So I know the whole “my table my rules” thing. But does anyone else limit which feats can be taken via variant human/custom linage? I’m looking to keep my level 1-4 players from picking up Heavy Armor Master. Just feels like -3 damage on all non magical attacks is way to strong that early. Just doesn’t seem like most people would run into a lot of hedge wizards or magical beasts in the early game.
Off topic, I know, but it feels like you're asking permission from the community to say "no" to your player. You've already stated that you want to restrict something at your table, it's optional rules anyways, no big issue there. I'm not seeing a reason to justify yourself to anyone other than to your players. Talk it over with your player, let them know how you feel about certain feats - which you probably should have covered when they told you they wanted to bring a v. human into the game - and run with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Honestly, HAM is actually less effective to the point of being almost useless when you get up in level. I had a character who took it at 8, and by level 10, it almost never came up, since by then most enemies have magical attacks or other ways to bypass the resistance. So if you deny it to them at level 4, you’re more or less taking it out of the game. Certainly, that’s your prerogative as DM, just want you to be sure you understand the consequences.
Its powerful at low levels, yes. But there’s an opportunity cost. Anyone taking HAM isn’t taking PAM or GWM or some other feat.
I’m more worried about it at level 1. Just kind of feels like having 33-50% damage resistance is a bit strong to start the game with. Added to the fact that you have an AC of 16-18 (probably rocking a shield, but who knows)
From experience I can tell you it helped the paladin who had that feat, but it wasn't over powering. I rather enjoyed him having it at level 1 cause it gave him a bit more survivability, and let the bard use a first level slot on a spell other then cure wounds. At low levels it's easy enough to tpk a party even on accident.
Interesting. Always, when i search for monsters i think, that there are a lot of monsters, that doesn't have magical Weapons throughout all CR. Sure there are powerful magical foes, which Weapons count as magical but also a lot which don't. This is probably strongly dependent on the campaign. (Notes: Since i really disliked the mechanic of resistances against magical weapons thing, i ditched the rule and now allow the feat to soak up an p/b/s-damage, but this is a "my table"-thing)
HAM in the first 2 tiers is nearly as impactful on a tank as GWM. I have seen the full Elfsong tavern encounter from BG:DiA played against 4 characters of level 1 with a cleric with HAM. Cleric did go down once but the encounter was taken by the party with ease. HAM soaked up over 30 Damage damage, which is huge in tier 1. It becomes balanced at level 8 and gets weaker al level 13+.
@topic: If your players are fine with your ruling everything is okay. There are arguably some dm's out there that recommend ban some feats (lucky) or at least balance them (sentinel). If you restrict your players make sure the following circumstances are present:
Your players agree with the restrictions This can, in most cases, be most easily achieved by talking to your players and explain them how and why you limit their choices.
Your restriction should only be made to improve the experience of your players. This sounds awkward, because players usualy dislike restrictions, but if you explain how your restrictions will improve the gameplay-experience for everyone the players will agree (see point above) OR maybe will come up with other creative solutions for maybe problematic feats. (The damage reduction could scale with the tier of gameplay. You could use the Proficiency Bonus as DR instead)
There are very few reasons to play as a Human in D&D. For one, it's a fantasy game, and Humans are not fantastic. People would rather be something else, something more fun, and in D&D, they get rewarded for this. All the other races are more powerful in some way. Normal humans get +1 to all scores, which is neat, but not really enough to be significant. Variant Humans get a Feat. Only race that does.
You are talking about taking away the only remaining reason to play as a human, their Feat, and the one you have been talking about is not that powerful. There are ways around all the feats pretty much. Among other things, Heavy Armor Master implies that the player character will be wearing heavy armor and there are ways to make people in heavy armor regret that, like Heat Metal, or swimming. It is also true that Darkvision is not something you can get with a Feat. Use the Vision and Lighting rules, and watch what happens.
I'm not sure the question pertains to taking away all feat options, but instead to not allowing specificfeats. If, for instance, you as a DM decided to restrict your campaign to NO feats, then the variant human would by default be off the table. Your players could still choose human. Or, let's say, you restrict the GWM + PAM combo, or Xbow Expert + Sharpshooter, there are other choices that are less optimal (HAM might fall into this category), but that's something that needs to be covered in a Session0 or other conversation with player and DM input.
I do agree that human is a fairly mundane option for character builds, so the use of a feat to "sweeten the pot" is, in my opinion, the only heavily convincing draw to choosing human. If I'm honest, the variant build should probably be the standard for the race.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Just feels like -3 damage on all non magical attacks is way to strong that early.
If it makes you feel any better about it, HAM only applies to weapon attacks, per SAC. So you could still hit them for full piercing damage from ye olde spiked pit trap or whatever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I considered taking Heavy Armor Master for my Feat with my Fighter. I decided not to, because by the rules, natural weapons of any kind would go right through. A lot of monsters have those. With npcs, they usually do not, but I can't really count on none of them having a magical weapon, now can I? I decided to take something more useful.
Offtopic: Funny, i always thought the variant human was one of the best if not the best race to take (prior to Tasha's custom lineage and races that grant a flying speed or magic resistance), because of the free feat. I myself enjoy playing humans the most....different people different preferences i guess.
I considered taking Heavy Armor Master for my Feat with my Fighter. I decided not to, because by the rules, natural weapons of any kind would go right through.
Natural weapons are still weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The rules about natural weapons are very unclear. The only creature I know about for whom "natural weapons" count as actual weapons is the Dhampir. I'm sure there are plenty monsters who can.
In any case, 3 points less damage per hit isn't much. You get attacked a lot if you're any kind of decent tank, and you can take a crit any time they roll a 20.
To the OP, what would they be fighting that has you so worried about it?
In the statblocks is always something statet like:
„claws. Meele weapon attack […]“.
checked bears, wolfs, owlbears and dragons. I think the rules are clear in this case.
Anyway if, and this is an important if, the weapon attack isn‘t magical the damagereduction in melee is between 30 and 80 % in tier 1 and between 10 - 40 % in tier two, but will be more likely be higher then 20 % because there are not a lot of monster that deal 20 or more damage in tier 2 in a single hit. It becomes 10-15 % in tier 3+.
Is it overpowered? Clearly not, but in the early game it‘s pretty good.
A lot of low level wild life and stuff like goblins and bandits. Early game enemies that are likely to not have magic (be it in weapon or spell form). I don’t want to drown them in enemies, but there is something to be said about the person who can face tank 3 opponents and come out with barely a scratch.
"there is something to be said about the person who can face tank 3 opponents and come out with barely a scratch." I agree! I think if someone spends a feat for that, they should get exactly that. I consider the feat a little underwhelming myself.
I’m more worried about it at level 1. Just kind of feels like having 33-50% damage resistance is a bit strong to start the game with. Added to the fact that you have an AC of 16-18 (probably rocking a shield, but who knows)
At level one players are squishy, it’s why I level them to level 3 ASAP, I have no issue with a variant human taking this feat because it makes them a little less squishy at low level and still gives scope to take them out. Another trick I have used at level one is to give a magic item that buffs hit points giving them an extra 20-30% temporary hit points. This has a period of time it lasts (usually a day to a week depending how long the level 1 portion of the adventure is going to last).
What this means is that you can be a bit more imaginative and use more of the interesting low level monsters earlier on, your players level 1 experience isn’t just, goblin or bandit or bear etc and you can do things like waves, outflanking and ambushes without the worry of an errant dice roll causing a tpk.
So I know the whole “my table my rules” thing. But does anyone else limit which feats can be taken via variant human/custom linage? I’m looking to keep my level 1-4 players from picking up Heavy Armor Master. Just feels like -3 damage on all non magical attacks is way to strong that early. Just doesn’t seem like most people would run into a lot of hedge wizards or magical beasts in the early game.
Off topic, I know, but it feels like you're asking permission from the community to say "no" to your player. You've already stated that you want to restrict something at your table, it's optional rules anyways, no big issue there. I'm not seeing a reason to justify yourself to anyone other than to your players. Talk it over with your player, let them know how you feel about certain feats - which you probably should have covered when they told you they wanted to bring a v. human into the game - and run with it.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
For me if it's in the official books it's allowed. It's part of the fun. Doesn't hurt anything and keeps a DM on their toes a bit.
Honestly, HAM is actually less effective to the point of being almost useless when you get up in level. I had a character who took it at 8, and by level 10, it almost never came up, since by then most enemies have magical attacks or other ways to bypass the resistance. So if you deny it to them at level 4, you’re more or less taking it out of the game. Certainly, that’s your prerogative as DM, just want you to be sure you understand the consequences.
Its powerful at low levels, yes. But there’s an opportunity cost. Anyone taking HAM isn’t taking PAM or GWM or some other feat.
I’m more worried about it at level 1. Just kind of feels like having 33-50% damage resistance is a bit strong to start the game with. Added to the fact that you have an AC of 16-18 (probably rocking a shield, but who knows)
From experience I can tell you it helped the paladin who had that feat, but it wasn't over powering. I rather enjoyed him having it at level 1 cause it gave him a bit more survivability, and let the bard use a first level slot on a spell other then cure wounds. At low levels it's easy enough to tpk a party even on accident.
Interesting. Always, when i search for monsters i think, that there are a lot of monsters, that doesn't have magical Weapons throughout all CR.
Sure there are powerful magical foes, which Weapons count as magical but also a lot which don't. This is probably strongly dependent on the campaign.
(Notes: Since i really disliked the mechanic of resistances against magical weapons thing, i ditched the rule and now allow the feat to soak up an p/b/s-damage, but this is a "my table"-thing)
HAM in the first 2 tiers is nearly as impactful on a tank as GWM. I have seen the full Elfsong tavern encounter from BG:DiA played against 4 characters of level 1 with a cleric with HAM. Cleric did go down once but the encounter was taken by the party with ease. HAM soaked up over 30 Damage damage, which is huge in tier 1. It becomes balanced at level 8 and gets weaker al level 13+.
@topic:
If your players are fine with your ruling everything is okay. There are arguably some dm's out there that recommend ban some feats (lucky) or at least balance them (sentinel).
If you restrict your players make sure the following circumstances are present:
This can, in most cases, be most easily achieved by talking to your players and explain them how and why you limit their choices.
This sounds awkward, because players usualy dislike restrictions, but if you explain how your restrictions will improve the gameplay-experience for everyone the players will agree (see point above) OR maybe will come up with other creative solutions for maybe problematic feats. (The damage reduction could scale with the tier of gameplay. You could use the Proficiency Bonus as DR instead)
There are very few reasons to play as a Human in D&D. For one, it's a fantasy game, and Humans are not fantastic. People would rather be something else, something more fun, and in D&D, they get rewarded for this. All the other races are more powerful in some way. Normal humans get +1 to all scores, which is neat, but not really enough to be significant. Variant Humans get a Feat. Only race that does.
You are talking about taking away the only remaining reason to play as a human, their Feat, and the one you have been talking about is not that powerful. There are ways around all the feats pretty much. Among other things, Heavy Armor Master implies that the player character will be wearing heavy armor and there are ways to make people in heavy armor regret that, like Heat Metal, or swimming. It is also true that Darkvision is not something you can get with a Feat. Use the Vision and Lighting rules, and watch what happens.
<Insert clever signature here>
I'm not sure the question pertains to taking away all feat options, but instead to not allowing specific feats. If, for instance, you as a DM decided to restrict your campaign to NO feats, then the variant human would by default be off the table. Your players could still choose human. Or, let's say, you restrict the GWM + PAM combo, or Xbow Expert + Sharpshooter, there are other choices that are less optimal (HAM might fall into this category), but that's something that needs to be covered in a Session0 or other conversation with player and DM input.
I do agree that human is a fairly mundane option for character builds, so the use of a feat to "sweeten the pot" is, in my opinion, the only heavily convincing draw to choosing human. If I'm honest, the variant build should probably be the standard for the race.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
If it makes you feel any better about it, HAM only applies to weapon attacks, per SAC. So you could still hit them for full piercing damage from ye olde spiked pit trap or whatever.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I considered taking Heavy Armor Master for my Feat with my Fighter. I decided not to, because by the rules, natural weapons of any kind would go right through. A lot of monsters have those. With npcs, they usually do not, but I can't really count on none of them having a magical weapon, now can I? I decided to take something more useful.
<Insert clever signature here>
Offtopic:
Funny, i always thought the variant human was one of the best if not the best race to take (prior to Tasha's custom lineage and races that grant a flying speed or magic resistance), because of the free feat.
I myself enjoy playing humans the most....different people different preferences i guess.
Natural weapons are still weapons.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The rules about natural weapons are very unclear. The only creature I know about for whom "natural weapons" count as actual weapons is the Dhampir. I'm sure there are plenty monsters who can.
In any case, 3 points less damage per hit isn't much. You get attacked a lot if you're any kind of decent tank, and you can take a crit any time they roll a 20.
To the OP, what would they be fighting that has you so worried about it?
<Insert clever signature here>
In the statblocks is always something statet like:
„claws. Meele weapon attack […]“.
checked bears, wolfs, owlbears and dragons. I think the rules are clear in this case.
Anyway if, and this is an important if, the weapon attack isn‘t magical the damagereduction in melee is between 30 and 80 % in tier 1 and between 10 - 40 % in tier two, but will be more likely be higher then 20 % because there are not a lot of monster that deal 20 or more damage in tier 2 in a single hit. It becomes 10-15 % in tier 3+.
Is it overpowered? Clearly not, but in the early game it‘s pretty good.
A lot of low level wild life and stuff like goblins and bandits. Early game enemies that are likely to not have magic (be it in weapon or spell form). I don’t want to drown them in enemies, but there is something to be said about the person who can face tank 3 opponents and come out with barely a scratch.
"there is something to be said about the person who can face tank 3 opponents and come out with barely a scratch." I agree! I think if someone spends a feat for that, they should get exactly that. I consider the feat a little underwhelming myself.
<Insert clever signature here>
At level one players are squishy, it’s why I level them to level 3 ASAP, I have no issue with a variant human taking this feat because it makes them a little less squishy at low level and still gives scope to take them out. Another trick I have used at level one is to give a magic item that buffs hit points giving them an extra 20-30% temporary hit points. This has a period of time it lasts (usually a day to a week depending how long the level 1 portion of the adventure is going to last).
What this means is that you can be a bit more imaginative and use more of the interesting low level monsters earlier on, your players level 1 experience isn’t just, goblin or bandit or bear etc and you can do things like waves, outflanking and ambushes without the worry of an errant dice roll causing a tpk.