ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.ค. 2024
- Archives of Nethys: 2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1297
Free Archetype Variant Explained: • FREE ARCHETYPE VARIANT...
The music in this video was provided by "Tabletop Audio"! They make incredible music, ambience, and soundboards that you can use to enhance the immersion at your table!!
tabletopaudio.com/
Join the Community Discord: / discord
Check out my Patreon for unique benefits: / nonat1s
Follow me on Twitter: / nonat1s
Buy me a Coffee: ko-fi.com/nonat1s - เกม
Whoops! As usual, my brain misread some things and I accidentally skipped over three variant rules! I'll go ahead and rank them here for everyone who wants them.
Skill Point Variant: C-Tier (It seems unnecessary. It's not that different to normal skill increases other than the fact that you can increase proficiency on even levels too. I'm not a big fan of adding numbers to the game that aren't incredibly useful)
Ancestry Paragon Variant: B-Tier (It's pretty simple. You just get more Ancestry Feats than usual. This is great for players who want a very character-specific build, or want to make the most out of a versatile heritage. It ultimately won't change the game too much, but it'll allow for more "complete" characters for some players)
High-Quality Variant: C-Tier (There's nothing inherently wrong with this variant, it just makes it so "Magic Weapons" aren't automatically magical. It's more of a lore change than a rule change. With this variant, a +1 Striking Longsword can still be a mundane weapon, it's just higher quality. Good for low-magic settings. It's only a C-Tier because it doesn't change much.)
Personally really like the Skill Point system. I did the math on this in an article and it actually gives you more skills to be trained in by the end, but the reason why I like it is because it gives more opportunities to increase your niche skills, like the Wizard who takes Performance or the Fighter who wants to be more knowledgeable.
Ancestry Paragon is kinda eh atm? It's alright if everyone is a core race, but an Orc or a Hobgoblin might find themselves having almost every feat at their disposal and no longer feeling like a character.
High Quality I'd use for very specific campaign ideas, but that's about it.
I was waiting anxiously for High Quality Equipment so I could rave on and on about how great it is, and you forgot about it. I had to go back and check, I was so confused. How could I feel so strongly about such a small change? Because of how it allows me to ignore what is probably my least favorite rule in the game: Precious Material grades.
If you forgot how Precious Materials worked, here's a reminder: low-grade items can be enchanted with runes up to level 8 and standard-grade items can be enchanted up to level 15. This essentially means that low-grade items go up to +1 striking/resilient, standard-grade go up to +2 greater and +3 items have to be high-grade. Well, just forget about all that, because +1, +2 and +3 are no longer tied to runes but to item quality, so you can enforce expert = low-grade, master = standard-grade and legendary = high-grade at item creation (adjusting creation cost accordingly) and you are good to go.
Property runes aren't as important for balance, so you can just ignore them and nothing is going to break horribly. Plus your party would likely rather have the best property runes on the hardest hitting weapons / strongest armor, so it fixes itself.
For the prof without level, I’m planning to try a +1 for every two levels. Have you considered that @nonat1s? What do you think?
@@enriquesanders This was my first thought on how to "fix" the proficiency system when the game released. makes a low tier mob stay relevant for longer but the players still feel like they're steadily growing.
We've been playing with the Ancestry Paragon Rules, and I think I love it just as much if not more than Free Archetype.
In a way, it's very similar to free archetype, giving players more feats. So I don't see the reasoning why Free archetype would be S tier and Ancestry Paragon wouldn't be at least A tier.
It also adds so much flavor to characters and character backgrounds. A lot of the ancestry feats are so unique and quirky that it just adds a lot of flavor in general. It's also pretty flexible, since characters can pick up more than one ancestry with the adopted ancestry feat, not to mention Versatile heritage's. Having extra ancestry feats allows you to pick those quirky options that otherwise wouldn't have been as optimal for a character build.
TLDR: There's just so much flavor in ancestry feats to add to your character that the ancestry paragon rules can really let your characters shine.
The Moral Intentions variant actually _does_ change rules: it replaces alignment. In my opinion, this actually makes it even better and _more_ interesting. Instead of good/evil/lawful/chaotic damage, there's just Aligned damage, which hurts anyone with moral intentions directly opposed to those of your character. I find this _so much fun_ because I can have a champion of the people whose divine smite harms _specifically_ people who are greedy and profit from the suffering of others, which is just really cool!
Thought I'd offer a less mechanical viewpoint on Moral Intentions:
I'm one of those weirdos who likes having fiends, celestials, and other creatures that would be considered "intrinsically aligned" go against the typical alignment. Fiends and celestials always being evil/good respectively has always annoyed me.
With that in mind, I adore Moral Intentions too. Now, fiends and celestials aren't 'evil' or 'good', they're individuals with their own beliefs and desires. I will probably never run a game without Moral Intentions again, haha.
@@Bloodiasfire I'd make the argument that celestials and demons are more of a "force of nature" type of thing than individuals. They still have personalities and stuff, but have you ever seen a philanthropic imp? But it should still apply to mortals, free will and all that.
@@Bloodiasfire Late to the party, but here's a suggestion:
All celestials, devils, demons, etc. Get 1 of their 3 moral statements set in stone.
Celestials might **all** have "I will go out of my way to help those that need it, for as long as it is right." While the other 2 are still open for individual thought.
That way they're still people, but also inherently good/evil
"stamina allows for longer in game days" *Angrily shakes dedicated healer hands at Nonat*
DON'T YOU SHAKE THOSE HANDS AT ME
Well, removing the perceived need for a dedicated healer some groups have is precisely the one of the points of this variant rule.
"A rule you love that I hate, or a rule I hate that you love"
Nice.
I don't mind the high numbers in P2e, but I love the Proficiency Without Level rule. I'm using it in an open world homebrew I've been working on, and it's nice not having to worry as much about them being in an over/under leveled area, since I don't know what direction they're going to be going ahead of time.
If you're wanting to drop your players in a sandbox and let them go nuts I highly recommend this variant rule.
Hadn't considered that. A really good suggestion. Thanks!
Yeah I'm debating using this for when I end up doing the same type of game (west marches). I've always wanted to run it, and pathfinder 2e looks to be much betyer than dnd 5e for it in everything except the level scaling.
If you haven't seen them, there's a forum post on the paizo website by Kenada something about his procedure running a hexcrawl. They're very informative.
Not having huge numbers is one of the things I will regret leaving 5e for. I like the idea that DC 25 is still "Hard" for the high-level rogue (where it was "nat 20 only" for the low-level rogue). I think this Variant will deliver that feel.
Hey! Are you still running a PwL game? I have some questions
@@Pathsfound I wish I could help, but honestly that game never even made it to session one. It's true what they say, the BBEG in every game is scheduling issues.
We've played with a few of the variants - we combined a group of 4 with Dual Class and Free Archetype with progressive ability boosts. We discovered that a group of four this way can handle basically a LV+1 encounter model, but still suffers from poor tactics. If the party plans poorly or rolls are unlucky, the Hero Points get used and wiped out faster than normal. Feels more like it moves the game to the extremes of success and failure, but was fantastically fun overall.
Interesting! Dual Class AND Free Archetype must make some crazy characters! But if your table loves those kinds of options, I bet it was a blast to play! And that's very true. No matter how strong you are, the dice can still say "No".
Oh my table played a Free Archetype + Dual Class game for ~4 months from levels 16-20. We had a lot of fun with it for a little while but we all agreed it was too much to do all the time. Occasionally we will take turns running arena matches of high level Free Archetype + Dual Class characters just to flex the system but our main campaign uses just Free Archetype.
For that high level campaign we all played as the chosen champions for the gods in an effort to defend the material plane from an onslaught of Drakkon (primordial siblings to the gods that were locked away for trying harvest the power of the material plane in order to subsume the gods) agents that were trying to weaken the material plane for absorption. It was set up so we each built a level 16 character with the free archetype rules then we had a choice. Players could either pick one of the 10 gods and be randomly assigned one of their four possible Dual Classes or we could get a random god and choose which of the four Dual Class options we wanted. I ended up a Monk-Sorcerer with Scout and Dragon Disciple Archetype feats. There was also a Barbarian-Tyrant Champion with Bastion and Viking. A Rogue-Bard with Poisoner and Shadowdancer and finally a Druid- Cleric with Magaambyan Attendant into Halcyon Speaker.
I like the utilitarian hotel chic arrangement of your bedroom. A stylish and elegant mixture of spartan and comfy while remaining approachable and unimposing.
Thanks. It's driving me crazy.
@@Nonat1s this isn't a hotel room?
@@toddross8460 that's the joke :D
@@daxiomus man, whoosh. Maybe I need more caffeine.
Hi Rags.
I do like that they have the deep background thing - I'm not a fan of coming up with detailed backstories for my characters, but generating something randomly can provide a great deal of inspiration.
100% agreed. I wouldn't use it too often, but I'm glad it's there when I do need it.
I absolutely hated it the first time I used it, but only because I was forced to use it when I already had a character concept planned out. It literally destroyed that character, from top to bottom, making them virtually unplayable, so I had to create a new character at the last minute.
He isn't the character I wanted to play from the start, but Fijit the gnome can still grow to be a pretty cool character.
@@felixfeliciano7011 Oof. Yeah; the thing with this particular rule is that you have to be told in advance that you're going to be using it - when random chance enters character generation, you can't start with a detailed concept in mind because you're almost certainly going to end up disappointed.
The benefit of having random elements in character creation is that if you enter it without an open mind, a character concept has the chance to emerge organically from the results. It can be a lot of fun to enter character creation not really knowing what kind of character you're going to end up playing by the end.
Like I said at first, however, you have to know up front that that's what's happening, or else you're going to show up excited to play a type of character that ends up not being possible. I'm not saying that you were doing it wrong; merely that there was a mismatch of expectations.
Deep Backgrounds is A-tier for me. I've played other systems with similar background generating mechanics and they've always made character generation very fun, almost like I'm opening a Christmas cracker or something. I like the idea of randomly generating a backstory, mainly because I like randomness for the purpose of fun, but it also saves me coming up with a lame-ass backstory myself.
The only reason it's not S-tier is because the tables aren't big enough!
I absolutely love the idea of automatic bonus progression. Every time I've played in a campaign and we got a magic weapon in the loot, the only thing we wanted to do with it was sell it. After spending all that time picking out and improving our main weapons no one wanted to switch over to a new weapon or armor. Tying the bonus to our character's skill instead of our financial investment to that particular piece of equipment would change that.
Another thing that I love about this variant rule is that it makes switch hitters and characters that use multiple weapons more viable. In 1st edition I had to spend a fortune improving my main weapon. If I had a secondary weapon, like a long bow, I was not able to deal significant damage with it even if I took the necessary feats to be good at using it. With automatic bonus progression the character can use both a long bow and a sword and keep them both relevant at higher levels. He could even pick up other items like Pole arms or a maul and have options as a fighter in combat.
This is what I expected to hear from PF2e players. Thanks for sharing your experience, you've solidified my desire to use this variant rule!
I’m currently running the stamina system and liking it a LOT, it’s allowing my party of 3 to be able to play the characters they want without “forcing” a healer into the party. Granted a character with healing would still be impactful as they’ve recently found out by getting hit by some diseases and a permanent blindness, but certainly better than the abysmal health recovery they would have.
"Can you believe that there are people who still have not subscribed?"
*Subscribes*
"At least you're not one of those people, right?"
Welll.....
Also: We've started using the alternate ability scores, and we love it. Dexterity was previously doing too much, and Strength, Constitution and Charisma too little. We find that this alternate rule fixes that problem.
I sort of get this, but if we're being picky about ability scores, something feels off about what agility, constitution, and strength represent. Splitting DEX and AGI makes sense, but I'm not sure about combining STR and CON, as far as numerically measuring different features of human ability goes. Mathematically, +dmg, +hit, and +hp sounds like a lot. But maybe +hp is weaker than the +dmg+hit+AC of DEX.
What keeps STR from becoming the new DEX even so?
@@AnaseSkyrider +dmg+hit+AC is the problem child there,
As you said, it's not that CON does too little,
It's that DEX does too much.
Tho if you think of it as the Physique stat, instead of STR with CON features,
It's actually not that strange to have it work like this,
And it's mathematically still not stronger than baseline DEX with it's +dmg+hit+AC
I just had one of my players state “they didn’t like skill feats.” That’s it, he didn’t elaborate.
I feel like he meant he didn’t like the available options but it still threw me off.
I've had this too, I really don't get why? Like I really tried to think why you would be bothered. "Hey here is a free random thing to buff skills." Player "fuck you game fascists!" 🤣 its not like they are at the expensive of something else. My line is now just to shut down the convo and move on. They likely saw a post of reddit and decided to hate them due to not having an opinion 🙃
@@Belly6815 I think it's because many skill feats codify that you need to take this particular skill feat in order to do a particular thing. Want to fight underwater without sucking? Better take Underwater Marauder. Want to use a magic item to fake casting a spell? If you don't have Charlatan, you're out of luck. This rubs many people the wrong way, because they believe skills should be flexible enough to do that kind of thing on their own.
Personally, I like skill feats, but I think I can speak to why they turn certain players off.
Mainly, there are quite a LOT of skill feats and their amount will only continue to grow with time. Even with me present to make suggestions, indecisive players can feel overwhelmed and spend a lot of time deciding what skill feats they want, but come away with only minor mechanical reward (especially when building to play a module or other short one-off adventure). This effect is compounded in situations where players begin play with a higher level character and need to pick many skill feats at once. This is compounded further if the player is new to the system and especially if they are new to tabletop games.
I've seen alarm in the eyes of new players when they see the multitude of choices that they have to make while creating their character and I'll later find out that they are "too busy to get into TTRPGs right now." In these cases, I look back and wonder if eliminating skill feats would have been wise, and I think the answer is yes.
@@ttrpgplayer7939 I think the intent of the skill feats is to introduce mechanics that add flavor and minimize mechanical impact in combat (with some exceptions) so that players are encouraged to develop their characters in more unique ways that do not sacrifice mechanically optimal choices.
In P1e, there were a number of feats and class options that sounded super fun and would add flavor to the character, but where almost never taken because they were offered in the same ability pools as other abilities that were far more mechanically impactful, particularly combat-oriented abilities. Keeping skill feats more situational and less impactful as a feat category addresses this issue, so players can take flavorful options without missing out on a far more powerful option that could have been taken.
Because of this, I'm in favor of more skill feats that are interesting, but would like them to remain sub-optimal compared to other feat categories.
The free archetype variant feels like it should be a baseline rule especially with the APG archetypes available. The automatic progression is convenient. I haven't tried the others yet, but have looked over the dual class variant and want to try it.
I'm aways afraid that people will just combo like Barbarian Fighter.... How it has been working out for you?
Edit: I'm talking about Free Archetype Variant
Free Archetype Barbarian/Fighter doesn't really add too much power to the game IMO. The progression speed on the rage abilities and barbarian feats you gain access to give some additional options but not much more than being a Wizard/Sorcerer gives.
They will be doing a bit more damage with rage but there's a trade off of lowering their AC to compensate.
@@Gloomfall I see... I mean, I really don't like the idea of Imperial Sorcerer and Wizard to 😂 but I have never played with any of the combos, so I really don't know how powerful it is or isn't
@@rasleyforde2363 it gives a decent selection of metamagic feats and other sorcerer class feats, but more importantly it gives them 2 extra spell slots from level 1-6 and an extra slot for 7-8.
Mainly more staying power than anything.
It definitely feels like the "Definitive Edition" of the game, but I'm glad it's a variant. Teaching new players the game can be tough, but adding in archetypes at every even level can really add a level of complexity that they may not be ready for.
Ah yes: a, number b, letter 3, finally d. I love it
Ingrid Plata the perfect way to start.
Also, don't forget: You may love a rule that I hate or I may hate a rule that you love
I've been playing with Dual Class PCs from levels 1 to 5. We have a Swashbuckler/Psychopomp Sorcerer, a Paladin/Fighter, and an Angelic Sorcerer/Rogue. It's been a ton of fun, and lets us do even more customization, which is our favorite thing about PF2e.
Sounds fun. How is it in terms of power level? (Don't know if you are the dm or a player) As much as we can speculate about it, I'd love to hear it from the perspective of someone who's actually experienced it.
@@RemiTL I'm the Sorcerer/Rogue, I'd say we're definitely stronger than a single classed party but it's not overwhelmingly OP.
Granted, none of us are really trying to min/max.
Good video. Keep up the solid work. Damnit Jeff, get it together, do the rebels proud.
I'll figure something out to keep Jeff in line. Thanks for watching, bud!
I've played with the free archetype rule with a twist since I started GMing P2E. I don't allow them to take multiclass archetypes. This forces players to grab some of the less optimal but far more flavorfull archetypes.
That's a really fair way to play it. It forces the players to expand their personality or fighting style rather than just expanding their toolkit altogether.
@@Nonat1s that's the goal, it also has more players taking archetypes for RP reasons, like Loremaster which my Wizard took. It has almost no combat benefit, but is super flavorful and is great for reading tomes and lore from the world the party discovers and might normally ignore.
audio is great! idk what you had to do make it come through so well but good work as always. those intro numbers tho
It took a bit of setup! Got enough lighting to make my phone camera work and messed with the settings on my girlfriend's "Blue Snowball" microphone! Got it to almost as good as my normal setup!
For the expanded alignment thing, I feel like it could be used as a "the world perceives you as [Alignment]" and have it change depending on the public actions of the players, so even if the characters are good, if their behavior isn't the best or the person they're working for is questionable they may be perceived as evil. Though this probably just puts more weight on the GM then they actually need.
That was how Gygax illustrated alignment back in AD&D 1e, too. While there weren't 49 specific options, the 9 alignments were drawn as sections of a graph, with the DM advised to plot each PC's behavior on the graph. So a particular player might be "Lawful Good, but almost Neutral Good," while another could be "Lawful Good, but almost Lawful Neutral." In monster descriptions this was noted as "Lawful Evil (with neutral tendencies)" or whatever. I'm not sure anyone but EGG (if even he did) ever actually did it that way, but there was supposed to be room within and on the borders of each of the 9 named alignments for lots of characters to fit.
I feel called out for being a paragraph writer.
So, with the Ability Boost variant I love it too, and I personally like that they kept the rule that you can't level up the same stat between tiers. The only thing I don't like is how awkward that variant is to explain to players.
I hate Point Buy in 2e. It's really clunky and the example they give for it actually goes against how the system is written because they increase their flaws without penalty and it always just... confuses me.
I like the idea of Alternate Scores, but it's one you'll really want to talk to the table about and will need to adjust every monster for it unless you ignore the rule for monsters specifically, which might lead to a bit of a mess.
I love me some extreme alignments.
Incremental Alignment is something my gf plays with and she loves it. It's literally a scale of "how good/evil and chaotic/lawful are you" and I find it to be a good option if playing with alignment. I personally prefer no alignment with motivations instead, but I like incremental alignment more than raw alignment.
I love deep backgrounds. I like that it's like the background generator from Ultimate Campaign in Pathfinder 1st Edition. It also explains how backgrounds in general are made, so if you're looking for something that isn't available or you want to roll on a chart, now you can.
Coming from a history of Gestalt games (literally what dual class is) in 3.5, my group and I love that this is a core variant rule. We don't always use it, but if we want to play an off the walls op campaign, we break this out.
I wrote an article on the Simplified variants and they're good for one shots where the focus is to get people who have never touched a TTRPG before to play the game. I want to get my dad into Pathfinder and after I use the "choose your own adventure" style adventure from the beginner box, I plan on easing him into the system with these variant rules.
Level 0: hell yes.
Auto Bonus Progression is really damn nice, but no idea if I'll use it since my tables *love* items and crafting.
I love proficiency without level mooostly because I can throw a more diverse cast of monsters at my party that sticks to a theme, and I personally find leveling up monsters is more of a pain than removing the level altogether.
When I first saw Stamina I loved it, but after reading it more I don't personally think I'll ever use it. If I do use it, I plan on having food items restore stamina as well because having half your health pool locked behind only a specific way to heal is a bit... blah to me.
The no level bonus proficiency rule did save the system for me. Or atleast improve my experience enormously.
It’s just the big numbers but all the things that come with it: tediously changing all the numbers on your character sheet by 1 point every level up. Which felt arbitrary, unlike when you improve a proficiency from trained to expert.
Then also comes the fact that monster math becomes so that only monsters very close to the PC’s levels can be fought, the rest are nigh-impossible to beat because of arbitrarily added bonuses or they’re too weak to mean anything. It’s so limiting as a GM, especially if you’re running an open world where goblins and dragons can all be encountered at any level, depending on player choices.
The goblins don’t suddenly disappear because you’re higher level and the dragon isn’t gonna wait until your math is balanced to his until he strikes.
Also you’d be surprised but without the level-bonus, the numbers in pf2e and 5e are nearly identical. Makes it easier to adapt and create monsters, since I know a +13 is always gonna be high and a +4 is always low.
And finally, setting DCs is so much easier.
When one player has +17 and the other one has +2 it’s either the dc is impossible to one or a guaranteed success to the other. The variable is too great as they advance in levels.
We enjoy everyone having the chance to attempt anything, although rolling with no proficiency is still hard.
In addition it makes your Ability Scores matter more.
I think *this* rule - with the details as you said - is what's going to make the transfer from 5e to PF2e workable for my group. (And probably "Automatic Bonus Progression", given the way I handle items.)
Nonat, you're wrong and you should feel wrong.
Love,
Jeff
Your name brings a tear to my eye. Such an amazing reference. Thank you
Damn it, Jeff. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
@@JoshuaJacobs83 In 15 years you are the first to recognize it. I salute you sir.
@@MySqueezingArm That makes me so sad. It’s such a great line. Why my squeezing arm? Why???
the reason i prefer the concept of proficiency without level is with this analogy:
a novice boxer fights a nuclear physicist in a fist fight:
in real life: the boxer would win because he is young, trained in boxing and has more hand to hand experience than the nuclear physicist
in PF2: the nuclear physicist would win because he is a higher level than the boxer and has a higher proficiency bonus
in PF2 the way i build encounters, physicist is level 0 (socially 6 on nuclear reactors) creature whereas boxer is level 1.
[edit: let's say "skill-wise" instead of "socially" there]
@@daxiomus see, now you have the same issue in reverse, where a novice boxer becomes a better pro at fixing and crafting than a nuclear physicist
@@WolfClant what? no, you missed the part where he's 6 on things related to nuclear reactors. a similar example would be a judge: "In a court case or other legal proceeding, the judge is a 6th-level challenge." (Source Gamemastery Guide pg. 224)
@@daxiomus hmm. that's a thinker
@@WolfClant Here's a relevant rule that explains what Daxiomus is talking about.
2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1041
It basically states that NPCs can have a combat level and a non-combat level.
Your boxer might be level 1, but have a non-combat level of 0 if he's an awkward person.
Meanwhile, the nuclear physicist might be level 0 but have a non-combat level of 10 when dealing with their subject of expertise.
Great video, as always, I really liked your explanations to understand your ratings.
Had Session 0 yesterday for AoA. We didn't start with Free Archetypes but I think they'll still get some at specific points in the game.
Your level 0 variant just fixed an issue I ran into converting my campaign from 5e! Thanks!
Deep backgrounds:I would just like to choose without rolling and make a deep character.
Love the blinking alarm clock in the background.
I would say that to keep dual classes from getting out of hand, having a proviso where players cannot stack Martial classes with one another, Caster classes with one another, or Skilled Classes with one another could come in handy. (In fact, it's even suggested in the GMG.)
When you do that, it feels less like 2x characters and more like 1.5x characters, which is honestly the right level of power when dealing with sub-4 player games. The power level also varies based on level, with level 1 being incredibly powerful - abilities wise - but slowing down very quickly as you only get 1 class feat for two classes, really limiting what you can do with them.
Still my go-to choice for sub-4 player games, but Free Archetype is just so good for 4+ player groups...
I like that idea, forces more creativity and will make for interesting dual classes.
I’m new to the game and particularly this style of game. Having come into the hobby via the OSR, where 3d6 down the line is common in character generation, PF2 already feels point buy-like enough for me. No rolling, no randomness and for the most part the ability to choose where to allocate ability boosts.
I completely agree. I always hated point-buy systems. I never understood people who liked it. The way PF2e core does it was the first time I liked not rolling stats. It just makes sense to me.
why do i fee your flashing alarmclock was integral to your sarcasm in this vid. great content
I WISH I was clever enough to do that on purpose, but no. I simply didn't realize it until it was too late, lol.
I feel like simplified skill feats is just an obvious idea to facilitate pathfinder into a more OSR(for those that don't know - old school revival. Check Questing beast video on this movement) type of game, not exactly to make it just easier per se.
Also, the DM can be experienced and still choosing to implement this for his inexperienced group.
The point of variant rules is offering ideas and flexibility.
I also get the old school feel of only Thieves being able to do some things from this rule
Hey Nonat, I loved the video as always a huge fan of your content and I love binging it all the time! I have one possible suggestion if you decide to do a tier list again (which I would love). The suggestion is just either time stamps for the actual rules you go over so for instance at 13:12 you go over Level 0 characters or if you could post your total tier list where it shows everything. I hate to suggest it because I know some people would just skip the video but also it makes it easier to go back and look at the "better" options after the video. Anyway, thank you so much for the content I hope you are able to go home soon!
Thanks for this list! I actually skipped over the variant rules once but then I decided to get more used to the system first (it's my first time as a Pathfinder2E GM) ..
But now I know that I also want to use Free Archetypes rule in our campaign!
Incremental Alignment could be ranked higher if you thought about it not as having more choices for alignment, but like a sliding gauge that shows where you're character's current standing is (ala Mass Effect's paragon/renegade or KoTOR's Light side/Dark side meter), where certain actions that the character chooses slides them up and down the scale gradually rather than a simple "Ok you stole the gold from the merchant's safe, you're now evil".
Instead say you have that rouge that starts off as Nuetral Good but occasionally does these small petty acts of crime, over time depending on how frequently the Rouge gives into their criminal ways, you can adjust their alignment based on their heroic selfless deeds and their petty crimes to get a better determination on where that Rouge stands. Like if the Rouge did more heroic deeds than petty crimes, then we'll find them leaning more towards good, while if the Rouge commits more crimes than heroic deeds we'll see them leaning closer towards evil (or at the very least he'll either be more lawful or more chaotic if he does so with good intensions).
Pairing this with Moral Intentions can also help determine what can be used to slide the character along that alignment scale, such as if they wanted to be a fearless hero, but they act cowardly then we can use the incremental alignment to slide the character closer away from their good alignment (more because heroes are typically good, while villain's are typically evil), and more towards evil as their actions reflect more the actions of a villainous disposition rather than a heroic one. (That's not saying a fearful character can't be good and heroic, but this example is someone who gives into their fear and acts out in fear to keep themselves safe above anyone else, whether that's lashing out or abandoning allies to save themselves.)
We have the Kingmaker chart that could explain how it is "utilized" in a way
Love the lvl0 one, tbh, it gives me flashbacks to an Italian product for DnD 3.5 which was called the Lowest Levels Handbook and had like equivalents of the playable classes but you were still an apprentice in that class
This is a very useful overview! Personally, I've already been letting my players use the Free Archetypes variant, but I am leaning towards also using Ancestry Paragon. I like making sure that players are free to pick abilities that go with their character's theme without having to sacrifice effectiveness :)
I recommend that discussions regarding alignment be their own topic, as it is the most broadly nebulous topic in the entirety of the D&D RPG ecosystem. I do recommend checking out the book, "The Very Last Book About Alignment."
Dual-Class: I commented in this vein when you mentioned it in another video. It's not as OP as people think at first glance. Yes, it gives a player's character a lot more options. But it's not nearly as if "playing a dual-class fighter/wizard is the equivalent, or close to it, of having a fighter and a wizard in the party" as you might think. Because of the very reason everyone knows: Action Economy is King in PF.
Yes, that player's character has a lot of abilities. This *is* a great way to insure a smaller-than-normal party can face a variety of challenges, and will have the skill-set to do it. They will have versatility. Now, there's that word: versatility. is "versatility king" in PF? It hasn't generally been. I love versatile characters, myself. And some classes have "versatility" semi-baked-in. But when people do builds, well, versatility isn't king in PF - optimization means specialization is king (to a point, there are diminishing returns).
Dual-classing means you get to specialize in two classes, and thus fill out the amount of options available to you. But in any one given encounter, well, you still have the action-economy of *one* character, not two. You might tank like a fighter and sling spells like a wizard but you're still going to go down and go down hard if you play as if you're both those characters in one.
th-cam.com/video/I6Y15enatqg/w-d-xo.html
You'll be taking a lot of dirt naps is you think your dual-class character is anywhere near two characters in one, in any given round. And then your short-sized party will really be facing the brick wall.
Therefore I actually think dual-class is more balanced than people give it credit for. Does it mean it should be in every campaign? Especially when "Free archetype" is also available? No. But it does have its place and I think that playspace is a bit broader than your rating would suggest. I could see an entire party of characters with dual-class *and* free archetype in a campaign of epic fantasy (well, the obvious response here is: PF2 is built to be pretty epic as it is, why would you need moar? Some people like to play with moar, even if it's just a once-in-awhile thing. That, for example, was the appeal of the PF1 "Mythic" rules, even if it didn't come out well in the end. PF2 is much harder to "break" with broken characters, at least right now [wait till moar splatbooks come out, I suppose]. So it is unlikely to create as many problems in play as people might think).
Still, even after all this, it's not for every campaign or even for every campaign with the same group.
[Also, try Dual-class "old-school" style if you play Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn/Throne of Bhaal. Them's real dual-class hours!]
Dude I haven't even played pathfinder yet being still wanderin in dnd but I love the way you explain things and like ur enthusiasm 👍
I've already heard someone argue against skill feats. Their argument was that having a skill feat that says you can attempt something means that you can't attempt it without that feat. They just want the gm to set the dc for whatever and they want to roll for it. I think that they are overlooking the value of skill feats, but I'm sure that they would opt for the simplified skill feat variant rule. So that's one reason to do it.
I've also heard people argue that if you have a skill feat which says you can attempt to speak to someone for a one minute and then roll with a bonus to haggle for a price that it decreases role play. I think that this is a strange perspective to have but such a person would probably also like the simplified skill feats variant rule.
I use the Free Archetype rule from your videos before and I really like it. I also implemented the Prof. Without Level, as I had two issues with the default rules. The first is that if you have a level 12 party and someone gets a new skill, they suddenly get at a minimum +12 ranks in it. That just seems so weird to me that a dude who is like "Hey I would like to learn medicine" suddenly is incredible with it. The next is the huge numbers and more specifically that a group of town guards say at level 5 would get destroyed by a level 13 player character, simply because of the math. Those guards probably will have zero chance of hitting the player. However after playing for a few years with this rule I have discovered that the BBEG can suffer from it. Normally a BBEG would be like 3 or 4 levels higher and thus have a +3 or +4 to a bunch of stuff. Thus crit'ing the dude is hard or near impossible. The dude failing a save is really hard as well. So I need to make sure the BBEG is smart and has minions OR has other defenses. In short having this bounded accuracy means that lower level characters can more easily hurt higher level ones and that goes for and against the party. I really like it and it saved the game for me, so S tier. In fact I think it should be the default rule.
Deep Backgrounds is a awesome ruling to the DM. I usually makes random PCs for new players, and have a lot s stuff on the fly for them is really cool!
I might start using it to make unique NPCs at some point. Use that whole system to make the NPC and then build their backstory and whatnot around it to help flesh out my world.
Ancestry paragon is so underrated that it isn't even mentioned on the video...
Love the list and your viewpoint, even if i disagree.
How dare you politely disagree with my opinions?
Thanks for enjoying, bud 👍
Was looking forward to hear your thoughts on the Ancestry Paragon variant rule. It's basically like Free Archetype but for Ancestry feats. @Nonat1s
I would rate it at maybe A tier. Free Archtype is less limited, and probably what you will choose, then Ancestry Paragon becomes even more feats and stuff for people to remember.
@@dwaisley I love being able to take the Ancestry weapons and lore at first level, and being able to get more feats to flesh out the character through their ancestry means that different ancestries feel like they have more of an impact on the character than they already do. That's the only reason I rate it so high personally. :)
Because I'm good at my job, I forgot it and overlooked it! I pinned a comment with my rankings for the rules I missed.
@@Nonat1s thanks!!
Dual class+Ancestry paragon+Free archetype variant+Deep background=THE ULTIMATE CUSTOMIZABLE CHARACTER!
Some interesting ideas to say the least. i know I liked the loyalties system that replaced alignment in first edition.
There's so many different directions games can take with alignment, so I do love the more creative solutions.
NoNat1, lemme make a suggestion! I like Stamina but my favorite is a very different older version called Vitality & Wounds (Not the one from PF1st edition) I like the Vitality & Wounds rules from the Stargate RPG. My group and I are currently running a game with PF2e base rules but Stargate SG1 RPG characters and it works very well. Essentially you have most of your HP as Vitality and when healing Vitality you roll dice like normal but if you're rolling to heal Wounds you don't roll the die and assume the die rolled a 2 and any modifier added to the die is reduced to 1/2 rounded up.
I actually like that a lot! It makes sense too. It's harder to heal serious wounds than shallow ones.
There is an item variant rule I like to use on page 197 of the GMG, High-Quality items. It can be something for the skill monkey or if I have some event coming up I can reward these items to help out, give clues to what is coming, all without getting overpowered.
I'm personally using Free archetype and automatic progression in my game. Making the players feel more unique from their base class and making them get better as they level keeps me from dealing with a bunch of meaningless loot that would just become obsolete
The Stamina variant rule seems super interesting but sadly not fully realized. Instead of just having health-based spells that are usually coveted by clerics, wizards, druids and similar casters, there should be stamina-based spells that clerics (again), bards nd maybe rangers excel at. That way you can make specializations that goes with each class, not that it should be exclusive to one class or another, but Stamina f.ex. could be something Rangers do better than druid because it's something rangers make immense use of when they say hunt, trace and stalk a prey, whereas druids usually deal with healing and restoring. Clerics could be good at both because they excel at supporting in general. My favourite thing about the Stamina system is how it plays into spell slots, I've never really liked the way spell slots work in either PF or DnD, I prefer something that is more flexible and feels more natural, and here Stamina seems like the perfect fit for that with some tweaks that actually makes it fit within the game it tries to alter.
So I was excited about the Stamina variant when I saw it was in there, but decided against it. I thought it was done well in Starfinder (one of the few things done well), but falls short trying to wedge it into Pathfinder 2e. One reason being that it doesn’t have a class that can replace it mid-combat like the Envoy in SF.
In early editions of d&d there was alignment leaning. Neutral good leaning lawful NG(l) or neutral leaning evil N(e) for example.
I modify the Gradual Ability Boost to fix that problem of keeping track of sets... in my homebrew, you have a maximum ability score depending on your level.
18 for levels 1-4,
19 for levels 5-9,
20 for levels 10-14,
21 for levels 15-19,
and 22 for level 20.
That way, you can increase a lower score as you please, without worrying about the sets.
I also don't give my players the four ability boosts at level 1; that way they get a free boost at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.
I use Simplified Skill Feats with group that becomes overwhelmed with choices 😅 and it says u can pick skills feats instead of general feats
Did it work out well? I could definitely be wrong, but I feel like removing skill feats wouldn't simplify it all that much. I guess at higher levels it's a bit easier, but level 1-5 you're only removing 2 or 3 feats.
@@Nonat1s I agree that don't simplify, but there are people that can't handle so much choices. So it worked pretty well, it was a more light game
If you want to play more like Pathfinder Society, use the Point Buy variant. Do you not want to wait for the 2E version of Ultimate Campaign, use the Deep Backgrounds variant. Do you miss the spell Paragon Surge, use the Ancestry Paragon variant. Do you want to play an old school Gestalt game of D&D, use the Dual Class variant. Do you want to play with Prestige Classes, use the Free Archetype variant. Do you want to play as a 1E NPC class, use the Level 0 Characters variant. Do you want to play as a rogue, but worse; use the Simplified Skill Feat variant. Do you want to use masterwork weapons and armor, use the High-Quality variant. Do you want to play using D&D 5E's proficiency system, use the Proficiency Without Leveling variant. Do you want to play with the Skills Points System from Pathfinder 1E, use the Skill Points system. If you want to play more like Starfinder, use the Stamina Points variant.
I use a variant version of some variant rules. For example:
The PC gains a +1 prof every 4 levels.
Spells and Potions "heal" estamina, the main way to heal HP is treat wounds.
Fair enough. You can absolutely get away with editing these variant rules just like the core rules. Whatever works for you and your table!
The comedy of talking of "Extreme Good and Evila" as I boot up it's sequel, "Beyond Good and Evil" :p
Proficiency w/o Level is so much nicer to work with as a GM... Just use the basic DC guidelines forever. But the bigger change is what it does to encounters: I don't have to shelve my low-level monsters just because the party levels-up. Also, the players (if they realize it) can be a lot more daring and take on greater foes so long as they don't mind the risk. Adding level stratifies creatures and encounters in a way that feels unnatural. (Is this too far above? Gotta try and stop them or it'll be a TPK for sure. Is this too far below? We'll just narrate the slaughter of the goblin tribe, I guess.)
Absolutely like the "Extreme Good & Evil" conception, that I call "mystical emanations", meaning that a Neutral Evil Human mayor will not have a detectable evil alignment unless they have a relatively strong mystical connection with an Evil force. If you are a level 5 cleric of an Evil deity, a detect alignment effect would probably sense your evil connection, though maybe not your individual alignment (which is logically also evil :P). I know, your variant rule here excludes PF Clerics and Champions, but I think they should emanate a mystical energy at some point. That said, as a DM, players do not need to choose an alignment, except for their own RP tips (mind you I use 5e, and yet I know the variant rule discussed here if for PF and possibly 3.5 D&D).
nb : Of course, some evil deities and forces have tricks to hide alignment, but that is beside the point.
You should do a video rating people's homebrew pathfinder 2e rules based on what you think of them personally
I get the skill feat thing in my head since several of them as I have said recently come down to "why can't the character just do that normally with a skill check" and given that just going "you know what no skill feats if it is an action that would normally fall under a skill I will just let you try it" and with the rogue ya he can still get things like Cat fall and other skill feats that aren't things that dont make me go "what do you mean I can't make an impression on more than 1 person at a time without a feat"
Hey Nonat1s, just wondering what you're thoughts were on the skill points variant rule was? Not sure if it was already covered in the video or if I missed it...
Iiiiiii missed it! And a few others because I am a professional! I pinned a new comment with my ranking for the ones I missed!
I have a few house rules for my games:
Prestidigitation can be cast as a free action if you're not already be sustaining it, and can be sustained as a free action once per round.
Dedication feats such as Monk that require Str 14 and Dex 14 only require one of the two instead of both.
Class key skills (Nature for Druid, Arcana for Wizard, etc) increase automatically, so players don't need to burn skill increases on skills they are supposed to be good at.
Again I would love to see you review Hackmaster
i admit i don't like proeficiency without level, because there are stuff I want to be able to use assurance on, like copying spells and it makes it that much more difficult
"Yes, you too, paragraph writers!"
I smiled so hard, but then remembered I've barely ever played with Variant rules :(
Hey nonat, great video as always. I was hoping you could expand on how you feel stamina could be improved? I played quite a bit of star finder and loved how it worked for that system but I agree that for pf2 as written, it doesn't feel like players would have enough resolve points to really make the most of it.
It fits the starfinder setting so much better than it would in a fantasy setting. My players would just prefer a potion extra or two if they lack the cleric/bard/druid/witch/sorceror/medic in their group.
I am working on making a variant rule for lore skills.
Before you skip let me explain.
Your background lore doesn't do much and if you want to boost it, you need to invest in it. Which makes sense but you spent a significant part of your life with that background.
So I propose this, at levels 7 & 14 you automatically get a lore skill boost. It can be for your background or another lore skill but it follows the standard skill increase rules.
Maybe you were a black smith but left to adventure, in your fighting you see how weapons are used and that can help you make better weapons.
Maybe you're done being a blacksmith and pore your time into bureaucracy and study the law in your free time.
I feel lore is under utilized, especially your background lore.
I really like this. Humans have an ancestry feat that's basically this but for any skill, and it maxes out at expert at level 5 (which I think is fair). It'd be cool if all background skills did that as well. I'd probably use that rule.
Deep Backgrounds is *perfect* for people who want to do solo RP campaigns (where they're controlling all the characters; sometimes you really just don't want to think up everything for everyone and trusting some decisions to dice is way easier) or tables who prefer an r-selective RP environment (i.e. one where the players expect character death and needing to roll up new characters to be fairly frequent).
Extreme Good And Evil along with No Allignment are both being added as core rules in the remake.
No alignment is an A+++++++++ for me. Been playing without it for YEARS and it's been nothing but good.
One potential change to make it to the gradual ability boost limiting could be to just change it to: "You cannot have an ability that exceeds a set number without an item.
1-4: 18
5-9: 19
10-14: 20
15-19: 21
20: 22.
Boost any as much as you want up to the cap.
The dual class sounds perfect for solo party :o
But what do you think about the free archetype variant rule😆? Seemed unclear... Seriously though; great video and what I’ve come to expect from your channel now in a very short time
Eh, y'know, I think Free Archetype is fine, I guess.
I appreciate the kind words. Thanks for sticking around and enjoying the content!
Love to see that it looks like the new Holy / Unholy and the removal of the Alignment rules appear to have come from Extreme Good & Evil.
Pretty late comment, but I just found the video. Here goes:
- Inherent/Automatic bonuses: I partially use this and love it. And I split it because I'm obnoxious. I have the damage and saving throw bonuses as inherent/automatic, but I have the +1/2/3 to attack and AC as non-magical crafting quality bonuses.
- Stamina - we tried it with a short 10th level adventure and my group really liked it. Enough that they wanted to use it for the Abomination Vaults AP. I like what it does, but do notice some of the clunk. Additionally, the Steel Your Resolve needs to be an automatic bonus every player gets if Stamina is used or it just becomes the only general feat taken once available for any martial character. I liked that it drastically lessens the importance of the medicine skill and healing magics, but it might go a bit too far. In the next campaign (assuming they still want to use Stamina), I'm going to offer a modification that does away with Stamina and spending a Resolve Point during a 10 minute rest heals 1/2 your max HP. Still let's high level heal spells shine, while making them less /required/.
- Simplified Skill Feats - I haven't used this yet, but I want to...with a major change to it: a BUNCH of skill feats just get baked into the skills themselves (usually locked behind a Proficiency Level requirement). I already do this with Assurance (when you're an expert with a skill, you automatically gain assurance with that skill). Things like Ward Medic or Quick Repair are things I think should just be baked in. So it's not so much removing the abilities from feats, just changing how you get them.
- Simplified Ancestry - Another I haven't used but am just about forcing on the group. I think the ancestries are way better balanced this way, BUT, cause I'm me, it requires some minor changes. Primarily, you can choose ANY 1st level Ancestry feat you have access to at creation (and if you've taken the 3rd level general feat). Additionally, a couple higher level feats got shunted down to 1st level cause they're not all that powerful and I combined the three different ancestral weapon feats into one singular feat because I think they're dumb feat taxes for what you get.
....I bastardize the hell out of PF2e and will probably make people upset, but the changes work for me
Several of the builds that I want to try out in Pathfinder would work so much better with the free archetype variant rule.
The ancestry Paragon rule sounds like fun. It seems like that would add more flavor to the characters but it doesn't seem like it would be very valuable for any other purpose.
Moral intentions Sounds like a good idea for adding flavor to the game.
Gradual ability boost Would be a welcome change to the game as well.
I could definitely see using 0 level characters at the start of a campaign. I played in several exalted 1st edition campaigns where we played through our character's childhoods. This experience showed me the value of session 0s, even really long session 0s.
Been reading through the Mastery Guide and I had the same feelings on most of the rules. Free Archetypes for the win!
Wondering if you'd do a house rule/homebrew rule video at some, unless I missed it? I've been tinkering with a rule for proficiency (that the prof with no level might address but we'll see) where the players add half their level round down to any untrained skill check they make. I feel that the complete 0 means characters are more likely at lower levels to try their untrained skills than at higher, since the gap is now massive in DCs. They still can't take trained actions with them obviously and a +5 for a 10th level character on a skill check isn't going to break any balance issues I feel.
What do you think?
8:06 I have players that would say that those ARE their background! I am talking about more experienced players not people who have only played a couple of characters but people that I have been playing with for more than 10 years!
After watching your free archetype video, I’m surprised you didn’t rank the Ancestral Paragon variant higher. In 5e next campaign, I was planning on giving the PCs the option between this and the free archetype option as I found it gives bonus feats which lead to versatility and flavour but giving both sounds extreme. What do you think?
"You may love a rule that I hate or I may hate a rule that you love." Same thing. The lad hath trolled me.
I like the idea of prof with out level because it allows a wider variety of encounters. A level 10 character is pretty much immune to goblin warriors even if there are 10 of them. on the other side a Bulette is simply and impossible fight for level ones regardless of planning, terrain advantages etc. this is fine for a standard epic fantasy setting but the variant allows for a world where a much wider range of foes are relevant challenges.
I don't like the Point Buy character creation chart/aspect, but I do like the Ability Points per level aspect a lot. What's great is you can use a vanilla generated character at lvl1, and at lvl2 onwards use Ability Points and it just works. Also I'm still thinking about implementing Stamina and/or Free Archetype, as the party I'm running is very low on wide scale healing, and I happen to be fond of poisonous creatures >:)
I also want to use the Deep Backgrounds rule in a Strange Aeons game to make a guy with some form of DID/schizoid personality disorder where he has multiple life memories in his head and doesn't know which one is "real", that rule is perfect for it
That clock in the background blinking was so distracting lol
I think the incremental alignment wasn't actually meant as a way to expend the alignment scale rather than smoothing it for the purpose of transitions.
If i would play with this rule at my table, making a somewhat evil character, for example, won't be a possible.
However, if a neutral character would perform evil deeds, this rule will allow me to make it somewhat evil. It helps show the player how his actions change it's character without pushing it over the edge into an extreme alignment.
The player can then change the behavior to transition more easily into neutrality.
Having said that, i will probably never use this rule because it complicates the system nonetheless. I will just tell that player "you are leaning towards evil", while leaving it neutral.
i use automatic bonus progression: 1) my players are *very* bad at both bookkeeping AND rules checking, so they won't ask for/expect items yet 2) game *expects* me to give specific bonuses at specific levels. so suddenly i'm asked to put them in situations where they'll find loot and immediately forget. thanks to automatic bonus progression game's doing what game expects, while sporadic loot they find is more memorable.
i also use free archetype because i wanted to make one of them a pirate ("sailor") and it felt bad leaving others out. also Celebrity archetype was tailor fit for one of my players, so there's that too.
finally, one variant of mine that's been brewing in my head: "Free Lore": once per level, players can engage in Research as a downtime activity that grants them a free Lore skill boost (on their next level up) in their research topic. Depending on their existing proficiency in said topic, longer duration, cost and/or skill checks can be introduced.
motivation: Lore is good in minor ways, but there are lots of disincentives to develop it (wanna use a skill increase on it? or take Additional Lore? didn't think so either) at which point it becomes a regret on players *who care*. why not reward them for caring? and this rewards their role play decisions too, as opposed to other "you get this" bonuses.
Some of the lores don't have a lot of use in the game. I'm thinking particularly of the ancestor lores. Arcana, religion, occult and nature, however, have so much use that it's absurd. I have never understood why the 1st action in every combat with a new monster isn't recall knowledge to identify the monstrous opponent. In dnd3.5 and Pathfinder 1st edition we always played it that way to tremendous benefit. Now that you can also use these knowledge skills to identify spells and use magic devices, these skills seem overpowered.
@@dmc8706 yeah i was thinking Lore skills specifically, and not simply skills that let you use recall knowledge. if one wants to take cooking lore or (X plane lore) or (Y city lore) or (Z country history lore) so be it.
@@daxiomus that makes sense. Those skills get so little use that they are mostly just flavor.
Gotta comment on the skill feat variant - whenever you gain a general feat, this includes skill feats. So you don't lose access to skill feats, but you do get a LOT fewer of them. Would be E or D for me, I just feel like F is too extreme, especially with the type of game they listed in the GMG as fitting for this variant rule
I once ran a game with level 0 and Deep Backgrounds. It was super fun but super deadly. I almost TPKed the party with a rat.
Agree in about Many. the Prof without level is a good one for many 5e players and GM that like to throw high level monsters to a party to get used to the system.
stamina rule is very similar to Starfinder's hp rule and actually, it was one of the best rules they have in the game. yes it makes healing classless less effective but also allows them to be not just a heal bot because they can( or have to) divide the healing role with other classes, so until the party starts to actually lose hit points, they can focus on the other roles that they are capable of.
I really like those expanded alignment charts that deal with more words such as “moral” or “rebel” or “devout” because they allow you to expand the idea of what you want your character to resemble. But somewhat? Just seems odd to me.
0:39 “number B” … well played
Alternative Score system isn't as complicated as it sounds though. Like npcs don't "use" stats, so it only applies to players. It does have potential problem with future proofing(and figuring out whether to allow dex or agility as key ability score for certain classes), but as it is the rule includes all adjustments you need to do. So once you learn it you don't have problem with remembering it, though it would be annoying to use with roll20 and such because vtts don't usually have sheets for variant rules :p
(I'm also not sure I understand their goal mechanic balance wise. I mean, I get that they wanted to retain six scores, but whats up with combining melee damage/attack/hp and separate ranged/finesse attacks from ac? Like the rule makes melee characters even buffer while nerfing ranged characters and as melee character, it does kinda mean you have to choose between whether you want to be able to do ranged attacks at all or have better ac. (well unless you use fullplate I guess?). Props on making charisma less of a dumb stat though. It would definitely be interesting rule to experiment what it does in practice though)
I had no idea extreme good and evil exists. YES I hate alignment. this sounds awesome. as for alternative scores. I like that it puts will into cha, so that way my Anime style dragon sorceress Princess can have that anime level of willpower without having to be wise, since she is a rush into danger kind of person.
Edit: I should have made my comment after, no alignment is a good system.
I use the 5e equivalent of deep background ands its great.
I have a magic house rule based on DungeonCraft that I encourage others to use. Magic is cast at will and your class's spells per day become spells known or prepared per day, but each spell requires a roll to cast. There's a chance it could backfire each time you cast. Casters now regulate their own magic, as that fireball could backfire on you and take out someone in your party. Every spell has a potential danger.
Whats your opinion of the dual class rule when people don't cheese it with 2 full casters. For example, I really want to build an orc wizard barbarian.
I'm actually using the Free Archetype rule variant in a custom campaign I run, I mean it's a custom Archetype but it definitely fits my world setting... :) hint: Strength of Thousands adventure path wasn't announced when I started it :p
I really like the Free Archetype Variant Rule, but I also feels weird when people say that is almost necessary
@Kendall L Carlson got it, indeed. But still, the players who just use it to combo always scary me aways 😂
*This*