Heavy Armor Master

[DracoKnight]

So from everything I've heard, this is one of the worst fears in the game to take. I haven't always thought that, but recently I've started to see the other side. My initial defense of the feat was I thought it reduced ALL bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage by 3... Nope, just nonmagical, and only from weapons - not from natural weapons or traps. It specifically calls out nonmagical weapons.

You also increase your STR by 1, but I would almost rather be a Barbarian in Medium Armor with Medium Armor Master, so I can have decent AC and stealth when the party needs me to.

So I don't know if anyone else has fixes, but here is my proposal:

- You increase your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
- While you are wearing heavy armor you reduce all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage by 3.

OR:

- While you are wearing heavy armor you can reduce the damage you take by 5 + your Contitution modifier.

On the second version, you don't get to increase STR.

Thoughts???

[Oramac]

In the other thread, it was suggested that "while wearing magical armor, you reduce B/P/S damage from magical weapons as well".

Also, that the reduction is Proficiency + 1, to allow for scaling with level.

[DracoKnight]

In the other thread, it was suggested that "while wearing magical armor, you reduce B/P/S damage from magical weapons as well".

Also, that the reduction is Proficiency + 1, to allow for scaling with level.

There was another thread? Lol, I don't think I saw it. Well, that seems like a good fix, too.

[DireSickFish]

People think it's underpowerd? Huh, it sees a lot of use in our games, even at high levels. We treat natural weapons as weapons.. because they're called weapons. And most monsters have natural weapons that aren't considered magic. Also, we tend to fight a lot of humanoids anyway even at high levels. So even if you don't count monsters we get a lot of mileage out of it.

I thought Medium Armor Master was the garbage feat because it requires 16 dex to do anything at all and most people either dump Dex or max it with very little in between. 16 dex as a secondary stat is quite the investment, especially as Con is usually a much better stat to buff.

[DracoKnight]

People think it's underpowerd? Huh, it sees a lot of use in our games, even at high levels. We treat natural weapons as weapons.. because they're called weapons. And most monsters have natural weapons that aren't considered magic. Also, we tend to fight a lot of humanoids anyway even at high levels. So even if you don't count monsters we get a lot of mileage out of it.

I thought Medium Armor Master was the garbage feat because it requires 16 dex to do anything at all and most people either dump Dex or max it with very little in between. 16 dex as a secondary stat is quite the investment, especially as Con is usually a much better stat to buff.

The thing about Medium Armor Master, is that it's exceptional at low levels. I saw a Vuman fighter take it at 1st level, because he had a 16 DEX and was intending to dual wield, so he couldn't pick up a shield. So he was in scale mail with an AC of 17. And no disadvantage on Stealth checks. That's what you'll have as your MAX AC if you max out your Dexterity, and you're wearing studded leather. At 4th level, he took the Dual Wielder feat and had a +1 AC for dual wielding bringing him to 18 AC. Full Plate equivalent and stealthy as all get out. In the next treasure hoarse we found some half-plate armor, and he was suddenly rocking a 19 AC, with the ability to Stealth. At 6th level he bumped DEX by 2, and then multiclassed Rogue. It was a very effective Stealth build, and after he picked up Resilient (Dexterity) he was 1 point short of a maxed DEX. With a 15 CON, his next ASI went to maxing out DEX and bumping CON. He was an extremely effective Stealth tank. Our whole group was pretty stealthy too, so it was fairly common for us to get surprise, so his choice of Assassin at Champion 6/Rogue 3 was a pretty good choice. The game went to 20th level, and never once did he regret taking Medium Armor Master at 1st level.

EDIT: I don't see where Medium Armor Master is underpowered at all.

[Specter]

Yep, after a while Heavy Armor Master becomes kinda garbage, unless you're facing dozens or hundreds of mooks. But if it makes you feel better, that's War Cleric's final domain feature.

Medium Armor Master is great for Valor Bards and Trickery Clerics.

[Plaguescarred]

So from everything I've heard, this is one of the worst fears in the game to take. I haven't always thought that, but recently I've started to see the other side. My initial defense of the feat was I thought it reduced ALL bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage by 3... Nope, just nonmagical, and only from weapons - not from natural weapons or traps. It specifically calls out nonmagical weapons.

Thoughts???Heavy Armor Master is useful, even more at low level when HP are still low. It work against most monsters and NPC as their melee attacks are labeled as ''melee weapon attack" even while natural, which means these are treated as weapon according to Sage Advice.

Now its true that it won't reduce damage from magical weapon attacks made by NPCs but they're rare % in comparison to the majority of attacks you usually face.

[DracoKnight]

Heavy Armor Master is useful, even more at low level when HP are still low. It work against most monsters and NPC as their melee attacks are labeled as ''melee weapon attack"

I've seen DMs that only let it work specifically against weapons, regardless of how natural attacks are labeled: "Because they're not wielding a weapon."


Now its true that it won't reduce damage from magical weapon attacks made by NPCs but they're rare % in comparison to the majority of attacks you usually face.

I guess you are correct in that respect.

[Rysto]

EDIT: I don't see where Medium Armor Master is underpowered at all.

It's a very situational feat. On a Dex-based martial PC, you're better off sticking with light armour and pumping Dex. Once Dex is maxed, MAM would only be worth +1AC, which isn't very good for a feat.

Meanwhile non-martial characters are unlikely to have a 16 Dex, and bumping Dex to 16 and taking the feat is too heavy a cost. If you do happen to have a 16 Dex, most likely from a good set of stat rolls, it might be worth a look, but there are a lot of other feats that a spellcaster will also be interested in.

[Plaguescarred]

I've seen DMs that only let it work specifically against weapons, regardless of how natural attacks are labeled: "Because they're not wielding a weapon."



I guess you are correct in that respect.

They probably don't know this Sage Advice:

What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon? It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon. Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.

[DracoKnight]

But if it makes you feel better, that's War Cleric's final domain feature.

Actually the War Cleric's ability (while still terrible for a 17th level ability) isn't quite that bad. It's a resistance to nonmagical B/P/S. 50% reduction is much better than DR 3. My problem with the War Cleric's ability is that the Barbarian has been resistant to magical and nonmagical B/P/S since 1st level, or everything but psychic at 3rd.


Medium Armor Master is great for Valor Bards and Trickery Clerics.

That indeed it is.

[DracoKnight]

They probably don't know this Sage Advice:

What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon? It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon. Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.

They disregard all Sage Advice "My ruling is just as valid as theirs is." As such they don't even read it.

In their defense the text of HAM does specifically call out weapons.

[DracoKnight]

It's a very situational feat. On a Dex-based martial PC, you're better off sticking with light armour and pumping Dex. Once Dex is maxed, MAM would only be worth +1AC, which isn't very good for a feat.

Meanwhile non-martial characters are unlikely to have a 16 Dex, and bumping Dex to 16 and taking the feat is too heavy a cost. If you do happen to have a 16 Dex, most likely from a good set of stat rolls, it might be worth a look, but there are a lot of other feats that a spellcaster will also be interested in.

In my time playing +1AC can mean the difference between living and dying. And being stealthy in what is essentially full plate + the defense fighting style is pretty handy (MAM + DW)

[DireSickFish]

Sounds like it's your DM's making this feat weaker than intended, and not a problem with the feat itself. I doubt they're going to want to add a homebrew option if they don't even want to play it with the Sage Advice ruling.

[Plaguescarred]

They disregard all Sage Advice "My ruling is just as valid as theirs is." As such they don't even read it.

In their defense the text of HAM does specifically call out weapons.Even if they disregard Sage Advice, monsters attacks are still labeled ''X Weapon Attack'' and the middle keyword serve to indicate its a weapon and ruling that monsters attacks are not weapon attacks has significantly more issues than the simple HAM feat if you ask me :)

From a RAW standpoint the point still stand as per the Monster Manual pg 10;

Melee & Ranged Attacks: The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player's Handbook.

[Specter]

If it's the same, why didn't they just write "melee attacks"?

[DireSickFish]

If it's the same, why didn't they just write "melee attacks"?

You can have melee spell attacks. You can have ranged weapon attacks. So it's not the same.

[DracoKnight]

add a homebrew option

He said if I can fix it, we'll use my fix.

[Isidorios]

There are no unbalanced Feats in 5e.
There are unbalanced DMs who have this paranoia about the effects of Feats, which is silly as they are an optional rule to begin with.
Amusingly, these SAME DMs are adamant about allowing Multiclassing, which lends itself more easily to abuse than the simple feats.
Multiclassing is also an optional rule.

People who try to pick apart the Feats and homebrew alternatives to them need to face up to the fact that they really aren't better at it than the original designers.
Not at all.

Play the Game.
Have fun.
Stop worrying that the players are "out to get you". Allow Optional Rules, or don't. But stop being neurotic about them.

[Specter]

You can have melee spell attacks. You can have ranged weapon attacks. So it's not the same.

But if a melee spell attack deals blug/pier/slash damage, what's the problem?

[DireSickFish]

But if a melee spell attack deals blug/pier/slash damage, what's the problem?

I'm pointing out they aren't the same. Your post seemed to think the wording should be changed to melee attack for clarity reasons. I was pointing out it wouldn't be more clear because it would change what the feat does and does not protect against.

I do think not being able to soak ranged damage would be a huge problem with the feat. As weak mooks with ranged weapons can be a real problem.

I don't think it would be a big deal if the spell also protected from spell damage, but at present the feat doesn't.

[Addaran]

The thing about Medium Armor Master, is that it's exceptional at low levels. I saw a Vuman fighter take it at 1st level, because he had a 16 DEX and was intending to dual wield, so he couldn't pick up a shield. So he was in scale mail with an AC of 17. And no disadvantage on Stealth checks. That's what you'll have as your MAX AC if you max out your Dexterity, and you're wearing studded leather. At 4th level, he took the Dual Wielder feat and had a +1 AC for dual wielding bringing him to 18 AC. Full Plate equivalent and stealthy as all get out. In the next treasure hoarse we found some half-plate armor, and he was suddenly rocking a 19 AC, with the ability to Stealth. At 6th level he bumped DEX by 2, and then multiclassed Rogue. It was a very effective Stealth build, and after he picked up Resilient (Dexterity) he was 1 point short of a maxed DEX. With a 15 CON, his next ASI went to maxing out DEX and bumping CON. He was an extremely effective Stealth tank. Our whole group was pretty stealthy too, so it was fairly common for us to get surprise, so his choice of Assassin at Champion 6/Rogue 3 was a pretty good choice. The game went to 20th level, and never once did he regret taking Medium Armor Master at 1st level.

EDIT: I don't see where Medium Armor Master is underpowered at all.

HAM is even more exceptional at low levels. When you're at low levels, sometimes the attack won't even damage you.

MAM is good in some cases, but most aren't common. Your example is a multiclassed character and there's a +2 from his dex that is wasted for AC.

Not taking into account Dual Wielder feat (since you can use it with any armor) you're either a feat to get +1 AC compared to light armor (in wich case, you could instead get magic initiate for Mage Armor(same AC) and two bonus cantrips or defensive duelist for a bigger boost in AC once per round).


There are no unbalanced Feats in 5e.
Charger is generaly considered worst then any other options. The weapon proficiency is pretty much worthless except in very specific cases, even then you'd get more damage going for PAM, SS or GW with a weaker weapon.

[Kryx]

He said if I can fix it, we'll use my fix.
The "fix" has been presented to you: don't nerf the feat in the first place. As gas been pointed out attacks made with a claw, talon, bite, etc are weapon attacks by RAW and RAI.

[Foxhound438]

magical, nonmagical, weapon, nonweapon... hell, even if it applied to spells, if it applied to everything ever it would still be bad, because while attacks at low levels may ding you for 2 after the DR, at later levels a single attack deals so much damage that the 3 hp per hit won't even give you an extra round of consciousness most of the time. DR 3 or not, an attack that hits for something like 8d6 + 10 is going to mess you up.

Something like "reduce the amount on each damage die for the attack by 1" would scale fine, but here we are with flat DR 3 against ancient red dragons.

Edit: all that said, it's worth looking at context. For something like "I need to build a cleric to help these new players through LMoP" the feat's fine, but in something like HotDQ where you end up fighting a lot of high-damage foes (namely, dragons), the feat will lose mileage late game. I would never pick HAM in a campaign that advertises "all the way to 20", or even "up to 15-ish".

[Malifice]

I've seen DMs that only let it work specifically against weapons, regardless of how natural attacks are labeled: "Because they're not wielding a weapon."


Thats your DM going against RAW and RAI and RAF and making an inconsistent ruling (works v swords but not v claws). That cant be helped.

Bad DM's gonna bad DM.

The feat is perfectly viable. Leaving aside the +1 to strength, write down the 3 points of damage it saves you each hit each time it happens over the course of a session on a seperate sheet of paper.

It doubles your HP over an adventuring day, even at mid-high levels. At low levels it multiplies them by a factor of... a lot.

My Bladelock loves it. With a good selection in the morning for resistance to B/S/P plus HAM's DR 3/- plus temp HP from fiend lock plus hellish rebuke/ Riposte, the DM never attacks me.

Im 12th level with 13 temp HP. I take 29 damage.

Damage gets reduced by 3 to 26.
Then it gets halved to 13.
Then it comes off my temporary HP leaving me unharmed.
Then I retort with [riposte + GWM] or cast Hellish rebuke dealing 5d10 damage.

Then its my turn. If I kill it, I get 13 temp HP back.

[PeteNutButter]

Thats your DM going against RAW and RAI and RAF and making an inconsistent ruling (works v swords but not v claws). That cant be helped.
Bad DM's gonna bad DM.
The feat is perfectly viable. Leaving aside the +1 to strength, write down the 3 points of damage it saves you each hit each time it happens over the course of a session on a seperate sheet of paper.
It doubles your HP over an adventuring day, even at mid-high levels. At low levels it multiplies them by a factor of... a lot.
My Bladelock loves it. With a good selection in the morning for resistance to B/S/P plus HAM's DR 3/- plus temp HP from fiend lock plus hellish rebuke/ Riposte, the DM never attacks me.
Im 12th level with 13 temp HP. I take 29 damage.
Damage gets reduced by 3 to 26.
Then it gets halved to 13.
Then it comes off my temporary HP leaving me unharmed.
Then I retort with [riposte + GWM] or cast Hellish rebuke dealing 5d10 damage.
Then its my turn. If I kill it, I get 13 temp HP back.

I have a similar opinion and experience. Remember it is a half feat still granting you that +1 str. Surprisingly few foes have magic attacks on their natural attacks for most of the levels.

While the 3/magic doesn't scale well on the surface, I think there is an ignored scaling in that foes get more attacks beyond low levels. Fighting a group of mooks or a monster with 5 attacks keeps this relevant.

Medium Armor Mastery is the one that in my opinion is under powered. Candidates for the feat include barbarians, rangers, some cleric domains, and maybe some caster dwarves.
-Barbarians should probably never take it, as they can just boost con instead for so many more benefits(hit points, saves), and the same or better AC while naked. Could appear useful for first level v human, but ultimately is wasted when you reach 20 con or higher. Most won't even have a 16 dex.
-Rangers should be boosting dex instead of the feat, until dex is 20. It could be useful at first level for your feat as a v human, but there are many more beneficial choices. By the time dex is capped, mage armor or the like provides the same benefit, via a multiclass dip or magic initiate feat (which also adds cantrips). Alternatively if your a str ranger, you probably won't have a 16 dex or a feat to spare as you are likely using GWM.
-Clerics may be the best option for this. As mentioned before a trickery cleric may want to be sneaky. Again though,he should be boosting wisdom instead of taking the feat, so it's first level v human only. If instead he is boosting dex, then he has the same issue as the ranger. If he really want's to be sneaky pass without trace does this handily, even with disadvantage.
-Dwarves will not be able to start with a 16 dex assuming point buy, so cannot get the real benefit of the feat without expending two ASIs. That's just bad in comparison to boosting attack stat.

Finally, the nail in the coffin for the feat is that it's best fit as a v human level 1 feat, but the benefit of stealth is then on a race that doesn't have darkvision. That's something D&D doesn't favor with so many foes having darkvision. Good luck sneaking in that cave with a light spell on you. At least the ranger could cast darkvision.

[Plaguescarred]

magical, nonmagical, weapon, nonweapon... hell, even if it applied to spells, if it applied to everything ever it would still be bad, because while attacks at low levels may ding you for 2 after the DR, at later levels a single attack deals so much damage that the 3 hp per hit won't even give you an extra round of consciousness most of the time. DR 3 or not, an attack that hits for something like 8d6 + 10 is going to mess you up.While its true that at high level attacks deal significantly more damage, if over the course of a day you sustained 10 attacks, that's 30 damage that the feat will have soaked, which should still be a significant % of your total hit points.


There is also some times where over the course of a combat where you're severely damage at the feat makes that a hit reduce to 2-3 hit points left, and you know without this feat your next turn coming up would be passed rolling death saves, which remaining rather cool from low to high level.

[D.U.P.A.]

Medium armor master is not that weak. You can start with 20 AC from first level (Fighter) or at least second (Paladin, Ranger), making you a better tank than heavily armored characters. Basically it is a free splint armor from the start if we look at heavy armor equivalents. Even at 4th level is not bad, especially for Valor bards.

As for Heavy armor master, it may not be that much effective in higher levels, but you also have higher hit points, so you have easier time to mitigate damage. Most enemies still uses nonmagical weapon attacks, even it has some extra elemental damage, you still reduce the physical part as long is not magical.

[SharkForce]

i think the main "problem" with heavy armour master is that too many expect it to be as ridiculously powerful at level 20 as it was at level 1. which is ridiculous, because at level 1 heavy armour master is massively overpowered. if level 1 didn't go by so quickly, it would probably need to scale, but downward from where it is.

but, to make it feel a bit more appealing, i would propose instead of scaling, give it a weaker version of adamantine armour. let's say that 3 times per day, you can turn a critical hit into a normal hit. maybe have it cost a reaction to do so as well. still doesn't scale in flat numbers (but also still scales with number of incoming attacks, just like the regular feat already did), but now your feat is doing something a bit more exciting and active. but seriously, it doesn't need a huge boost. frankly, a lot of the things that hit for 8d6 + 5 damage (or whatever) count as magical anyways, so the things that get individual hard hitting attacks rather than a few weaker ones will probably ignore HAM whether that number is 3 or 6 regardless.




the main problem with medium armour master is the feel of it i think. it actually isn't that bad if you intend to use the entire thing (specifically, sneaking around in medium armour). it's just... a lot less exciting than other feats, and harder to use the whole thing (medium armour's schtick is basically "i don't want to invest a lot into dex, can't wear heavy armour, and still want good AC"). it mostly needs something to make it pop, i think. because of the niche medium armour is in (used by those who have only a minor investment into dexterity), the feat just really struggles to be relevant the great majority of the time. i can't think of anything that i would consider reasonable to add in while remaining thematic, unfortunately. unless we change it from +1 maximum dex mod to +2 AC but you can no longer add any dex mod at all (so basically, when you're proficient with medium armour already you could take this feat if you want to have better stealth, or you could take heavy armour proficiency if you want a bit more AC). i mean, it would stop giving +1 AC, but it might make MAM have a bit more of an identity (still doesn't feel exciting to take it though, sadly).

[Vogonjeltz]

They disregard all Sage Advice "My ruling is just as valid as theirs is." As such they don't even read it.

In their defense the text of HAM does specifically call out weapons.

They're entitled to being stubborn and wrong, naturally.

That being said, having a bad DM does not reflect on the ability in question:

We could easily have a bad DM who doesn't follow any number of rules or effects in the correct way, that doesn't make those rules or effects bad.

[MeeposFire]

I find medium armor master to be slightly under powered. I think it really could use a +1 to a stat like the other armor feats. I know that means on some instances you could get a +2 to AC for one feat but remember that is possible with the moderately armored feat by using a shield or by getting light armor for the first time with a feat. As it is it just does not quite live up to other feats but it is almost there. I also think it is important since unlike light armor which has no actual limit to the AC if you can get your dex up (typically via magic items such as manuals which I know is unreliable and not extremely likely but it does exist) medium armor is limited forever to that exact amount so if I am going to spend a feat on this it had better be good to make me feel like it is a good investment.


As for things like mage armor. I really don't feel that 1/day mage armor is better than using armor. Just think how often in a long term game do you never find magic armor ever? A +1 studded leather gives you the same AC with no investment and cannot be removed by a spell.

[djreynolds]

I find medium armor master to be slightly under powered. I think it really could use a +1 to a stat like the other armor feats. I know that means on some instances you could get a +2 to AC for one feat but remember that is possible with the moderately armored feat by using a shield or by getting light armor for the first time with a feat. As it is it just does not quite live up to other feats but it is almost there. I also think it is important since unlike light armor which has no actual limit to the AC if you can get your dex up (typically via magic items such as manuals which I know is unreliable and not extremely likely but it does exist) medium armor is limited forever to that exact amount so if I am going to spend a feat on this it had better be good to make me feel like it is a good investment.


As for things like mage armor. I really don't feel that 1/day mage armor is better than using armor. Just think how often in a long term game do you never find magic armor ever? A +1 studded leather gives you the same AC with no investment and cannot be removed by a spell.

I agree mostly this, breast plate is AC14 and no disadvantage while "stealthing", and AC16 and dex 14

So you can grab half plate for AC 15 and +1 extra for dex, AC18, but you have to have a 16 in dex for the +3 dex bonus and the feat.

This feat is for melee rogue, IMO, who might be multiclassed with fighter or ranger and using shield master and need a high strength, but expertise in athletics really lets you get away with having a strength around 10-14 anyhow.

With standard array, it is expensive to have a high strength 16-20, and a dex of 16, and still leave room for other ASI/feats like lucky, mobile, alert, shield master, and resilient con/wis.

MAM is a very expensive niche feat, maybe you rolled well, and you have other team members buffing you.


HAM is just fine.

[Arial Black]

I like HAM for my multiclass warlocks so that armour of agathys lasts longer!