I am wondering if the Heavy Armour Master feat is too powerful, meaning all armour wearers will need to get it, or at least all those who already have the heavy Armour proficiency. Just using some quick math:
1st level Human fighter with 15 con and 12hp without the feat (using the Variant human traits rule in PHB) can take 3-4 blows from a skeleton or goblin with a 1d6 weapon on average. The same 1st level fighter with the feat can take 12 blows on average. That is a huge advantage.
Against low level creatures it's strong.
Against mid levels creatures, it's worth about +1 AC.
Against high level creatures, you probably won't notice it, if they even hit you with non-magical attacks.
It's really only OP for humans at level 1.
I think the feat is spectacular, yes. The heavy armor, however, gives disadvantage on stealth checks, which can be a huge liability. It can either alert most enemies to your party’s presence or leave you a significant distance away and surprised at the beginning of combat if the sneaky types went up ahead.
I think heavy armor needs something significant to make up for this, and the Heavy Armor Master feat seems to fit the bill.
DR has always been strong vs weak enemies and weak against strong enemies.
From level 1-4, everything you would willingly fight (AKA not run away from on first glance screaming) is weak soo...
mellored wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
mellored wrote:
I will probably just house rule the DR down to 2. 3 seems a bit too good to me.
I don't think it is too powerful. Surviving seems to be an issue, at least enough that it is mentioned frequently, why would you want to punish any players by reducing it? That seems kind of silly. If a spell does more damage than _____, are you wanting to nerf it also?
As for it being a "must", it seems like there are limited options for all classes right now to choose from, so I suspect it does qualify for a must have at lower levels.
i always find it odd when people take away things they have not experienced themselves in a game. sure plenty of things sound overpowered, doesn't mean it will dissrupt anything in the game.
it's like syaing i will be hosting a marrathon for charity, but i wont allow kenya to enter because they are to good. firstly even if a person from kenya enters they can still lose, and you are assuming someone from keny will enter at all. if you dont draw attention to it, i doubt more then 1 out of 10 players will take it unless they are min/maxers. which if they do, then just be a DM and make encounters that will challange the DR player too.
also yes you are missing the fact that even with the DR feat, groups have wizards with sleep, clerics who heal, rogues who backstab and stealth. no reason to take away a cool power to one class while the others are still doing awesome things.
but hey brotha, to each their own!
silentdante wrote:
Another item of note is that this feat does absolutely nothing against any creature that has attacks considered to be magical/magic weapons as I read it. Magic Weapon is a 2nd level spell so available to a 3rd level caster which can give the ability to bypass this. I don't have the monster manual but if it is anything like 3.5 after a certain point every creature in the book had natural attacks that were considered to be "magic" for the purposes of damage reduction. If that holds true here then after a certain point the feat is pretty well useless.
hahahaha i love it.
it's not overpowered unless you play and find out, how long you have to play is up for discussion. sitting around thinking of how you can combine things to make them over powered is the deffinition of min/maxing so you saying that role playing a durable character wouldn't be min maxing then sure, if you just found the feat and wanted to role play a durable character you would take it, thats not the situation this was brought up in at all.
as for the class thing, i never said no class could not take it. so if you want to role play your wizard in heavy armour and the feat, it's not exactly dooable at 1st level, though i wouldnt stop someone from trying. the whole POINT of an RPG is to role play, so if you say that there is no min/maxing and just role playing, then the DM can roleplay his way too to counteract the things he would deem overpowered. no it owuld not make it deadly for anyone else, how does that even come up. why would the DM design an encounter to challenge the DR character but then proceed to kill everyone else first, sure that makes sense in a DM VS PC game, but it sure doesn't sound fun. so why would the DM do that then, unless he just wants a TPK, and tries for it on purpose. i am not saying DM's dont do that, but in my opinion having fun is more important, and fun being relative, as the DM i would have the challenge face the DR person, and the rest of the challenge VS the rest of the party.
i think you were being contrary just to be contrary to counteract my contrary remarks, which is fine.
has anyone done much actual playtesting of HAM? it would seem that insight would help address the OP's concerns fairly definitively, one way or the other.
blake_marlowe wrote:
well polaris ran the starter set and one of his players had the feat, the write up is later on in the thread, but here is the thread if anyone wants to read it
http://community.wizards.com/forum/dungeon-master-help/threads/4126547
silentdante wrote:
Since my name has been mentioned, I think I shall appear! I have run a session with the Heavy Mastery Feat and the feat for first level characters probably is on the 'too powerful side'. That said, I am not sure I'd want to see it removed or changed (and it's already been nerfed).
The feat is a godsend especially at low levels, but to be honest, the game is probably too deadly (or at least the encounter guidelines need work) at exactly this point. So if you have a fighter (and it only works with heavy armor fighters) with this feat, perhaps it makes the difference between survivable encounters and less so (it did in my case).
I would also point out that the feat does become less useful over time. As soon as you get a lot of spell/magic-weapon attacks, the feat essentially dissapears except to hold off hords of 'mooks' (and is that really a bad thing)? Most characters won't get this until 4th level soonest, and magic attacks/weapons start appearing then.
So in conclusion, while it probably is OP at first level, I would hesitate to change it until/unless we have a lot better guidance on how to make low level encounters because it's the one 'unbaanced' thing at first level that actually favors the PCs. Just my take from what I've seen.
-Polaris
Edit PS: "too powerful" or not, heavy armor mastery is NOT invulnerability even at first level. Just ask the player that played Kane, the heavy fighter that came *this* close to insta-death when we played last...and he did go through most of the adventure injured albeit slightly. The DR enabled him to do that with minimal draw on party resources, but he wasn't slam-dunk invulnerable [the goblins in that first encounter got really wretched damaged rolls on Kane!]
It's situationally strong, and useless in other situations. Best case scenario is a human fighter or cleric taking it at level one. If you aren't a variant human, you won't get it until it's significantly weaker.
It's also notable, IMO, that it increases the survivability of what is already typically the most survivable character of the party. Sure, your fighter or cleric will be damn hard to hurt, but that isn't going to save your rogue or wizard from being ganked at the start of the fight.
I seem to recall polaris making a very strong argument in another thread that all enemies will focus fire the wizard (or next least-armored character in the absense of a wizard) all the time, every time. In those situations, heavy armor mastery is essentially worthless, as it won't do anything until the rest of your party is already dead. A more offensive feat would make a lot more sense in a game where the monsters always play gank the wizard.
It shines if the monsters focus the guy with heavy armor mastery (HAM) AND the monsters are all using regular non-magic weapon attacks. A couple spellcasters and it's benefits melt away, or uncooperative monsters that choose to ignore the fighter in favor of killing the rest of the party similiarly erase the benefits of HAM.
Personally, I think it's a cool feat, strong at low levels but certainly not ban-worthy and given a variant human fighter or cleric to build I'm not sure it would even be my first choice of feats.
It is also a bonus to the entire party since the character(s) with the heavy armor mastery will not require as much healing, allowing these resources to be allocated to other party members...
As others point out the advantage grows less as the party rises in level - I'd actually like to see MORE abilities like this!
Karnos wrote:
My problem with it is not that it isn't useful for the whole party, because it obviously is. My problem is that it is too useful, and so every fighter designed to wear heavy armour will be getting HAM. This I don't like. I don't want a feat that you are silly not to have. If that is the case, the feat is not balanced with the other feats.
So those who agree that HAM is not good for you or your game, what are your plans to deal with it?
Iorwerth wrote:
I would have had the goblins focus fire on the Thief and they did focus on the Archer Fighter (in Leather) along with the figher with HAM, but my players were clever and didn't give the goblins that opportunity. Essentially my players were tactically clever and arranged it so that to attack the party effectively, the goblins (for the most part) had to attack the HAM fighter at least a little.
If the 5e fighter had 4e defender/controller abilities (at level 1), then yeah, it probably would be too much. As it is, I think that it's probably too powerful, but it helps a critical party member alive. Personally, I would have taken a human varient cleric and given him HAM because it would improve the survivability of the cleric and thus the entire group, but that's me.
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
Nonmagical needs to be better defined.
Is a claw attack from a magical beast like an ancient dragon magical? Probably should be, but it doesn't say that. And if it doesn't count then what monsters will? It's a PC feat, and PCs fight monsters, so it must apply to something other than the occasional NPC fighter villain right?
I see a lot of arguments at a lot of tables about that word.
Eric888 wrote:
Eric888 wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Simply making it scale would take alot of the sting out of the level 1 thing. It would also help keep the feat relelvent at high levels.
HAM: You get DR equal to 1+1/5 your level (rounded down).
mellored wrote:
I disagree that everyone would grab this at level one, only a fighter, paladin, or cleric human even has the opportunity, and they are giving up other feats at level one, Great Weapon fighter, War Caster, Shield Master, Sentinel, MAge Slayer, ect, ect ect. If you want to play the big tank whose is hard to hurt, HAM is great, if you have a different concept, you might wait and grab something else.
FFSAA wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
mellored wrote:
Heavy armor also tends to suck a lot compared to dex based fighters as you will onnly have a +1 AC bonus most of the tome over the dex fighter who gets all the other advantages of the higher dex. The exception being if you are using a two handed sword of course as the dex builds I think are obsoleting sword and board strength builds. Using this feat as a human at level 1 is probably about the only way you would convince me to use heavy armor sword and board fighter at level 1.
FFSAA wrote:
blake_marlowe wrote:
Seems a strong feat at early levels and then slowly becomes less of a powerhouse feat. Which is ok to me. You have to deal with spell and spelllike abilities more and more as you level up.that helps keeping it from being too OP. But it is almost a must have for varient human fighters, pallys and some clerics at first level.
It is a noticeable difference but it is not by any means mandatory. I am actually playing the game not just theory crafting and there are many feats that are just as desireable. Feats like charger, Polearm Master, Heavy Weapon Master are in solid competition at low level all of which grant extra attack options. There is the option of gaining proficiency in a save (Dex I am looking at you) More HP which are key to survival and help with save. Even feats which grant spellcasting like heals and useful cantrips. Everyone I play with speculated this would be huge but in play it hasnt felt that way. The higher your AC the less impact it feel slike it has because you are being missed often enough and the people with this feat have the highest AC of all.
FFSAA wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
mellored wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
If you played the game you would find some of your assumptions are a bit off. The second wind power is hardly unlimited healing. Generally the nature of 5e does not assume a rest after every fight so you might get it once in 2 - 3 fights or maybe only once per day. Waiting an hour outside the doorway of the evil villain is not the best idea. the extra hp and healing can just as eaily be gotten multiclassing bard, cleric or paladin while other multiclasses give just as much in other ways. Staying single class also has enough benefits that multiclass is not as appealing as it was in previous editions because of the spread out ability gain. Casters losing a caster level are making a hard choice to multiclass as the higher spell levels are designed as part of their progression.
FFSAA wrote:
So basically you want to nerf the feat and make sure that the fighter is killed off in the clearly deadly earliest levels, because after around 4th it is a situational improvement and most will want to trade or retrain it if possible. Well, sounds like you already made up your mind.
I don't think it is overpowered for a fighter who wants to be "that guy". Polaris already stated it is strong at low level, but the fighter using it still almost died. That doesn't sound overpowered to me. It sounds more like a feat choice that was wisely made at the cost of ____ feat. Someone else posted a review saying they killed the monsters fast enough that their damage wasn't an issue....should we nerf their damage too so that they can be killed easier? Just relax, let the fighter shine a little, it will buff out.
Polaris, you said HAM was nerfed already? What is/was the nerf? I seem to have missed that.
Jvance420 wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Polaris wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
HAM isn't really overpowered compared to Greatweapon Master, Dual Wielder, Sentinel, Alert, or +2 Strength, among others. And I don't think it should become useless at high
levels, since groups of lower-level monsters can often still attack you at
higher levels in 5e.
masterfat78 wrote:
Veleria wrote:
I would agree with the idea that having the highest AC, a large pool of hp, and your own personal bonus heal is enough to keep fighter's going just fine even if they don't get this feat, it is powerful sure, but hardly essential.
I would also like to point out that we can tone back the sarcasm, no need to devolve into shouting matches just yet
FFSAA wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Are we not getting a little off topic here with all this wizard stuff?
Jvance420 wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
I was just in a group that ran the intro bit to the Tyranny of Dragons series (we were running through a town under attack from some cultists and a damn dragon). I played a dex-based fighter, and we had a strength-based fighter dwarf and a paladin with HAM. Good spread, overall.
We encountered about 12 kobolds and 6-10 cultists over 4 encounters without a short rest. I think this is representative of how the game was envisioned, but that could be wrong.
Over those encounters, all three of us fighter-types were fine. In order of benefit to the party overall, I'd say that the most powerful was someone's ability to cause disadvantage if an ally within 5 feet was attacked. That was a *huge* lifesaver in many circumstances. After that came HAM; the Paladin was able to stay on the front line for longer, but only about as long as the two fighters without HAM (probably because he kept pushing himself into the thick of things and was less afraid of opportunity attacks, which seems like a reasonable counterbalance). The dwarf seemed to survive best, truth be told, but I have no idea why. Maybe luck?
Everyone but the cleric came close to dying once, but no one died.
After that experience, HAM does not seem overpowered. My opinion may change over the next few sessions, but my overall impression is that it isn't significantly different from other powers that exist.
crispy, thanks for the table experience input.
obviously, there's a limitation with table experience: sometimes, wacky factors assume much greater impact than they should (a player wasn't well, or having a bad day, or subject to dice-hate), but having that specific example of 3 melee guys was really helpful, at least for me.
Yes, it is interesting to get some reports from the actual front, so to speak. However, the maths of the situation seems to indicate pretty heavily that the feat is overpowered, especially at lower levels, but also having a noticable affect at higher ones.
FFSAA wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
This "HAM" thing isn't mandatory. It would be silly to claim that dwarven fighters are untenable in the game. In fact, I've seen several of them do quite well.
Viable =/= Optimized
you seem to be on roughly the same wavelength as I am about this feat. if you were to re-jigg it, what would you make it do?
Iorwerth wrote:
Let the damage resistance be equal to the players proficiency bonus (2 to 6).
this feat sounds cool but this "nonmagical" stuff is confusing
you dont know how many mobs will ignore your DR. maybe 10%, maybe 99%
btw: is a bow+1 a magical pierce weapon or does it need +1 arrows?
is a spell always magical pierce/blud/slash?
like Ice Storm with bludgeoning damage and cold damage? or is this ice storm magically created but the ice rocks deal "normal" damage?
On Fri, my group will (finally) be starting Horde of the Dragon Queen. We got most of the way through the starter set, so we have a decent grasp on 5th ed. I plan on playing a 2H Human Paladin (oath of vengeance eventually), taking Heavy Armor Master with my variant feat. Our party will be me, a barbarian, a ranged fighter going into battlemaster I think, and a bard. I should get plenty of experience seeing how much damage it actually saves. Part of the reason that HAM is so nice for my character is the +1 str you get with it. This allows me to take a 15 1414 10 10 8 array and still start with two 16's, despite being down some racial stats compared to other races. Also, from my experiences in doing the starter set levels 1-4, the times where characters were closer to death weren't the big bads, but when 4 different goblins manage to hit you with a javelin/shoot you for like 5 each hit. Even if you get hit just twice, on lower level characters, you are now in the danger zone, and depending on how strict your DM is on short rests, healing options in early 5e are surprisingly limited. Thus, -3 on random goblins that you should be able to 1 shot but somehow miss for 3 rounds in a row should save a ton of damage. It remains to be seen how effective HAM will be at higher levels, but HAM should make it much more likely that my character can get there to see them. That plus the extra +1 str is what put it over the top for me.
Seuleslintan wrote:
the description tells if the attack/weapon is magical
http://i.imgur.com/XBdVs43.jpg
FFSAA wrote:
Seuleslintan wrote:
Seuleslintan wrote:
Personaly,i really like this feat. I used back in the playtest and i use it with my new character now. Playtest version was better for characters with pumped up con,but i like this new one better. Straight DR/3,not depending on one of your abilities is a nice thing. I like to play sword and board,plate wearing front liners so this feat at lv 1 compliments my concept and playstyle very well. I haven't played past lv 6,so i don't have first hand expirience how usefull is at mid lvs,but i doubt it will become useless. Disclaimer: i don't play published modules or adventures. It's a homebrew setting where most of opponents are pc races and they do use normal weapons,since it is low magic,grim&gritty kind of world.
TheLyons wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
TheLyons wrote:
Orzel wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Don't bother arguing with FFSAA. That person always has the most perfect interpretation of everything and you're stupid if you question it.
On topic - it's definitely one of those things that depends on the encounter in question. One of the weaknesses of the feat is that it isn't particularly reliable. You are likely to have numerous difficult encounters, particularly at high level, where you aren't taking standard damage at all, or you are taking heavy single hits, and so the feat is functionally useless. There will also be encounters, particularly at lower levels, where you will be disproportionately taking standard damage from numerous weak attacks and so the feat proves to be immensely good.
All in all, I'd say there's definitely a chance it's OP, but drawing that conclusion with any degree of certainty will require more data than we really have at this point. Like most people have already said, you're likely to get much more bang for your buck out of it at lower levels with its efficacy evening out a bit later on. I think we'll be able to draw a more precise conclusion after we get a few more modules and the MM releases.
On the issue of the OPness of having it at level 1 as part of the human variant, I think I'd honestly just houserule it to where you get +1 at level 1-2, +2 at 3-4, and +3 after that, OR you could actually just base it on the armor type, with Ring Mail getting +1, Chain and Splint getting +2 and Full Plate getting +3. I also think I'm going to increase the str requirement for full plate to 17.
Given the fact that you are expected to hit 3rd level in 2-3 sessions, I don't see what the problem is. The first few levels are lightning fast and as such, the feat is only a problem for what? 4-5 sessions?
Are you so bent out of shape about something that self-corrects in a handful of sessions, especially when they are expending a once-off resource to do so. Now....If you allow feat retraining, then yes I could see a problem, but only if you allow humans to retrain their racial feat.
What surprises me is that no one is talking about Inspiring leader. Handing out 24 Temp HP every rest at level 1 is a great way to make sure the group sees level 2. It scales well also. HAM is great but it only protects one player, Inspiring leader is like HAM for the whole party.
Veleria wrote: