggests that it is meant to apply only to the second bullet point's healing functionality, not the first bullet point's stabilizing functionality.

In other words, I believe the phrase is implied to mean "a creature can't regain hit points in this way again until it finishes a short or long rest," although the wording may not have been as accurate as it could be to reflect that.

This interpretation is reasonable in a thematic sense: it makes sense that the kit could still be used to stabilize a creature to 1 hit point yet no longer be able to heal a person beyond what their body's own rest is capable of.

Although I strongly believe that this is a reasonable ruling for a DM to make, if you want to be as literal and pedantic as possible in the interpretation of the rules as written then you must indeed prevent all subsequent healing through the use of the feat for either bullet point once the second bullet point has been used, and therefore the second bullet point would indeed nullify the first.

I really doubt that is the intention, however, given the organization of the phrase and bullet points and the apparent thematic motivation, but I can no find no official word clarifying the intent of the rules for the Healer feat in any official Tweets or Sage Advice (see revision below which nullifies this). At the very least, I think the DM is justified in ruling either way.

Revised answer: using the second point doesn't prevent the first point from being used later.

See the following unofficial clarification by Jeremy Crawford on Twitter, the lead rules designer for 5e:

Question (paraphrased): 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?

Answer: Yes, and yes.

Regardless of how we read the bullet points, the intention is that the first bullet point can still be used on a creature even after the second bullet point has been used on them. This upholds the original answer in this post.

  • 10
    \$\begingroup\$ Rereading this years later, I don't see how Crawford's tweet states or even implies that the second benefit doesn't restrict the first - it simply states that, when choosing which of the two benefits of the Healer feat to use on an unconscious character, the reason to use the first benefit over the second is that the first doesn't prevent future use of the feat to heal the character as the second one does. The tweet doesn't at all address whether the second benefit then prevents the first benefit from being used until the target creature takes a short/long rest. \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Jan 31, 2020 at 1:42
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast I agree with that analysis of the tweet. He is agreeing that use of the second point's healing means they can't be healed by the feat at all until a short/long rest, and the reason for having a weaker healing option in the first point is to be able to keep healing them later. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dharleth
    Jan 31, 2020 at 2:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think V2 has a valid point regarding this. In light of the bounty, I'm going to pull the checkmark to promote additional attention on the question. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 31, 2020 at 13:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ Agree with the comments. Gotta' downvote this answer unfortunately. You had it right the first time! Adding the tweet is useful, and it should be there, but only to clarify the original answer, not to change it. \$\endgroup\$
    – jerclarke
    Mar 8, 2021 at 16:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .