D&DN Q&A: Feats, Feats, And More Feats

I mentioned earlier this week that I am getting to the point where I think that feats should just be dropped from the game, and this week’s Questions & Answers column does nothing to dissuade me from this stance. Part of it is that classes will get a variable number of opportunities to boost their already easily “cappable” ability scores, but most of it is the feat philosophy of “you need to only take one feat to be good at a certain thing”.

This is similar to an issue I had in 3rd Edition regarding multiclassing, where you could pick up a level in wizard and spontaneously learn every cantrip and a bunch of 1st-level spells, or nab a level in fighter and know how to wear every
form of armor and wield most weapons. What makes it even more bizarre is that
you do not need to know anything about either of these things beforehand.

I get that the pair of example feats have not been “developed or edited”, but why does Great Weapon Master require no prior knowledge of how to use any weapons at all? Why does Heavy Armor Master only require that you know how to wear medium armor. According to the article you will need to wait until 4th-level to pick a feat, but does it make any sense at all that a wizard of all classes can become a “master” of big weapons, or a dwarven wizard can be a “master” of heavy armor?

If a player wants to become a master with two-handed weapons and/or armor, then should that not require access to a class that is iconically good with weapons and/or armor? Like, if a wizard wants to get better at weapons she should pick up some fighter levels, which would ideally allow her to pick from a suite of weapon features to more gradually emphasize her training. Same goes for the reverse, where a rogue could dabble in illusions and the like by snagging a few wizard levels.

Of course this approach would require an overhaul of the classes, giving them more options at more levels (or some, as is the case with most of them so far). It would also require spellcasting that remains viable even if you take only a few levels, unlike how it worked in 3rd Edition where in almost every case you had to have full spellcasting. These would both be welcome changes, as I think it would allow for more organic, interesting concepts that editions before 4th made it difficult if not impossible to realize.

Legends & Lore: Meaty Feats

I have talked about feats a couple of times already, so to sum up my prior experience I will say that I felt 3rd Edition feats to be a pretty even mix of trap and boring choices, while 4th Edition did it one better with some very nice-yet-boring choices/feat taxes, very interesting and thematic ones, and a smaller-but-still-noticeable percentage of traps.

It was mentioned awhile back that as part of the design goal to make the game appealing to players with varying complexity needs, feats would be optional; if you waive them you instead would get to add +2 to an ability score. This approach would also have the added benefit of replacing the simple math boosters/feat taxes like Weapon Focus and Great Fortitude.

This caused a couple of concerns.

One was how they would balance classes that get more ability score boosts than the rest. Another was that thanks to racial and class bonuses it is very easy to hit the ability score cap early and often, meaning that you could feasibly waste half the bonus if you had a 19 in the stat. Finally, and this is a very big issue, if you can mix-and-match ability score boosts and feat-feats, would not most players just load up on some stat-boosts until they capped out and/or got high enough level to pick a really interesting feat, especially if the higher level feats provide better offerings?

This week’s Legends & Lore at least addresses the second point (you can choose either +2 or a +1 split), as well as showcases a pair of feats that, while maybe not being actual feats, still give us an idea of what we might expect to see:

• Great Weapon Master gives you proficiency in heavy weapons, lets you make an attack at -5 to deal double damage, and if you score a crit or drop an enemy you can make a free attack, while 
• Heavy Armor Master gives you proficiency with heavy armor, as well as a bonus to AC and damage reduction in anything but name.

Both are certainly meatier when compared to past editions, though they have their share of issues:

• Why are either suffixed with “Master”? Except for Heavy Armor Master it looks like anyone of any level can take them (including, say, a wizard), and that one just requires that you know how to put on any suit of Medium armor.
• Is anyone going to take a -5 to hit except under extremely favorable conditions? I am talking a combination of a low target AC, attack advantage, and/or magical bonuses to offset this. If you can reliably get this stuff, then it is awesome because it is just a flat double-damage. Otherwise…meh?
• Why is the damage resistance from Heavy Armor Master based on Constitution? It is insanely easy to top out at a +5 bonus (even at the start of the game), and at the rate monster damage scales I cannot see it being useful for very long. This is a very good combo for a dwarf, especially the mountain dwarf, which starts out proficient in medium armor regardless of class.

The last bullet is to me very problematic, as I do not think the designers intended to make a feat that at a glance seems appropriate for tanks, yet incredibly appealing to casters. This is another reason why I am starting to think that feats should mostly be scrapped in favor of just giving characters decision points based on a combination of class and level. If this was a fighter “talent” that required a couple levels to take, then your wizard would have to work at it to pick it up, making it a meaningful choice. As it stands it is a no brainer.

You could also restrict ability score boosts based on class, or even award automatic boosts if you get enough levels in a class. So every 4-5 fighter levels you get to increase your Strength or Constitution by 1. For wizards, pick from Intelligence or Wisdom, and so on. I think that by taking a 4th Edition approach and sticking all of your choices within your class that it would speed up leveling, as well as prevent decision paralysis as you try to pore through hundreds, eventually thousands of feats (which is still difficult with Character Builder).

I guess feats were an interesting idea back in 3rd Edition when they were fresh and new (for Dungeons & Dragons, anyway), and while 4th Edition made them better I think that there is plenty of room for better innovation, preferably one with better organization and balance, and less page-flipping.

Legends & Lore: Feats AND Skills

This is a pretty lengthy article, so I am going to start out by condensing the already condensed list of the current design goals featured at the end:

• Every class gets ability score increases, though the frequency may vary by class, and you can swap them out for feats (which are optional).
• Skills are also optional (which means that I have to adjust the character sheet I am making for the contest again).
• Backgrounds now give various benefits–of which one category is called benefits–instead of skills.

I mentioned last week that I was not a fan of feats being able to increase your ability scores because it is already incredibly easy to hit the cap: the druid in my playtest campaign already has a Wisdom of 20, and pretty much everyone else has a key ability score in the 18-19 range. If characters no longer gain both ability score bonuses and feats that can also be ability score bonuses, well, that changes things somewhat.

As I also mentioned last week I am not opposed to simplicity (I am definitely a player that prefers lots of complexity), except where the simplest options are also the best. Previous editions saw feats that granted the equivalent of a focused +2 to an ability score, plus something extra. By shifting them so that it takes two to gain a similar bonus to a wider spread, I think it will be easier to balance feats with that are more complex, maybe more focused, but provide more immediate benefits.

Which is a concern: can they design feats that can coexist, without either side of the complexity camp becoming the “correct” choice? I know they intend to design the game so that it is not assumed you are taking ability score boosts, but then players might pile them on anyway to help guarantee success. Technically you might not need another +1 to your attack rolls to hit that dragon, but that still improves your odds by 5%, and your investment provides even greater returns when it is also linked to your ability to climb, jump, and break things.

Another concern is how many feats characters will get; 3rd Edition had many trees, but few opportunities to see any of them grow to fruition, while 4th Edition gave you many more feats, shorter trees, and built-in retraining from the start, which made it a legally safer edition to dabble in. Currently 5th Edition tops you off at four (about half of what you got in 3rd Edition), but I expect that to change since in addition to ability score bonuses, they are also going to be prestige class/paragon path currency.

While the opener on feats got me interested, even a bit excited, the followup on skills did not. When it comes to skills I am a fan of the skill die, because it provides a variable bonus that helps make the d20 roll remain relevant. In 3rd Edition the static bonus could gradually eclipse the by-the-book DCs around mid-level, while in 4th Edition it was incredibly easy to start out with a +12 to +14 to a skill. When the 1st-level DCs run the range from 5 to 15, is there even really a reason to bother rolling?

When you couple this with the goal to rein in the bonus, it makes their reason to step back to a static-bonus model both confusing and a bit disappointing (though I am fully aware that this can change in the future, maybe even before the next packet is released). What I also found confusing was that despite people being really happy with skills that they are making them optional, and if you want to use them you will need to keep in mind how it can affect the DC’s (ideally they will tell you straight up).

What was more silly than confusing was that one of the “challenges” is apparently players incorrectly calling for skills, with the example being Spot instead of Perception. A lot of us have been through two editions of the game at this point, one of which condensed and renamed skills at the midway point, and some of us play more than one edition. I think some initial confusion is to be expected and should not be a factor in determining if/how you implement a skill system.

So that maybe sucks, but the section on backgrounds sounds probably good. Instead of skills and a trait, they will now provide up to three categories of features, though I am not sure if they will provide just one, one of each, or some combination of them.

Areas of knowledge are something that I kind of used in 3rd and 4th Edition, where I always assumed that characters with a Knowledge skill knew everything with a DC equal to 10 + their skill bonus (in essence “taking 10” on the check). It made things go a lot faster and helped avoid player speculation based off of what skill check I might ask for (similar to how players might go on guard if you ask them for a Listen/Spot/Perception check).

I am not sure how to feel about proficiencies. From the sounds of it they will serve as prerequisites to doing things using ability checks that you otherwise could not. The examples include forging a sword or sailing a ship, but I think that these could easily extend to things like crafting magic items or access to things like 4th Edition’s rituals, Martial Practices from Martial Power 2, and expanded capabilities with weapons, implements, etc.

Benefits sound like background traits by another name, which I have liked from the start, and I am looking forward to seeing how they change and grow.

Finally, I am so, so happy to hear that classes are being designed with the assumption that you are not using feats and skills, especially where the fighter and rogue are concerned. Though Mearls again mentions them getting the lion’s share of feats, I am hoping that with this in mind the classes will still be evocative and flexible enough without them.

Legends & Lore: Feats

I remember first reading about feats during the 3rd Edition previews that ran in Dragon magazine, where they were touted as another layer of character customization. Having come from 2nd Edition, where unless you were a spellcaster there was not much in the way of mechanical deviation, I found this to be a welcome addition.

When we actually sat down to play however, I noticed that most of my players tended to stick to feats that just boosted your numbers, like Improved Initiative, Skill Focus, Weapon Focus, Iron Will, etc. This really came as no surprise, as they were simple-yet-solid choices that you just add to your other numbers and forget about.

Which is why I considered many of them to be pretty boring.

This is just one reason why I consider 3rd Edition’s treatment of feats largely to be a mess; you only got a handful over twenty levels, many were severely under-powered (Weapon Specialization) if not outright traps (Cooperative Casting), and by the time you wrapped up a feat tree the capstone benefit was likely not worth it. 4th Edition was not nearly as bad, providing plenty of interesting feats that shook up what your race and/or class could do, but it still had its share of static number-boosters even before Essentials introduced the auto-scaling revamps.

When it comes to 5th Edition I like what it has to offer, or rather I like what I think it is trying to offer, which are more interesting options. As an example Arcane Dabbler lets you pick two cantrips at 1st-level. Granted it is a small list, and I do not think it needs to be, but it is still meatier than a lot of the initial offerings that we saw from past editions. This complexity is understandably not something that everyone wants, and is something that the designers are aiming to address along with a few other changes.

While simplicity is not necessarily bad, I am not a fan of feats boosting ability scores. Already I find it incredibly easy for at least one character in the bunch to hit the cap, oftentimes before they get around to purchasing equipment. Given that some feats are also going to have level requirements–which is nothing new, as a minimum level was kind of passive-aggressively enforced even in 3rd Edition–depending on what the rest do I think that a lot of players are just going to ignore the low-level stuff until they either max out their key stats, or something down the road catches their eye.

I am also not a fan of classes gaining access to feats at different rates, especially when the rationale is that rogues and fighters “will gain more feats than other classes to reflect their versatility”. Why are they more versatile than other classes? Why do their features need to be delivered via feats? Why not take a page from Star Wars: Saga Edition or Dungeon World by giving each class a batch of talents/moves to pick from at set levels, and then adding in feats that lets you pick up a feature/talent/move from another class?

This way every class–all of them, but particularly the barbarian, druid, monk, paladin, and ranger–gets some much need flexibility, but you can also expand on them later by simply adding new features, instead of having to introduce entirely new classes. Kind of like 4th Edition, but without having each and every new decision adding yet one more card to the deck. Well, unless a player wants to.

Ultimately the more I think about feats, the more I am starting to feel like this is just what they should be doing (and may be slowly driving towards): make a list of general feats that allow characters to bend or break the rules, or to just gain access to an entirely new option–which 5th Edition already has, with feats like Superior Footwork and Seize the Advantage–then make focused lists that you gain access to by virtue of taking enough class levels.

D&D Next Q&A: Weapon Dice, Sorcerer, Warlock, & Feats

NOTE: Phaezen and Sky Roy cleared up a huge misconception on my part. I had assumed that two-weapon fighting reduced the damage dice on both weapons and removed any ability score bonuses, to boot. It turns out that while both attacks take an attack penalty, only the light weapon loses out on the damage bonus, so it is not as bad as I had originally thought. In that case my only criticism is that I think that the attack penalty could be reduced a bit (maybe -1/-1), or at least removed for the primary attack. Seems like a good stress-test opportunity.

Two-weapon fighting in Dungeons & Dragons has almost always been a bad idea. I do not think it was even possible in Basic (barring houserules), but according to 2nd Edition’s Combat & Tactics you could try attack with two weapons, you just took a -2 to the first attack and a -4 to the second. 3rd Edition kind of kept this model, starting you out at a whopping -6 and -10 to attack, which could be reduced to -2 and -2 through the use of lighter weapons and feats.

4th Edition made it more universally applicable through the use of feats and its power system. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat gave you a +1 bonus to damage when you made attacks while wielding two weapons, I guess assuming that you worked the other one in there at some point. Simple, to the point, and stacked with Weapon Focus, though understandably too simple for some, which is why it was nice that several classes–namely barbarians, fighters, and rangers–had access to at-will multi-attack powers (though many higher level attack powers let you hit multiple things, too).

The current take on it in Next is that you have to be wielding a light weapon, you take a -2 penalty to both attack rolls, and you have to use the light weapon’s damage die for both attacks. Oh, you also do not get to add any bonuses. So, as an example, let us say that a fighter with a Strength of 16 wants to hit an orc with a longsword and short sword: she makes both attacks at a net +2, and if she hits both times will deal an average of 7 damage.

What if the fighter just ditches the short sword for a shield? She makes her one attack at a +4, deals an average of 7.5 damage, and has a slightly improved Armor Class. Even if she goes with the short sword her damage is only reduced by a half-point, but she is still way more accurate. If she decides to on a full-offensive and pulls out a greatsword? Her attack bonus still stays at +4, but damage improves to 9.5.

Of course none of this assumes feats, of which three out of the Two-Weapon Fighter specialty are directly applicable:

• Dual Wielding lets you use any one-handed weapon when making your double-attack, which can improve the average damage from 7 to 9 (assuming two longswords, here). You still have the penalty though, so you are spending a feat to make less accurate, slightly less damaging attacks.
• Two-Weapon Defense gives you a slight Armor Class boost, which means that with Dual Wielding you are now doing better-than-longsword damage, with the same Armor Class, but are still less accurate.
• Eventually you can get Two-Weapon Strike, which lets you make one attack with advantage. This is a pretty good payoff because you are also making the attack at your full bonus, and you get to add damage bonuses. The drawback is that you have to spend a feat on Dual Wielding and wait until 9th-level.

I was not a fan of having to plan towards a concept in 3rd Edition, and it is because of this that in my last playtest packet feedback that I voiced by dissatisfaction that a player wanting to wield two weapons is worse off in every way–accuracy, damage, and defense–unless she spends feats. Eventually being able to make a very accurate attack is nice, but that is at least eight levels down the road; in the mean time you will be much better off using a sword and shield, or a two-handed weapon.

My proposal was to allow a character with two weapons that attacks the same target to roll both damage dice, keep the highest result, and add her damage bonus. This makes it so that you get more reliable damage, without exceeding what a character with one weapon can do (or doing more than a character with a two-hander). You could do this as part of a single attack roll, or require that both attacks hit in order to gain the benefit (which has the advantage that the dual-wielder gets another chance at landing an attack, though she will not always get to roll extra dice).

The problem is that this only works against a single target. What about hitting multiple targets? In this case I was thinking of a mechanic where the character can divvy up damage to two or more targets, which would again prevent the dual-wielder from out-damaging the two-hander. This could also require the use of Martial Damage Dice, like the monk’s Flurry of Blows, as the benefit is that the fighter gets to make extra attacks to stack damage, instead of rolling multiple dice and taking the best result.

As for the sorcerer and warlock, I still see no reason why the dragon-sorcerer cannot be a heavy-hitting melee-ish spellcaster type. I really dug the sorcerer mechanic, and hope that future iterations retain the “manifest traits as you cast more spells” shtick. Frankly if they are going to make a warrior mage, why not make a warmage tradition?

DDN Blog: Avoiding Choice Traps

My first thought of reading this blog post is, “Huh…I really should rerun finish Age of Worms!” I got my 3rd Edition group up to Shadows of the Spire (I think that is what ti is called), and it just feels like a darned shame to just leave them stranded in the jungle. The horrible, worm-infested jungle… Maybe after I wrap up A Sundered World I can get them to go back and try 3rd Edition, if for no other reason than to houserule it up and see what we like/hate about it.

Anywho, feats.

Feats are basically a game currency that you can spend to increase increase your numbers (ie, Weapon Focus or Toughness), add additional things to something (that warlord feat that lets you add your Charisma modifier to you inspiring word, and another I think lets allies make a save, too), or give you an entirely new thing to do, or eat least another way of doing something else (that eladrin feat that lets you fey step to dodge something).

My question is that if each class is supported by different pillar ratios, then why would each feat need to be applicable to all of them? Presumably if I play the game without feats it will work out just fine (if a bit harder), so why not continue making feats that cater to different pillars? Lets say that a player starts out with a fighter with the slayer theme. She is all about combat, but a few sessions in discovers that the game is more exploration- or “roleplaying”-oriented. Given that the math is purported to also be flattened, why can she simply not grab a level in an “exploration” type class (ranger, rogue, druid, etc) and/or retrain a feat?

Additionally it is not like feats have to be limited to one-or-all pillars; you could have feats that provide a benefit to one, all three, or just two on a case-by-case basis. This avoids the designers having to uniformly shoehorn a set number of benefits into a feat. Players who want something complex can take a feat that gives them an entirely new thing to do (like a skill power), while players that want to keep things simple can just nab a “+2 to two things” feat.

I guess that makes my answer “something else”; have feats do what you want, or even need, them to do. You do not need to set restrictions on them. I do not know how feats will differentiate themselves from class features (especially given that in some instances they sound very much like class features), but I liked what they did in past editions. I just think there should be less of them, and that the designers should think very carefully before giving us stuff like 3rd Edition’s Toughness (one-time hit point bonus of three) or Cometary Collision (ready an action to charge a monster that also charges).

Gond’s Way: Artificers of the Realms

Outside of Arcane Power I cannot remember the last time artificers saw some decent support. At this point despite my fondness for Neverwinter I would still not say that I am an overall fan, but almost all of the flavor content can serve as a foundation for other campaigns despite all the Realm’s references; for example instead of Gond you could substitute Moradin or Ioun, and the Lantan Scholar background can just be renamed to whatever lost civilization you want. I do like the idea of tying the artificer to a divine organization, if for no other reason than I have been playing Space Marine and it makes me think of techpriests.

There is also seven spells and two feats for the crunch fans:

• Ice Shard Traps (level 1 encounter): You create two invisible traps on the ground that deal cold damage and both cold vulnerability and combat advantage for a turn after an enemy steps on one. The downside is that they only last for a turn, so they would work best for groups that have forced movement (or you could combo it up with thundering armor or unbalancing force). Depending on your DM, you could use these with as part of a surprise attack against patrolling monsters.
• Shadowy Figurine (level 2 daily): You create a sustainable figurine that grants partial concealment and a Stealth bonus to nearby allies. 
• Smokepowder Detonation (level 5): A ranged attack that deals fire damage and ongoing fire damage. As an effect, an ally can make a basic attack (with an attack bonus from your Con or Wis if the initial attack hit).
• Arc Infusion (level 7): Lightning damage, grants an ally a save with a bonus from your Wisdom, and deals more damage plus a daze if the ally’s save actually worked.
• Siphon Fate (level 17): Targets one or two creatures, deals psychic damage and imposes an attack and defense penalty (save ends). As an effect, an ally gains a bonus to attack and defense bonuses based on the number of targets you hit.
• Synchronized Weaponry (level 25): A sustainable effect that allows you and an ally to attack a monster after the other has hit it as an immediate reaction, but both attacks need the weapon keyword.
• Coiled Spring Traps (level 27): Similar to ice shard traps, this gives you three, and they deal force damage, slide and prone, and impose a penalty to AC and Fort based on your Con or Wis for a turn.
• Arcane Trapsmith: Gotta be trained in Thievery, but it lets an artificer use her Intelligence mod to disable traps and open locks. Even better, you gain an Arcana bonus when dealing with traps or hazards.
• Hammer of Gond: You have to worship Gond (but any good DM will handwaive this), and it lets you use a warhammer as an implement (which you can treat as a heavy thrown with a range of 6/12).

Heroes of Shadow Feats

The last preview for Heroes of Shadow showcases a bunch of feats. I like a lot of them, but some of them seem very…focused. For example, Legioncaller of Moil gives your summoned shadow critters a bonus to attack rolls and defenses, while Executioner of Undeath lets you reroll any damage dice when attacking undead once. While both are focused, Legioncaller of Moil differs in that you have greater control of how it applies to your characters, as well as when it will be used. With Executioner of Undeath? That depends on what the DM throws at you (as well as, I suppose, your knowledge of what the campaign/adventure will be about).

Another potentially problematic feat is Ghost Scorpion Strike. The compendium lists 264 monsters with insubstantial somewhere in their stat block, plenty of which are in Seekers of the Ashen Crown, Scepter Tower of Spellgard, or other WotC adventures. At least 41 of those are wraiths of some sort, many of which have necrotic resistance and poison immunity. This might be fine for wizards packing disrupt undead or mages with the right specialization to ignore necrotic resistance, but honestly how many of these do you expect to fight? Same goes for Tainted Wounds. Yeah, stripping away healing is all well and good, but there isn’t exactly a plethora of monsters with regeneration (or any other healing abilities).

Despite a handful of feats that will invariably be added to the pile of trap options, there are a few really good ones in the mix. I particularly like Spectral Step, which makes you insubstantial whenever you burn an Action Point. It only lasts a turn, but taking only half damage from basically everything can be a big help when you need to move, or setting up readied actions for area-effect attacks. There’s also entire categories of feats that we only see by name (except for the Revenant Racial, which already exist). Shadowborn and Winterkin feats will give you thematic abilities associated with the Shadowfell. How well they will compete against other options? We’ll see, though many Multiclass feats just don’t seem to cut it nowadays.

Essentials Powers, Feats, and Implements

Up until now, the stuff I’ve heard about the Essentials didn’t worry me at all. Classes built differently? That’s cool. Magic item rarities? I can work with that. The recently revealed changes? Well…they’ve given me pause. I mean, the team over at WotC has done an excellent job with 4th Edition thus far, so I’m willing to give the whole thing the benefit of the doubt, but some of the changes are starting to get me a bit worried in the way that only a fuck-ton of changes can.

Not all of it’s bad. For one thing, if you have two implement-using classes, then any implements work for your powers even if the normally wouldn’t. For example, if you’re a sorcerer/bard, then you can use daggers as implements. I don’t think it’s difficult at all to understand how implements work, but I can get behind making multiclassing less irritating (I’ve had players not want to multiclass because they didn’t want to have to try and maintain two separate +whatever-whatevers).

Its when you get to races and powers that things start to seem a bit…power creepy. Wizard encounter spells will have miss effects, which we already knew but didn’t know what they would look like. One of the examples is  burning hands, which will deal half damage on a miss. Now, if the base damage is reduced that’s fine, but if they are going to go through the entire wizard spell selection and alter all of it? Well, that’s a lot of modifications, and while I’m glad that DDI updates all this shit automatically I would appreciate them printing updated books to reflect the more radical changes they’ve made (magic missile, I’m looking at you).

Races from Essentials will all get a static modifier to one ability score and a floater between two others. I don’t think this is necessary, except for players that have to pick optimized race/class combos. What I like about 4th Edition is that you can mix and match any race and class and end up with a working character. The plus side is that this technically makes races more flexible in the sense that they will have key modifiers to a specific class, but I dont feel that it was necessary. I mean, I’ve made a functional gnome barbarian and Shazbot played a halfling dagger fighter for quite awhile and we perceived no problems with either.

On a similar note a lot of feats are getting changed, as well as a purportedly better organization method that uses categories like Enduring Stamina, which is for feats that make your character tougher and last longer. I’m guessing this time around we’ll have forum-goers bitching that a feat should be in this category or that. 9_9

Class Acts: Artificer

This Class Acts article ties in racial traits with artificer class features, mostly focusing on the various effects of Healing Infusion: curative admixture, resistive formula, and shielding elixir. For example, Astral Elixer causes shielding infusion to grant resist 5 radiant, and the target can end the effect to gain a variable bonus to a save. On the other hand, Human Innovation lets you recharge an ally’s daily item power when you spend an action point. Any race that’s been in a Player’s Handbook is on the list, even a few that aren’t like the minotaur and shadar-kai, which is good for providing a foundation for players that want to play a “non-standard” artificer. There are a total of 25 feats, all Heroic, so useful to any artificer of any level.