Heavy armor master at mid - high levels

[Phoenix042]

Heavy armor master's benefit doesn't apply to attacks made by magical weapons or the natural weapons of creatures whose attacks are considered magical.

Does this fall off as hard as it seems at high levels? Is the feat balanced well? Do you consider the weakness to magical attacks to be an important balancing consideration?

[Dork_Forge]

I think that not only is the balancing of nonmagical damage only not make fluff sense (it's meant to be about how you wear the armor and handle yourself in it, what difference does it make if someone comes at you with a magical sword?) it also greatly devalues the feat. If you just make it a flat reduction to all BPS nothing would break, and imo there wouldn't even be a perceptable increase in power creep, the benefit is very slight but has the potential to have a meaningful impact on the player experience instead of a costly player choice just ages out of usefulness rather ungracefully.

[LudicSavant]

I think that not only is the balancing of nonmagical damage only not make fluff sense (it's meant to be about how you wear the armor and handle yourself in it, what difference does it make if someone comes at you with a magical sword?) it also greatly devalues the feat. If you just make it a flat reduction to all BPS nothing would break, and imo there wouldn't even be a perceptable increase in power creep, the benefit is very slight but has the potential to have a meaningful impact on the player experience instead of a costly player choice just ages out of usefulness rather ungracefully.

Yeah I have no idea why the nonmagical damage line is in there either.

[Trask]

I feel like the designers originally intended magical and non-magical damage to matter more than it actually did. Theres no reason imo to limit the feat to only non-magical damage in the way the game has developed.

[stoutstien]

I ended up just slapping the damage reduction portion on plate armor as a base feature and extended it to work for magical b/s/p damage.

The power of the feat is based on how often the tables see lots of weaker NPCs that mob the party. It falls in the always the bridesmaid but never the bride category for me.

[Nidgit]

I think the idea is that HAM wasn't supposed to protect against bludgeoning damage from spells, like Sleet Storm or Meteor Swarm. Which, like, I can see either argument for. HAM should probably apply to magical weapon attacks though, particularly if your heavy armor set is magical itself.

[MaxWilson]

Heavy armor master's benefit doesn't apply to attacks made by magical weapons or the natural weapons of creatures whose attacks are considered magical.

Does this fall off as hard as it seems at high levels? Is the feat balanced well? Do you consider the weakness to magical attacks to be an important balancing consideration?

It depends entirely on DM style. 5E's math (including both DMG and Xanathar's encounter tables) treats 30 Brown Bears as a worthy and interesting challenge for 4 20th level PCs, and also treats one Ancient White Dragon as a worthy and interesting challenge, and in both cases it expects the 20th level PCs to need at least a short rest after two encounters like that. Some PCs (like smiting Paladins) will ace the dragon encounter with flying colors but will struggle mightily against against 1020 HP worth of bears. Heavy Armor Master helps rather a lot against the bears and only somewhat against the dragon, and not at all against either a horde of Shadows or a Nightwalker.

In general though I'd say it probably doesn't fall off as hard as you seem to fear. Even high-CR monsters often don't have magic attacks, and their attacks are frequently split up into a bunch of Multiattacks that HAM can work against multiple times, instead of one big attack that HAM affects only once.

Overall it's not a great feat, but it's a pretty good half-feat, and I've seen it used to decent effect on e.g. a human Str 14 -> 15 wizard tank (e.g. Forge Cleric 1/Enchanter X). It's probably somewhat equivalent to +2ish HP per level, even at higher levels.

[Samayu]

While you are wearing heavy armor, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from nonmagical weapons is reduced by 3

The feat is already a bit underpowered at mid tiers, since 3 damage is not much when you're taking hits of 36 at a time. But maybe there aren't as many magical weapons coming at us as it seems like. I'm not sure I can answer that question, because I'm not always aware of whether the weapons are magical Which is another thing that makes this feat a pain - having to ask every time, whether the attack was magical.

[CTurbo]

As a DM, I would let it work against magical weapons provided the armor is magical too.

I have also houseruled in the past that the flat damage reduction per hit is equal to your proficiency bonus. So it's slightly weaker from levels 1-4, the same from levels 5-8, slightly stronger from 9-12, a good bit stronger from 13-16, and twice as strong from 17-20.

[Desamir]

HAM falls off as monster damage per hit increases, but I'm not convinced the non-magical clause matters much.

Here's a list of the monsters in the MM that deal magical B/P/S:

Deva, Planetar, Solar
Couatl
Balor, Marilith, Erinyes
Empyrean
Golems
Oni
Slaads
Unicorn
Yugoloths

Most of these creatures hit hard enough that 3 DR would be irrelevant anyways.

[MaxWilson]

HAM falls off as monster damage per hit increases, but I'm not convinced the non-magical clause matters at all.

Besides unicorns, what monsters deal magical B/P/S?

Nycaloths and Elemental Myrmidons spring directly to mind. Also Pit Fiends, Mariliths, Balors, and Solars. Not Goristros or Dragons or Devourers or Efreets or Dao, and for some reason not Githyanki Kithraks.

Probably around half of the physical-oriented monsters over CR 12 have magical attacks. (Just a guesstimate.)

[KOLE]

As a DM, I would let it work against magical weapons provided the armor is magical too.

I have also houseruled in the past that the flat damage reduction per hit is equal to your proficiency bonus. So it's slightly weaker from levels 1-4, the same from levels 5-8, slightly stronger from 9-12, a good bit stronger from 13-16, and twice as strong from 17-20.

I'm totally stealing this and adding it to my house rules. *tips hat*

[HappyDaze]

The feat is absolutely fine. Even at high levels, 5e allows hordes of weaker opponents to be a true threat. HAM is extraordinarily effective in such situations while being far less so when going against the fewer, bigger opponents.

[Greywander]

The feat is absolutely fine. Even at high levels, 5e allows hordes of weaker opponents to be a true threat. HAM is extraordinarily effective in such situations while being far less so when going against the fewer, bigger opponents.
This. I can't speak from experience, but I know that a lot of high CR monsters (such as dragons) don't have magical weapons, and many of them use a multiattack instead of just one big attack. It's true that they're still hitting hard enough that it won't make as much of a difference, but even if it's just enough to take one extra hit, that could matter.

But where HAM really shines is against hordes of weaker enemies. Basic goblins deal an average of 5 damage per hit, and you'd be more than cutting that in half. Combined with the high AC offered by heavy armor, and you'll be able to wade through these hordes without being in as much danger. In 5e, these enemies are still a threat at higher levels if they're in large enough numbers, but to you they'd be much less of a threat.

[Chaos Jackal]

Not many monsters actually have magic multiattacks. Even if their attacks have a magic part (like a red dragon's bite), they usually still deal physical damage too, and thus get reduced. For magic attacks, there's most celestials (a relatively rare monster type) some fiends and elementals, and a smattering of other enemies, plus things like spectres, who never deal physical damage.

Of course, the feat still doesn't scale all too well. Blocking 3 or 6 damage per enemy when your HP total is 30 is much better than blocking 6 or 9 damage per enemy when your HP is 100. And most enemies don't actually get an overwhelming number of attacks; it's typical for a high CR monster to still have two, maybe three attacks, it's just that one or two of them are now pretty brutal. Monsters with four attacks are relatively uncommon. Monsters with more than four attacks are rare.

And while magic claw/claw/bite routines are rare, higher levels also mean more opponents who use magic in general. You might not be going toe to toe with celestials (which make up a good percentage of monsters with magic multiattacks) in a non-evil campaign, but enemies with spellcasting are likely to be a lot more numerous as you grow in power, as well as a lot more dangerous, not to mention every custom boss NPC who isn't in any book and whose magic axe that you wanna loot is first gonna be used to bypass your DR.

At lv4, you can expect the worst thing around to be the local evil warlord, with his three longsword attacks, his army of goons with two shortsword attacks, and that ragtag spellcaster-advisor packing a couple 2nd-level spells and maybe a 3rd, and your HAM is gonna make you into a demigod in such a case. At lv10, however, the local warlord has now become the evil emperor, wielder of his family's ancestral magic sword and dabbler in the mystic arts, backed up by a corrupt council of wizards and warlocks plus a couple of spiritual advisor clerics carrying 4th-level spells. But your HAM is still only effective against the goons with the two shortsword attacks, this time flavored as palace guards, except now they seem a lot less dangerous in the first place than they appeared to be 6 levels ago.

So yes, HAM falls off rather steeply at higher levels, not because of the prevalence of monsters with magic multiattacks but because of diminishing returns and combat shifting in general towards a more magical nature. If you expect to be fighting hordes regularly, it stays at least decent. Otherwise, it becomes less and less relevant.

[Anymage]

Mathematically, yeah. It obviously falls behind at higher levels as damage per hit goes up while the damage reduction doesn't, and that would be the case even if it didn't get flat out negated by magic.

The "negated by magic" part is the worse one, though. Damage reduction outside of resistance is rare, and many players like the feel of being tankier even if the math is less than impressive. Having that entirely shut down because the bad guy is using a magic sword makes the trait feel wasted, and I don't want the player to feel like something they spent character resources on is useless.

[MaxWilson]

not to mention every custom boss NPC who isn't in any book and whose magic axe that you wanna loot is first gonna be used to bypass your DR.

Isn't that exactly what DMG Disarm is for? :) It works great against Githyankis, might as well try it against other magic weapon wielders too. If he pulls out a second magic axe, well, that's twice as much loot, otherwise he's no longer wielding a magic weapon.

[Joe the Rat]

As a DM, I would let it work against magical weapons provided the armor is magical too.

I have also houseruled in the past that the flat damage reduction per hit is equal to your proficiency bonus. So it's slightly weaker from levels 1-4, the same from levels 5-8, slightly stronger from 9-12, a good bit stronger from 13-16, and twice as strong from 17-20.I've seen the prof bonus tweak a few times, but the magic armor vs. magic weapon attacks is new - sort of a midrange between "no magic" and "all magic" - and works out well in the context of nonmagic bps resistance/immunity plays out.

I am on the fence about keeping the weapon restriction - should HAM help against magic bps (for now assuming the magic armor stipulation), or falling (which isn't a weapon attack, so technically should not count)?

[Mr Adventurer]

What if, instead of an amount of damage per hit, it absorbed an amount of damage per turn? Say, 5 per Tier? 3 per Tier?

[sithlordnergal]

What if, instead of an amount of damage per hit, it absorbed an amount of damage per turn? Say, 5 per Tier? 3 per Tier?

That would make it absolutely horrible. The issue with HAM is that monsters quickly begin to do a lot more damage then it can protect from. Tier 1 its fine since things tend to do below 10 damage with each hit, but at CR 5 you have creatures that do 10 per hit. HAM's biggest saving grace is that it reduces the damage by 3 on every hit. If you just gave it a pool that can be used up, you'd need to make that pool so large that it becomes broken or else its a useless feat. Case in point, using the 5 per tier idea. You can absorb 10 damage per turn...a Fire Elemental deals an average of 10 damage with one of its touch attacks, and can make two attacks in a round. You managed to stop one attack, but took the other 10. Air Elementals can deal 14 damage, so you couldn't even stop that attack.


As for the original question, it does fall off pretty hard at higher tiers, if only because the things you're fighting start dealing a lot more damage, to the point where 3 damage less isn't really all that useful in most encounters. The magical weapon part is odd...but I don't think a majority of monster attacks count as magical, so it isn't going to come up very often. I suspect it was put in there to prevent HAM users from being able to block spell damage.

It does need a buff though, I tend to like basing it off of Proficiency Bonus+1. In Tier 1, you're blocking 3 damage per hit, Tier 2 you block 4-5 damage, ect., until you're blocking 7 damage per hit at Tier 4. That makes it a decent feat without breaking much of anything. Yes, that 7 points of damage may seem a bit high, but consider this. An Ancient Red Dragon deals an average of 55 slashing/piercing damage and 14 fire damage with its ordinary attacks. Even when you reduce the damage by 7 per hit, you're only reducing it by a total of 21, so you're still taking 48 damage total.

[Mr Adventurer]

That would make it absolutely horrible. The issue with HAM is that monsters quickly begin to do a lot more damage then it can protect from. Tier 1 its fine since things tend to do below 10 damage with each hit, but at CR 5 you have creatures that do 10 per hit. HAM's biggest saving grace is that it reduces the damage by 3 on every hit. If you just gave it a pool that can be used up, you'd need to make that pool so large that it becomes broken or else its a useless feat. Case in point, using the 5 per tier idea. You can absorb 10 damage per turn...a Fire Elemental deals an average of 10 damage with one of its touch attacks, and can make two attacks in a round. You managed to stop one attack, but took the other 10. Air Elementals can deal 14 damage, so you couldn't even stop that attack.




This seems like a bizarre analysis. Who said anything about "stopping attacks"? It needs to be compared to HAM as-is. HAM wouldn't affect the fire elemental attacks at all, and would absorb 3 of the air elemental damage. This house rule would absorb 10 of the air elemental damage, all other things being equal.

And I'm not even saying it's a good house rule! I don't know, I haven't run the numbers. But your analysis is just... irrelevant, it seems to me.

[sithlordnergal]

This seems like a bizarre analysis. Who said anything about "stopping attacks"? It needs to be compared to HAM as-is. HAM wouldn't affect the fire elemental attacks at all, and would absorb 3 of the air elemental damage. This house rule would absorb 10 of the air elemental damage, all other things being equal.

And I'm not even saying it's a good house rule! I don't know, I haven't run the numbers. But your analysis is just... irrelevant, it seems to me.

Let me rephrase it then: I feel having it absorb a certain amount of damage per turn weakens HAM. HAM's strength is being able to lower the damage of every attack you're hit by, making it powerful against multiple enemies. Yes, your method is better against a single Air Elemental, but if you face 2 Air Elementals you end up blocking 12 points of damage instead of just 10. Against something like a Star Spawn Mawler, which has 6 attacks, you're blocking 18 points of slashing damage instead of just 10. Most encounters have more then just one enemy to fight, making HAM more useful in those situations then just giving it a flat amount of damage that it absorbs per turn.

As for the Fire Elemental, I was just grabbing that as an example of how quickly damage increases between Tier 1 and Tier 2. At the very start of Tier 2, creatures are already doing 10 or more damage with a single strike, and most creatures have a multiattack.

[Emongnome777]

The feat says:

While you are wearing heavy armor, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from nonmagical weapons is reduced by 3.

Does this include non magical B/P/S from non-“weapon” attacks like claws, bites, slams, etc.?

[stoutstien]

The feat says:

While you are wearing heavy armor, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from nonmagical weapons is reduced by 3.

Does this include non magical B/P/S from non-“weapon” attacks like claws, bites, slams, etc.?

Natural weapons are indeed weapons. The rules are pretty clear just hiding in the MM.

If you read most NPCs blocks with natural weapons the attack will say something like : hooves. melee weapon attack +2 ....