The description of the feat says: "When wearing heavy armor, bludgeoning, slashing and piercing damage you take from non-magical weapons is reduced by 3."
My question is: how about natural weapons like fangs or claws? Would they be included, as they are not magical? And what about magical beings who also attack with their claws? Is there an official rule about this? Thank you in advance.
They are natural weapons so they're still affected. There is no rule calling anything a "magical being," but if a creature deals magical bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage it would say so in the stat block.
For example, Tiamat has a feature called "Magic weapons" which explicitly states that her weapon attacks (which includes claw and bite attacks, as those are called "Melee Weapon Attacks") are magical, which means they bypass the damage reduction of Heavy Armor Master.
I had a character with heavy armor master. It was really useful, until it wasn't at all useful. you hit a point where everything is some kind of spell attack, or has magic weapons. Really good feat at low levels, not so much when you hit the mid levels.
If you want to know what counts as magical, see the stats block. If they have a passive trait such as "Magic Weapons", or the attack itself explicitly mentions "This is a magic weapon attack" (as is the case with the Githzerai Monk), it is. Otherwise, the armor works (on the stated damage types, at least).
In my experience, very few things actually have magic weapons (or the equivalent). I suspect that's why Persuasion resorted to Tiamat as an example. :p Out of the top of my head, golems such as the Iron Golem, some fiends, drow with their sunlight-destructible magic items, and not much else (the aforementioned Gith, Unicorns, for some reason, and some others). I think you'll get decent mileage out of Heavy Armor Mastery, especially if you're gearing towards vanguard defense as a play style; the more you get hit, the greater the benefit :p
Of course, as Xalthu mentions, outright magic will be more common in higher levels, but even a Death Knight needs to cast Magic Weapon for his attacks to count as magical.
Some DMs also allow Heavy Armor Master to reduce damage from environmental effects and impacts; stuff like thorn brambles, rockfalls and other mundane damage. If your DM so allows, Heavy Armor Mastery is much more beneficial, as it ends up saving you a lot of ding-and-scrape damage over time. Even at higher levels where critters start hitting ridiculously hard, cutting three damage off the top of every swing in a typical multistrike can add up over time. Everybody remembers that time they were up by only one or two HP, or downed by that amount. HAM gives you more chances for that to be up by one or two instead of down by one or two.
@Xalthu true, which is why it would be better for it to reduce damage from those sources by 'an amount equal to your proficiency bonus'.
That way it scales with level, but still isnt ridiculously strong.
I've seen this variant discussed before, and I think it's pretty reasonable, but given that the damage reduction can then climb as high as 6 per hit, I'd consider taking away the +1 to Strength as part of the change.
Even at higher levels where critters start hitting ridiculously hard, cutting three damage off the top of every swing in a typical multistrike can add up over time.
Except that's not how HAM works. It's 3 damage off the bottom of every swing. Circumstances like resistance which reduce damage by a proportion happen before flat reductions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Except that's not how HAM works. It's 3 damage off the bottom of every swing. Circumstances like resistance which reduce damage by a proportion happen before flat reductions.
That’d be really strong (10 damage with resistance would be halved to 5 and then reduced to 2 from Heavy Armour Master... However I think it’s the opposite way around, so you would take 3 damage)
Unless I am missing where the rule justification for that is, otherwise the Damage Resistance rules say that: “Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage.”
Sorry for the necro, I’m thinking of taking the Feat with a character than can gain some resistances and so wanted to double check the interaction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
@Xalthu true, which is why it would be better for it to reduce damage from those sources by 'an amount equal to your proficiency bonus'.
That way it scales with level, but still isnt ridiculously strong.
I've seen this variant discussed before, and I think it's pretty reasonable, but given that the damage reduction can then climb as high as 6 per hit, I'd consider taking away the +1 to Strength as part of the change.
How is 6 per hit enough to lose the +1 str.
barbarians get rage for free at level 1 and it reduces well more than 6 per hit from non magical (when applicable)
If the feat granted +1 AC (which would make it comparable to medium armor master), it would typically reduce damage taken by something like 15%. This implies that heavy armor master is reasonable for attacks in the 20 point range. Very few monsters actually do that much per hit, even high level heavy hitters usually make multiple attacks, so it's probably one feat worth of powerful even at level 20 and overpowered at low levels. If it was your proficiency bonus, I'd probably only allow using it once per round.
Except that's not how HAM works. It's 3 damage off the bottom of every swing. Circumstances like resistance which reduce damage by a proportion happen before flat reductions.
That’d be really strong (10 damage with resistance would be halved to 5 and then reduced to 2 from Heavy Armour Master... However I think it’s the opposite way around, so you would take 3 damage)
Unless I am missing where the rule justification for that is, otherwise the Damage Resistance rules say that: “Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage.”
Sorry for the necro, I’m thinking of taking the Feat with a character than can gain some resistances and so wanted to double check the interaction.
This is correct.
In the high level campaigns I play, HAM is pretty useful even up to 20. Not everything hits you with magical weapons and there will always be minions. :)
Having the +1 to Strength also makes it useful for feat economy if you’re looking to squeeze another stat ability modifier out of Strength.
Yeah I’m mostly taking it because it seems to be the strongest ‘Half-Feat’ available to my MAD Kobold strength character (who has 3 odd stats: Strength, Constitution and Intelligence). Kobold Rune Knight is a really fun build and surprisingly optimisable (on purpose).
Squat Nimbleness is the only one that comes close, however, the requirement of being a small creature would actually mean that it only works some of the time (Rune Knight allows you to become big).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
Though *technically* you don’t lose the feat even if you’re large (feats don’t deactivate like that), I’ve always found that if you get cheeky with it a DM may shut it down haha
I haven’t checked out Rune Knight yet, sounds very cool!
Though *technically* you don’t lose the feat even if you’re large (feats don’t deactivate like that), I’ve always found that if you get cheeky with it a DM may shut it down haha
I haven’t checked out Rune Knight yet, sounds very cool!
The Feats rule explains that: "You must meet any prerequisite specified in a feat to take that feat. If you ever lose a feat’s prerequisite, you can’t use that feat until you regain the prerequisite." Subsequently, with Squat Nimbleness having the "prerequisite: Dwarf or a Small race"... it would be ambiguous as you race would remain a "small race" but you would not longer be small if you changed size category... so yeah not clear. However, even with that ambiguity, I'm not convinced that +5ft movement and a (good) proficiency (ignoring the last ability which won't come up much) is categorically better than near constant damage mitigation... I could be convinced though.
Rune Knight is awesome and I really want it to become an official subclass!
Though *technically* you don’t lose the feat even if you’re large (feats don’t deactivate like that), I’ve always found that if you get cheeky with it a DM may shut it down haha
I haven’t checked out Rune Knight yet, sounds very cool!
The Feats rule explains that: "You must meet any prerequisite specified in a feat to take that feat. If you ever lose a feat’s prerequisite, you can’t use that feat until you regain the prerequisite." Subsequently, with Squat Nimbleness having the "prerequisite: Dwarf or a Small race"... it would be ambiguous as you race would remain a "small race" but you would not longer be small if you changed size category... so yeah not clear. However, even with that ambiguity, I'm not convinced that +5ft movement and a (good) proficiency (ignoring the last ability which won't come up much) is categorically better than near constant damage mitigation... I could be convinced though.
Rune Knight is awesome and I really want it to become an official subclass!
Kinda nice how it goes dormant. So if you die, get reincarnated as a different race, you can always get back to it by reincarnating again or wishing to be your original race. Even if the feat is deactivated until you meet the reqs again.
Though *technically* you don’t lose the feat even if you’re large (feats don’t deactivate like that), I’ve always found that if you get cheeky with it a DM may shut it down haha
I haven’t checked out Rune Knight yet, sounds very cool!
The Feats rule explains that: "You must meet any prerequisite specified in a feat to take that feat. If you ever lose a feat’s prerequisite, you can’t use that feat until you regain the prerequisite." Subsequently, with Squat Nimbleness having the "prerequisite: Dwarf or a Small race"... it would be ambiguous as you race would remain a "small race" but you would not longer be small if you changed size category... so yeah not clear. However, even with that ambiguity, I'm not convinced that +5ft movement and a (good) proficiency (ignoring the last ability which won't come up much) is categorically better than near constant damage mitigation... I could be convinced though.
Rune Knight is awesome and I really want it to become an official subclass!
Yeah, I try not to play to any technicalities because then you leave it to the DM’s discretion about what works and what doesn’t, and risk being disappointed if the DM doesn’t see it your way. It’s a big reason I don’t play multiclassed Moon Druids - there is simply too much ambiguity that it’s definitely a table-by-table decision.
Except that's not how HAM works. It's 3 damage off the bottom of every swing. Circumstances like resistance which reduce damage by a proportion happen before flat reductions.
That’d be really strong (10 damage with resistance would be halved to 5 and then reduced to 2 from Heavy Armour Master... However I think it’s the opposite way around, so you would take 3 damage)
Unless I am missing where the rule justification for that is, otherwise the Damage Resistance rules say that: “Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage.”
Sorry for the necro, I’m thinking of taking the Feat with a character than can gain some resistances and so wanted to double check the interaction.
You're absolutely right, and that's what I meant to say. I had a derp moment when writing that. HAM acts in such a way that it reduces the least amount of total damage when resistance is involved. :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The description of the feat says:
"When wearing heavy armor, bludgeoning, slashing and piercing damage you take from non-magical weapons is reduced by 3."
My question is: how about natural weapons like fangs or claws? Would they be included, as they are not magical? And what about magical beings who also attack with their claws? Is there an official rule about this? Thank you in advance.
They are natural weapons so they're still affected. There is no rule calling anything a "magical being," but if a creature deals magical bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage it would say so in the stat block.
For example, Tiamat has a feature called "Magic weapons" which explicitly states that her weapon attacks (which includes claw and bite attacks, as those are called "Melee Weapon Attacks") are magical, which means they bypass the damage reduction of Heavy Armor Master.
I had a character with heavy armor master. It was really useful, until it wasn't at all useful. you hit a point where everything is some kind of spell attack, or has magic weapons. Really good feat at low levels, not so much when you hit the mid levels.
If you want to know what counts as magical, see the stats block. If they have a passive trait such as "Magic Weapons", or the attack itself explicitly mentions "This is a magic weapon attack" (as is the case with the Githzerai Monk), it is. Otherwise, the armor works (on the stated damage types, at least).
In my experience, very few things actually have magic weapons (or the equivalent). I suspect that's why Persuasion resorted to Tiamat as an example. :p
Out of the top of my head, golems such as the Iron Golem, some fiends, drow with their sunlight-destructible magic items, and not much else (the aforementioned Gith, Unicorns, for some reason, and some others). I think you'll get decent mileage out of Heavy Armor Mastery, especially if you're gearing towards vanguard defense as a play style; the more you get hit, the greater the benefit :p
Of course, as Xalthu mentions, outright magic will be more common in higher levels, but even a Death Knight needs to cast Magic Weapon for his attacks to count as magical.
What Persuasion amd Onyx said.
@Xalthu true, which is why it would be better for it to reduce damage from those sources by 'an amount equal to your proficiency bonus'.
That way it scales with level, but still isnt ridiculously strong.
Some DMs also allow Heavy Armor Master to reduce damage from environmental effects and impacts; stuff like thorn brambles, rockfalls and other mundane damage. If your DM so allows, Heavy Armor Mastery is much more beneficial, as it ends up saving you a lot of ding-and-scrape damage over time. Even at higher levels where critters start hitting ridiculously hard, cutting three damage off the top of every swing in a typical multistrike can add up over time. Everybody remembers that time they were up by only one or two HP, or downed by that amount. HAM gives you more chances for that to be up by one or two instead of down by one or two.
Please do not contact or message me.
I've seen this variant discussed before, and I think it's pretty reasonable, but given that the damage reduction can then climb as high as 6 per hit, I'd consider taking away the +1 to Strength as part of the change.
What does that have to do with what Xalthu said about spells and magic weapons?
Except that's not how HAM works. It's 3 damage off the bottom of every swing. Circumstances like resistance which reduce damage by a proportion happen before flat reductions.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
That’d be really strong (10 damage with resistance would be halved to 5 and then reduced to 2 from Heavy Armour Master... However I think it’s the opposite way around, so you would take 3 damage)
Unless I am missing where the rule justification for that is, otherwise the Damage Resistance rules say that: “Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage.”
Sorry for the necro, I’m thinking of taking the Feat with a character than can gain some resistances and so wanted to double check the interaction.
How is 6 per hit enough to lose the +1 str.
barbarians get rage for free at level 1 and it reduces well more than 6 per hit from non magical (when applicable)
Blank
If the feat granted +1 AC (which would make it comparable to medium armor master), it would typically reduce damage taken by something like 15%. This implies that heavy armor master is reasonable for attacks in the 20 point range. Very few monsters actually do that much per hit, even high level heavy hitters usually make multiple attacks, so it's probably one feat worth of powerful even at level 20 and overpowered at low levels. If it was your proficiency bonus, I'd probably only allow using it once per round.
This is correct.
In the high level campaigns I play, HAM is pretty useful even up to 20. Not everything hits you with magical weapons and there will always be minions. :)
Having the +1 to Strength also makes it useful for feat economy if you’re looking to squeeze another stat ability modifier out of Strength.
Thanks Brewsky for answering my question!
Yeah I’m mostly taking it because it seems to be the strongest ‘Half-Feat’ available to my MAD Kobold strength character (who has 3 odd stats: Strength, Constitution and Intelligence). Kobold Rune Knight is a really fun build and surprisingly optimisable (on purpose).
Squat Nimbleness is the only one that comes close, however, the requirement of being a small creature would actually mean that it only works some of the time (Rune Knight allows you to become big).
Though *technically* you don’t lose the feat even if you’re large (feats don’t deactivate like that), I’ve always found that if you get cheeky with it a DM may shut it down haha
I haven’t checked out Rune Knight yet, sounds very cool!
The Feats rule explains that: "You must meet any prerequisite specified in a feat to take that feat. If you ever lose a feat’s prerequisite, you can’t use that feat until you regain the prerequisite." Subsequently, with Squat Nimbleness having the "prerequisite: Dwarf or a Small race"... it would be ambiguous as you race would remain a "small race" but you would not longer be small if you changed size category... so yeah not clear. However, even with that ambiguity, I'm not convinced that +5ft movement and a (good) proficiency (ignoring the last ability which won't come up much) is categorically better than near constant damage mitigation... I could be convinced though.
Rune Knight is awesome and I really want it to become an official subclass!
Kinda nice how it goes dormant. So if you die, get reincarnated as a different race, you can always get back to it by reincarnating again or wishing to be your original race. Even if the feat is deactivated until you meet the reqs again.
Blank
Yeah, I try not to play to any technicalities because then you leave it to the DM’s discretion about what works and what doesn’t, and risk being disappointed if the DM doesn’t see it your way. It’s a big reason I don’t play multiclassed Moon Druids - there is simply too much ambiguity that it’s definitely a table-by-table decision.
You're absolutely right, and that's what I meant to say. I had a derp moment when writing that. HAM acts in such a way that it reduces the least amount of total damage when resistance is involved. :P
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.