This feat is not balanced in its current state.
You're basically making a better version of the Healer feat, in every way. And also giving ability increase. There's literally no reason to take Healer with this feat available, which should be a tip-off that something isn't right.
No limit on the 1d4+proficiency (starts at 3-6 healing, ends at 7-10 healing) removes the need for healing potions (2d4+2 healing). Reminder: Healing kits are 5gp for ten uses; Healing Potions are 50gp for one use.
Most enemies are humanoids or beasts, so it's a huge boon to combat damage. (in that it applies to almost every situation)
And then, a bump to Strength or Wisdom.
Let's look at existing feats.
Blade Mastery
Unearthed Arcana 6 June 2016
You master the shortsword, longsword, scimitar, rapier, and greatsword. You gain the following benefits when using any of them:
- You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls you make with the weapon.
- On your turn, you can use your reaction to assume a parrying stance, provided you have the weapon in hand. Doing so grants a +1 bonus to your AC until the start of your next turn or until you're not holding the weapon.
- When you make an opportunity attack with the weapon, you have advantage on the attack roll.
--
Healer
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 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.
(emphasis mine)
Blade Mastery hasn't been "okayed" yet as an official source, but we'll use it for the sake of comparison on how to value things.
+1 damage and +1 to hit are vaguely equivalent, with to-hit maybe being slightly more valuable, but we'll go with it. This is worth slightly less than half a feat. (+2 strength would give +1 damage AND to-hit, as well as saving throws, etc)
The extra, cheap, nonmagical healing option listed for healer is worth about half a feat (probably more). The only source is other feats. Magic initiate, for example, would allow you ONE use of cure wounds, compared to once per character.
And a single ASI is worth half of a feat, by virtue of the standard being two ASIs.
What should you do?
I'm not sure why you don't just take Healer and call it a day.
Barring that, I would pick two of the three options and put a limit on the healing, other than half hit points.
Perhaps:
Vivisectionist
flavor text
- You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls you make against Humanoids and Beasts. (or damage, whichever)
- 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.
As it stands it is extremely overpowered
As Dale M states this allows magic users to create unlimited spell scrolls during downtime with no real costs.
The closest parallel is the Glyph of Warding which is a third level spell. Though there are some restrictions on this compared to the full spell it effectively allows a level 3 spell at will. Needless to say that is extremely overpowered for a feat.
It's also very complicated. 3 kinds of runes with different requiements and casting time, this is more complex than most feats in source materials.
Suggested Changes
Limited Uses: Limiting it to once per short or long rest would reduce the ability to spam it. However given enough time it doesn't resolve the issues.
Limited Duration: Runes should only last (1) 24 hours or (2) until another one is created. Particularly option two would prevent misuse of this feat.
Add a material cost: Add some kind of material cost to the feat, say 10gp per spell level or a fixed 50gp.
Simplify it: I would suggest simplifying the feat. It is much more complex than most feats, reduce it to a single kind of rune and a one hour casting time.
Best Answer
Since the two feats are so similar I will compare Strategist to Observant. See this answer for a full breakdown on how perception works in combat.
Observant already does most of what this feat intends to do
Observant will perform better in finding hidden enemies most of the time, at a lower action economy cost. If your passive perception is high enough, you can notice hidden enemies for free without expending any actions, and the +5 bonus will ensure that it will be high enough more often. The +5 bonus also cancels out disadvantage (-5) to passive perception. Furthermore, Observant also works on Investigation checks and has an additional useful benefit.
Strategist is better than Observant when you are taking the Search action, but only if the required roll is a Perception check, not when it is an Investigation checks and only if you don't need your bonus action for something else.
Overall I think Strategist is slightly weaker and less useful than Observant
I would therefore propose to slightly buff Strategist like so:
and either
or