Does Gift of the Ever-Living Ones maximize the damage and/or healing from Gloves of Soul Catching?

Question

I have been theory-crafting a character for an lv20 one-shot that I'll be playing in. We have been allowed 1 magic item of each type. I plan on making a Monk / Fighter Multiclass. Basic so far I know. But when looking at the magic item I planned on taking for my legendary spot being the Gloves of Soul Catching, which state:

Your Constitution score is 20 while you wear these gloves. This property of the gloves has no effect on you if your Constitution is already 20 or higher.

After making a successful unarmed strike while wearing these gloves, you can use the gloves to deal an extra 2d10 force damage to the target, and you regain a number of hit points equal to the force damage dealt. Alternatively, instead of regaining hit points in this way, you can choose to gain advantage on one attack roll, ability check, or saving throw you make before the end of your next turn.

After reading this description I began wondering how this magic item would work with a Warlock's Eldritch Invocation: Gift of The Ever-Living Ones, which states:

Whenever you regain hit points while your familiar is within 100 feet of you, treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value for you.

The way I'm understanding this is that the Extra 2d10 force damage for the Gloves of Soul Catching also determines the amount of Hit points I regain. Both the damage and the Amount healed are Maxed out Because of the Gift of the Ever-Living Ones "treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value".

Does this Work RAW, and make a mean brawler with a healing factor or am I just missing something?

Related, possibly a duplicate: "Does Beacon of Hope benefit Vampiric Touch's healing?" — Exempt-Medic, Oct 02 '22 at 19:04
I don't think the edit to the title is great. I think the OP's intention is much more concerned with maxing the healing than the damage. — Sam Dean, Oct 03 '22 at 13:55
@SamDean "Both the damage and the Amount healed are Maxed out Because of the Gift of the Ever-Living Ones [...] Does this Work RAW, and make a mean brawler with a healing factor" so it's asking about both — Exempt-Medic, Oct 04 '22 at 10:43
@Exempt-Medic: Yeah, the new title is pretty good, if long. Sometimes it's better to be clear than short. The original title "Can I Heal for The Damage I Deal?" is catchy but near useless so it needed some edit: Yes, of course you can heal for however much damage you actually deal, that's what the gloves say they do. But the question was whether the invocation has any effect on that, either doing more damage or just healing max without dealing max. (Which is fortunately what the answers are addressing.) — Peter Cordes, Oct 04 '22 at 15:14

score 32 · Answer 1 · answered Oct 03 '22 at 01:37

32

No, because you're not rolling for healing

Admittedly, Thomas' answer is the best advice. But the mixture of features do not play out the way you think.

The gloves' description states:

you can use the gloves to deal an extra 2d10 force damage to the target, and you regain a number of hit points equal to the force damage dealt.

You are rolling to determine damage. But you are not rolling dice to heal. The healing is just a value that is equal to that damage. To that point, you would still be rolling the same dice even if you didn't heal and chose Advantage instead.

This is similar to the Enervation spell:

Whenever the spell deals damage to a target, you regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage the target takes.

Both heal, but the dice you roll do not directly heal. They are for damage.

answered Oct 03 '22 at 01:37

MivaScott

40,125
5
91
208

Good answer; this is how I read it too! It might be helpful to re-quote the Invocation too, to show how the language differs? – Guybrush McKenzie Oct 03 '22 at 05:31
1

I think, if we are strictly sticking to the text, the invocation states: "treat ANY diced rolled to determine the hit points you regain..." which technically include the damage dice you rolled. If we are picky we could even argue that the attack roll is one of those dice as well. On that aspect I think that @DaleM answer is more correct and that the fact that it only changer "for you" is important. However, it still is the DM's call and I think it's fit to apply this one way or another depending on what kind of games he wants to be leading. – LNiederha Oct 03 '22 at 10:09
11

The dice roll itself does not determine the healing you receive. That healing depends on the damage you inflict, which may be modified by resistances, weaknesses and other damage modifiers. By that logic, you do not roll to heal. You roll to damage, inflict damage, then heal a fixed, non-rolled value equal to damage dealt. So this answer seems correct to me. – Matthieu Oct 03 '22 at 10:19
@Matthieu I'm a bit lost in the translation. the invocation says "treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value for you." in this case, the Hit points I would regain are determined by the damage delt from the 2d10 force damage. we are on the same page there, but what confuses me is the treat Any Dice rolled part of the invocation. I'm not seeing how the 2d10 doesn't apply here. do they not give me my damage and the hit points I would regain, both being determined by the roll of the 2d10? – Zinoma Oct 06 '22 at 17:40
@Matthieu I think typing it out made me see what you were saying. the 2d10 determines the damage, damage determines the healing. no dice directly affect the healing on the gloves it's all from the damage if I got that right. then yeah I guess that does make sense, Thank You. – Zinoma Oct 06 '22 at 18:04
@Zinoma the key thing here is that the value rolled by the dice is not the actual damage value. It still has to be "refined" by taking into account resistances, weakness, bonuses to damage and so on. Once those have been taken into account, you have your "damage" value, which may be very different from the original dice rolled, and this is the value you heal. – Matthieu Oct 06 '22 at 20:53
@Matthieu, since you're reiterating what I've mentioned in my answer, is there something you think I should edit to add clarity? – MivaScott Oct 06 '22 at 21:17
@MivaScott I think your answer hits the mark. Sure, you could include all the stuff I mentioned about resistances and other modifiers that make it so we don't use the rolled value for damage, and even less for healing. But I think your answer is fine right now. I was simply reformulating for Zinoma, who stated they got a bit lost in translation. – Matthieu Oct 07 '22 at 05:47

score 21 · Answer 2 · answered Oct 02 '22 at 19:11

You should ask the DM before the game so you can respect everyone else’s time.

I’m going to side step your question just a little bit, because the answer is that it’s ambiguous. It is the kind of ambiguous that is almost certain to waste game time if you spring this on the DM on your first turn of combat. They are the one who makes the final call on how this works. So if you want this to actually work, you need to convince them. And if you have made it to the table of play and are trying to use this combo the way you describe, it is far too late to spend time discussing it with the DM.

So your best shot of convincing the DM to allow this combo, and the thing that best respects everyone else’s time, is to work it out with the DM before the game when no one else has to sit and listen, and you can actually spend some time laying out whatever argument you want to make.

Exactly this. There is even a reading of that text that makes the attack roll be maximized (because it is a dice roll, and the result of that dice roll does determine in part how much you are healed) as well as the damage! On the other hand, there is the alternative reading shared by the other answers here, which I'd argue is more reasonable. But, it is fundamentally something the DM should be deciding. — Yakk, Oct 05 '22 at 17:29

score 10 · Answer 3 · answered Oct 02 '22 at 20:14

10

No

… treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value for you.

The damage dealt is whatever is rolled on 2d10. The damage healed is 20 - the maximum value for you.

answered Oct 02 '22 at 20:14

Dale M

210,673
42
528
889

1

Amused by the idea of two characters with these gloves and that invocation punching each other healthy after fights. "Conservation of HP" need not apply. (I agree this seems the RAW, to be clear, it's just a silly outcome, still up-voted) – ShadowRanger Oct 03 '22 at 02:33
3

@ShadowRanger And what if you punch yourself? – Loren Pechtel Oct 03 '22 at 04:14
Would that mean that the healing obtained by the gloves (thematically, life-steal healing which depends on the damage dealt) is unaffected by the damage modifiers of the attack? This means that this invocation would effectively increase healing if the damage was reduced, but also reduce healing when damage was increased. – Matthieu Oct 03 '22 at 10:23
@Matthieu you are imposing a “theme” that isn’t actually there in the wording. – Dale M Oct 03 '22 at 10:35
1

@DaleM I am only trying to parse the consequences of this interpretation of the rules as written. Although I do disagree with the fact that the damage roll, which is nothing more than a part of the calculation for damage, could be designated as a "dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain". By this logic, any dice that could even remotely influence this heal could qualify, no matter how many modifiers or other states their value goes through. – Matthieu Oct 03 '22 at 11:22
1

For instance, you couldn't have been healed if you didn't see the goblin you just punched. So without the perception check you just used to notice its presence, your heal would have been zero. By this definition, the perception check was used to determine the heal. – Matthieu Oct 03 '22 at 11:23
@Matthieu I'm a little lost with your example. You say the perception check determines my healing, but how? I can't hit what I can't see, or I would at least need some other way to determine where the target is. You say I didn't see the goblin but then say I still hit it. My question is, how did I punch it if I did not see it? the way I'm understanding your example is I did 2 things. I made a perception check to see if the goblin, did not pass the check, and punched it anyway. – Zinoma Oct 06 '22 at 17:02
@Matthieu Unless the goblin was standing right where I punched I didn't hit it at all, if I did hit the goblin takes the hit like normal and I now have an idea of where it is unless it moves. – Zinoma Oct 06 '22 at 17:04
1

@Zinoma what I'm saying is, with the logic presented, any roll that had an effect on the healing could be considered as "dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain", which makes little sense. The example of the perception check is simple : if you fail the perception check, you never notice the goblin, thus never punch it and do not heal. Which means the perception check was used to determine the healing. – Matthieu Oct 06 '22 at 20:50
@Matthieu then what you are saying is nonsense. – Dale M Oct 06 '22 at 22:20
1

@DaleM yes, that is the point : if using this logic we get to nonsensical results, then the logic itself must be flawed (reductio ad absurdum). The logic here being to use such a wide definition of "dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain" as to include any dice that has an impact on the heal, instead of limiting to dice that straight up determine healing. – Matthieu Oct 07 '22 at 05:50
@Matthieu building a straw man argument isn’t logic – Dale M Oct 07 '22 at 08:23
1

@DaleM is this a straw man argument? I'm simply using the interpretation you've given and highlighting that it develops into results that show the original interpretation was flawed. Or is my reading of your argument wrong? – Matthieu Oct 07 '22 at 08:35
@Matthieu you are ignoring the first part of the description of the gloves which defines the roll in question – Dale M Oct 07 '22 at 09:02
@DaleM you mean the part about "you regain a number of hit points equal to the force damage dealt" ? In which case, my other point still stands. The damage isn't what is rolled on the 2d10. The damage is the value obtained by applying all damage-altering effects, such as weakness and resistance, to the value of the roll. The roll itself isn't the "damage dealt", it is only a factor that changes how much you heal. – Matthieu Oct 07 '22 at 09:32
@Matthieu no, your point was to claim that we use a totally unrelated perception roll. – Dale M Oct 07 '22 at 10:08
@DaleM the perception roll was an example to illustrate that the logic is flawed. You could take many such examples, such as the attack roll for the unarmed strike, or any other roll that has some kind of effect on the amount of damage you deal. – Matthieu Oct 07 '22 at 12:54
@Matthieu I'm still lost with your example here. The way I was seeing it was I needed to land a hit in order to get any form of healing. I would have to attack and land my attack in order for the gloves to do anything, to begin with, so can you explain what a perception check has to do with me making an attack roll and healing from the damage outside of trying to see where the target is to attack it, because again if I can't see the target I can't attack it to begin rolling damage for the gloves to find out what I healed anyway. – Zinoma Oct 07 '22 at 13:16
@Zinoma the condition to receive healing isn't landing a hit, it is inflicting force damage with the ability of the gloves. Which itself depends on landing a hit. With this example I was trying to show that if we follow Dale M's logic and consider any dice that has an effect on the healing as affected by the ability, then it leads to unlogical results, like the perception check example. – Matthieu Oct 07 '22 at 13:22
@Matthieu the conditions for me to heal are dealing the force damage of the gloves. for me to deal the damage, all I have to do is land an attack. as long as this is fulfilled the healing ability will go through. A perception check plays no factor in this ability activating. it does affect whether I see or know where the target is to attack. if i were to punch a creature that was invisible not because I made a perception check to try and figure out where it was but just started punching wildly and hit it because it was standing right next to me the ability activates. – Zinoma Oct 07 '22 at 14:01
@Matthieu I agree that the logic was flawed, but the issue is that your example was flawed as well. that is the issue that was confusing me. the perception check was not a factor in the glove's ability to activate, to begin with. – Zinoma Oct 07 '22 at 14:03

Nobody the Hobgoblin · Answer 4 · 2022-10-03T05:47:58.353

This will be your DM's call

While the hit points you regain are equal to the damage dealt, the dice are rolled to deal an extra 2d10 force damage to the target.

You argue that the result of these dice rolls determines the amount of hit points you gain, and thus the dice are rolled to determine those.
One can likewise argue that these dice are not rolled to determine the hit points you regain, they are rolled to determine the damage you deal, and you then regain hit point even to the damage dealt.

The second reading is also supported by the fact that you could chose Advantage instead of gaining hit points (credit to MivaScott for pointing that out).

As there are no more specific rules on how to resolve this, in the end this will be up to the DM to determine.

(As for the title of your question: yes, you always heal for the amount of damage you deal if you have lost hit points you can regain. It's just not clear if the damage and hit points will be maximized.)

score 2 · Answer 5 · answered Oct 03 '22 at 12:36

RAW this probably won't work but no harm in asking your DM

The Gloves state that

After making a successful unarmed strike while wearing these gloves, you can use the gloves to deal an extra 2d10 force damage to the target, and you regain a number of hit points equal to the force damage dealt.

You do not roll to determine the hit points you regain here, you roll damage and then you regain the same amount of hit points as the damage you dealt. So in my opinion there is no space at all for the invocation here.

If your DM is especially generous, you might be able to get them to agree to let you max out the healing, under the interpretation that the 2d10 you rolled was for both the damage and the healing. Maxing out the damage though would be a hard "no" from me, it has nothing to do with the invocation and would be pushing it too far.

walen · Answer 6 · 2022-10-05T07:43:54.370

Damage? No. Healing? ... it depends.

Chronological order of the events when using Gloves of Soul Catching:

Roll 2d10.
Deal damage equal to the value of the roll.
Regain hit points equal to the damage dealt.

Gift of The Ever-Living Ones effect:

Whenever you regain hit points [...] treat any dice rolled to determine the hit points you regain as having rolled their maximum value

Ok. So, first of all: RAW, regained hit points here are not determined by rolled dice, but by the damage dealt — which may not even match the rolled value: Is there a difference between "damage taken" and "damage dealt"?
So, technically, those 2d10 were not "rolled to determine the [regained] hit points", thus the effect does not apply.

But let's say it does.

Even if we interpreted the rules as meaning that you regain hit points equal to the value of the 2d10 roll, the triggering condition ("whenever you regain hit points") happens on step 3 above — after the damage is dealt. So you roll 2d10, get a value of X, deal X damage, and then treat X as if it was a 20 instead (and regain 20 hit points).

This means that, when combining Gloves of Soul Catching with Gift of The Ever-Living Ones:

damage dealt will never be affected;
regained hit points may or may not be 20, depending on how your DM interprets "equal to the damage dealt".

PS: I've never played D&D (nor any other RPG for that matter), but I've been around here reading great answers for so long, that I feel confident enough to try posting one myself. Of course, corrections are welcome. — walen, Oct 04 '22 at 09:29

score 1 · Answer 7 · answered Oct 03 '22 at 06:10

Directly RAW no, because you roll for the damage and then the hp healed equals the damage.

However, you can still have fun with your monk/warlock multi class by using the Tasha's Mercy monk. It's class features include:

Hands of Healing

At 3rd level, your mystical touch can mend wounds. As an action, you can spend 1 ki point to touch a creature and restore a number of hit points equal to a roll of your Martial Arts die + your Wisdom modifier. When you use your Flurry of Blows, you can replace one of the unarmed strikes with a use of this feature without spending a ki point for the healing.

and

Flurry of Healing and Harm

Starting at 11th level, you can now mete out a flurry of comfort and hurt. When you use Flurry of Blows, you can now replace each of the unarmed strikes with a use of your Hands of Healing, without spending ki points for the healing.

There is no RAW limitation on the creature you touch not being yourself, so with the watchlist invocation, and since the monks martial arts die is 1d10 at lvl 17, you can heal yourself 10+wiz on every single one of your 4 flurry of blows attacks if needed. And still use the gloves RAW.