| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question because I'm not familiar with this.
When you say "Free Archetype One" do you mean a free Dedication Feat, a Free dedication and ONE Free feat at each class feat level, or do you mean you get ALL the feats in a single archetype (at appropriate level) free?
Like, are we talking ONE free feat, or potentially 9 free feats with up to 3 free feats at one level?
What's the basic rule here?
As I understood it, the Free Archetype rules in the GM book that came out give out a free feat that can be used on any Dedication or archetype feat you qualify for every even level. So you could technically use it for dedication at 2nd, then a feat at 4th and 6th, then a new dedication at 8th.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule is in the GMG variants chapter.
It's what Corvo said, but there's also advice to be careful to limit the impact of feats that are based on the number of total archetype feats you have.
My experience so far as a player and a GM is that it mostly just helps people to create their character concept the way they want and have it come online sooner. But I don't think I play at the kind of tables where people play fighter/Barbarian to do MOAR DAMAGEZ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's so much better than playing without. My characters feel like shells of themselves without it. Some concepts I can't even realize even by level 20 if I don't use free Archetype.
But for my campaign I'm using free archetype. Automatic bonus progression (won't be much for civilization), and the relic system. I thought about doing stamina but am leaning against it now.
I'm playing with free archetype because the team isn't the full 4. So even if it makes the party stronger that hardly makes up for a 4th PC.
What annoys me is that there doesn't seem to be sheets catered towards Free Archetype.
I like it, but probably won't use it frequently until Secrets of Magic comes out, purely because I've found that magical characters often have a hard time finding one that fits the character. But SoM will probably fix that problem.
Having now played with the free archetype variant and run a game without it, I think that I prefer the latter. I'd far rather give the characters a couple of extra boosts during character creation (at the Ancestry, Background, and Class steps) than the free archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having now played with the free archetype variant and run a game without it, I think that I prefer the latter. I'd far rather give the characters a couple of extra boosts during character creation (at the Ancestry, Background, and Class steps) than the free archetype.
I'm genuinely interested in why you feel this way. As I've done both as well and would be nearly unwilling to go back to non Free archetype games. I find it gives me so much more breathing room for creating interesting concepts before level 8. And the power boost has been very minimal while also allowing greater flexibility in team composition and not feeling like we are missing something vital resulting in some players feeling pressured to give up aspects of their concepts in favor of better group cohesion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm genuinely interested in why you feel this way. As I've done both as well and would be nearly unwilling to go back to non Free archetype games. I find it gives me so much more breathing room for creating interesting concepts before level 8. And the power boost has been very minimal while also allowing greater flexibility in team composition and not feeling like we are missing something vital resulting in some players feeling pressured to give up aspects of their concepts in favor of better group cohesion.
The issue that I've run into is that it feels like I've been almost required to branch out beyond my character concept with the free archetype. It feels cluttered, like I'm being forced to take extra stuff that I don't want.
I find the baseline game is far more focused, and helps me find the parts of the character I need rather than cluttering things with stuff that I don't. Now, this may be partly because I'm playing a wizard in the free archetype game, but I'm not sure.
I also cut a section from my original comment, that I'd far rather go with double class feats than a free archetype. I wouldn't do it, but I'd go with that over a free archetype because at least it would allow the players to focus purely on their own class if that was what they wanted.
It isn't about power for me. It's all about feel, and the free archetype has hurt the theme and feel for me in that game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also cut a section from my original comment, that I'd far rather go with double class feats than a free archetype. I wouldn't do it, but I'd go with that over a free archetype because at least it would allow the players to focus purely on their own class if that was what they wanted
This is one of the reasons I prefer double class feats. Another reason is that I like giving the option to pick a class feat every level, instead of picking two at every even level.
I think whether a person enjoys double class feats or not definitely comes down to personal preference. I always imagine characters with a laundry list of desirable features and abilities that flesh out their personality, playstyle, and lore. The default number of class feats severely cripples my creativity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm genuinely interested in why you feel this way. As I've done both as well and would be nearly unwilling to go back to non Free archetype games. I find it gives me so much more breathing room for creating interesting concepts before level 8. And the power boost has been very minimal while also allowing greater flexibility in team composition and not feeling like we are missing something vital resulting in some players feeling pressured to give up aspects of their concepts in favor of better group cohesion.The issue that I've run into is that it feels like I've been almost required to branch out beyond my character concept with the free archetype. It feels cluttered, like I'm being forced to take extra stuff that I don't want.
I find the baseline game is far more focused, and helps me find the parts of the character I need rather than cluttering things with stuff that I don't. Now, this may be partly because I'm playing a wizard in the free archetype game, but I'm not sure.
I also cut a section from my original comment, that I'd far rather go with double class feats than a free archetype. I wouldn't do it, but I'd go with that over a free archetype because at least it would allow the players to focus purely on their own class if that was what they wanted.
It isn't about power for me. It's all about feel, and the free archetype has hurt the theme and feel for me in that game.
That's interesting, because what I've noticed is that for the most part, you can find archetypes that would just let you double down on whatever your concept is. Like, if you wanted to be a Wizard's Wizard, you'd accomplish that by taking Ritualist or Loremaster or something else that is very much already within a Wizard's conceptual barnhouse
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting, because what I've noticed is that for the most part, you can find archetypes that would just let you double down on whatever your concept is. Like, if you wanted to be a Wizard's Wizard, you'd accomplish that by taking Ritualist or Loremaster or something else that is very much already within a Wizard's conceptual barnhouse
For me, this was only really a problem for my druid who wanted to get all the wildshape feats and order explorer to get more focus points at the start, and focus point increasing feats, etc.
It's also a problem if you stick to something like CRB-only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting, because what I've noticed is that for the most part, you can find archetypes that would just let you double down on whatever your concept is. Like, if you wanted to be a Wizard's Wizard, you'd accomplish that by taking Ritualist or Loremaster or something else that is very much already within a Wizard's conceptual barnhouseFor me, this was only really a problem for my druid who wanted to get all the wildshape feats and order explorer to get more focus points at the start, and focus point increasing feats, etc.
It's also a problem if you stick to something like CRB-only.
Oh yeah, we didn't switch to free archetypes till the APG came out for this reason, having mostly multi-class archetypes (exclusively, in the case of CRB only) would suck for flavor, though you could kind of ignore the flavor that its an extra class.
Wildshape as a play style is super feat intensive, so I see how it would be frustrating to not be able to use the extra feats on making it comfier/quicker.
That's interesting, because what I've noticed is that for the most part, you can find archetypes that would just let you double down on whatever your concept is. Like, if you wanted to be a Wizard's Wizard, you'd accomplish that by taking Ritualist or Loremaster or something else that is very much already within a Wizard's conceptual barnhouse
You can find some, yes, but they don't necessarily make sense for the character.
I considered ritualist, but for my conjuration wizard it didn't feel like it fit. Not since there weren't any summoning rituals until level 10, and the game I'm in has a pretty hard time limit (a conversion of Red Hand of Doom). If I took it, it'd be entirely flavor, and I wouldn't have time to use it, or the ability to use it for it's intended purpose. Loremaster didn't fit my character at all, so I ignored it. I don't like using scrolls and the like, so I didn't use the archetypes for those.
In theory you can find archetypes that double down, but not always in practice, especially not with a particularly simple character. I also found it pretty constraining that most of the archetypes I might want were higher level, and the restricting on dedication feats meant I had to juggle things to make sure I could take them after having to take a 2nd level archetype.
Now, all of this may be due to my personal view of characters. In fact, I'm sure it is. I'm sure I'd be able to create martial character a lot more easily. But the reality of the situation is that for me, I found that the free archetype has hindered my enjoyment of building (and playing) my character, not helped.
That's interesting, because what I've noticed is that for the most part, you can find archetypes that would just let you double down on whatever your concept is. Like, if you wanted to be a Wizard's Wizard, you'd accomplish that by taking Ritualist or Loremaster or something else that is very much already within a Wizard's conceptual barnhouseYou can find some, yes, but they don't necessarily make sense for the character.
I considered ritualist, but for my conjuration wizard it didn't feel like it fit. Not since there weren't any summoning rituals until level 10, and the game I'm in has a pretty hard time limit (a conversion of Red Hand of Doom). If I took it, it'd be entirely flavor, and I wouldn't have time to use it, or the ability to use it for it's intended purpose. Loremaster didn't fit my character at all, so I ignored it. I don't like using scrolls and the like, so I didn't use the archetypes for those.
In theory you can find archetypes that double down, but not always in practice, especially not with a particularly simple character. I also found it pretty constraining that most of the archetypes I might want were higher level, and the restricting on dedication feats meant I had to juggle things to make sure I could take them after having to take a 2nd level archetype.
Now, all of this may be due to my personal view of characters. In fact, I'm sure it is. I'm sure I'd be able to create martial character a lot more easily. But the reality of the situation is that for me, I found that the free archetype has hindered my enjoyment of building (and playing) my character, not helped.
I get it, you want a minimalist conjurer, free archetype naturally hurts minimalism since its like "heres more stuff"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting. Ty for the clarification. Looks like it just boils down to what you want from the system.
Where you find non free archetype focused. I find it limiting. I feel I'm able to expand my concepts.
Like my half elf animal instinct shark barbarian. He's fine without free archetype of a bit boring. Put in free archetype and I go monk or martial artist.
Now I have this more nuanced concept of a barbarian trying over time to gain better control over his animalistic rage through meditation and martial arts training.
Could I just use my class feats for said dedication? You could, but I never would venture into this build without free archetype. Or at best level 9 multitalented and just take flurry of blows. I'd have to give up too much and would be disatisfied with the concepts end result and journey.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, free archetypes or double class feats are great if you like getting into the weeds and having lots of mechanical options. But I've found a lot of players don't necessarily care about them, and then it just causes unnecessary complications and character creation steps.
There's also some variance between class and level with that. Champions who want to rock multiple righteous allies, litanies, mercies, or any combination of the above arr pretty tight pressed for feats. Fighters don't really need much to fight well, especially given bowman got their feats are distinct actions which can't be combined. Barbarians are somewhere in between.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, free archetypes or double class feats are great if you like getting into the weeds and having lots of mechanical options. But I've found a lot of players don't necessarily care about them, and then it just causes unnecessary complications and character creation steps.
Player preference is a huge part of whether the free archetyping is a good idea, yeah. The baseline sits at kind of a natural accessibility point, where it's significantly more customizable and with more build choice and variance than liter games like 5E or Cypher, while still being vastly more accessible to new players than PF1. If you were a hardcore PF1 who's made the jump over to PF2 though, you might find that you want a little more variety and don't mind tracking the additional options, so free archetype variant rules are a really natural fit for what you want out of the game.
That's pretty much exactly the experience I had with my home groups; the 5E players and newer players preferred the base system, while the PF1/3.X players felt like they weren't getting quite enough and discovered they liked the game a lot more with the free archetype variant. I use both and really the only metric that seems to be consistently in the games is how happy the players are. I don't really make any significant changes to the experience the free archetype players have vs. what the other group experiences, so it's really just about what's making the players happy and how many options they're comfortable tracking.
I'm actually thinking for our next set of games the players who haven't been using the free archetype system might get to try it out again with everyone getting a free Pathfinder Agent archetype, to see if the archetype being something granted directly through their storyline and the experience they've had playing through their first AP has affected their stance at all. The other group just started Agents of Edgewatch so it'll be a while before they try new characters, but I've been thinking it might be fun to see how they react to no free archetype as a "hard mode" challenge that makes them more reliant on each other.
What other options could a player not interested in the Free Archetype variant be offered to balance (mechanically and in terms of perceived fairness) the variant being accepted by other players?
The Ancestry Paragon might offer a similar level of power, but not affect a desired path within a given class. A GM and player could also discuss some other in-game benefit that might not increase the character's power, but might increase the player's enjoyment. Maybe they come from a family with small estates here and there. Or maybe a certain church owes the character a debt that is paid off with occasional free cures or something.
I don't know. I'm running Extinction Curse soonish, and want to offer the Free Archtype, but I know some of my players would like it a whole lot more than some others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What other options could a player not interested in the Free Archetype variant be offered to balance (mechanically and in terms of perceived fairness) the variant being accepted by other players?
The Ancestry Paragon might offer a similar level of power, but not affect a desired path within a given class. A GM and player could also discuss some other in-game benefit that might not increase the character's power, but might increase the player's enjoyment. Maybe they come from a family with small estates here and there. Or maybe a certain church owes the character a debt that is paid off with occasional free cures or something.
I don't know. I'm running Extinction Curse soonish, and want to offer the Free Archtype, but I know some of my players would like it a whole lot more than some others.
Most players who don't want a free archetype simply don't want the added complexity. Offering them a different path to that level of complexity is unlikely to entice them.
Luckily, in my experience those players are also less likely to care about things like power parity or wringing every last drop of performance out of their build. So this doesn't seem like it will likely bother them.
If you really feel like they need something, just assigning them an archetype that fits their concept will probably be acceptable. Bonus points if you can tie it into in game events as you play.
Most players who don't want a free archetype simply don't want the added complexity. Offering them a different path to that level of complexity is unlikely to entice them.Luckily, in my experience those players are also less likely to care about things like power parity or wringing every last drop of performance out of their build. So this doesn't seem like it will likely bother them.
If you really feel like they need something, just assigning them an archetype that fits their concept will probably be acceptable. Bonus points if you can tie it into in game events as you play.
Fair enough, though to my mind the Ancestry Paragon variant doesn't add much complexity. Players don't have to find an extra ancestry to fit their vision. They don't have to worry too much about feat choice efficiency. They just get a handful of extra ancestry feats tacked on to their otherwise normally created character.
I've got a new, crazy plan. I'm going to talk to my players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've only played once with Free Archetypes and I didn't like it at all.
I'll probably never run a game with such a optional rule myself.The main reason was that it gave so much more breadth to what a character can do that it ended up with most of us in the party being able to do a lot of similar stuff, there was crazy overlap between us, and ultimately it took away the individual identity of each of us.
Too much of a thing often is a bad thing when considering group dynamics.
I could see such a rule in a 2, max 3, players game, but over that it would be just too much imo.
I think this depends on the group.
For my groups. Without it, we often have overlap anyway because the players build concepts not group cohesion. Free archetype increases the chances of more concepts covered and if their is overlap we just get more aid actions. So nobody has felt their identity has been infringed upon.
That said I'm quite happy with it being a variant rule as some players prefer a simpler more focused character creation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In online or home games, how often do you guys feel it's common?
Is it worth planning out a character with free archetype ruleset to broaden the concepts, or do too few people use it these days?Personally I'd wish it was core rule, maybe limited to non-multiclass archetypes to open up things even more, but I understand some people might not like it. What's your experience with it so far?
We use this rule at our table and the experience has been positive overall. It's allowed people to have the 'builds' and character abilities they want without giving them an appreciable increase in power. Obviously YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this thread, and other mentions of it on reddit, Free Archetype has really taken off-- I think it's because it feels very natural for archetypes to have their own resources you layer on top of your class growth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We started using Free Archetype in our home games and everyone was super excited when my DM announced the rule addition. I think since then, everyone has been grateful for the extra options. My friends all come from 5e too if that counts for anything. We all like the extra options. One of my friends is just taking all the skill related archetypes so he can grab the skill feats (he's an investigator), so he can get multiple archetypes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably the best thing about 2e from a design perspective is that increasing the number of any kind of feats does not really make a character more powerful in any one dimension, it just makes them more versatile- to be able to do useful or powerful things in more dimensions.
Like you could play "nine free archetypes" and "it takes longer to level up" will be more of a problem than "the PCs are too strong."
I do wonder what the reactions would be if I offered free archetype feats. Keyword "offer". I really like the extra wiggle room when I'm building characters for fun, and I think the group(s) I'd like to run this game with are full of players that would like the extra options as well.
But for those who didn't, who I wouldn't push to fill those extra feat slots, would it be a problem of feeling like they need to do extra work to keep up? What if those slots could be filled at later level-ups and/or were offered at odd levels instead of even ones? Would it not be a problem of feel to them, even if the extra versatility of others crowded them out a bit?
I imagine I might have to give guidance of some sort to keep problems like that from occurring -- the book itself already mentions that doubling up on a niche does actually increase power sometimes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do wonder what the reactions would be if I offered free archetype feats. Keyword "offer". I really like the extra wiggle room when I'm building characters for fun, and I think the group(s) I'd like to run this game with are full of players that would like the extra options as well.
But for those who didn't, who I wouldn't push to fill those extra feat slots, would it be a problem of feeling like they need to do extra work to keep up? What if those slots could be filled at later level-ups and/or were offered at odd levels instead of even ones? Would it not be a problem of feel to them, even if the extra versatility of others crowded them out a bit?
I imagine I might have to give guidance of some sort to keep problems like that from occurring -- the book itself already mentions that doubling up on a niche does actually increase power sometimes.
you could give those players a relic so they also have something extra to do. The relic doesn't need to make them particularly more powerful but can provide nice RP material.
|
|
The longest running game I'm was already well underway when the rules came out but we added them in anyhow as a bit of a boost.
We did a wacky parallel timelines mini-adventure, where we fought and then "integrated" parallel versions of ourselves in order to stabilize the an area of funky space-time.
We were level 15 at the time, so we just all straight up gained 7 feats from up to 2 archetypes, which we had already agreed with the GM about ahead of time.
My Wizard already had some of the Alchemist dedication, so I ended up taking both Familiar Master and Cavalier.
It really breathed some new life into characters we'd had over a year at that point. It gave us a good chance to rebuild a bit, shake up some of our RP, try out some new options, and just widened our ability spread.
I also love how it opened up my Character in particular. As Wizard I had at times chaffed with how hemmed in my action economy was. Having more familiar options, along with Independant, allowed me to be quicked for mundane things, while sitting astride my Riding Drake gave me that extra stride a turn that I needed when I was otherwise in a cycle of cascade casting.
One options I thought of was Free Class feat at odd levels.
This gives all the classes that don't get one by default one to play with without having to be human.
If you delay your feat, you can save it for your next level and it counts as a second class feat for that even level 1 higher than when you first got access to it. (alternately, you could allow retraining liberally, and allow them to get a level 1 feat and retrain it to a level 2 feat the next level if they want)
This would be a more liberal offering than the strictly free archetype, but would give them a free second class feat they could certainly use for buying and progressing an archetype, if that is what they want. Otherwise they can double-down on class feats.
I think that the biggest reason people might want to not do a free archetype or extra feat progression seems to be either a desire for simplification, specifically wanting fewer factors involved. And then there seem to be some that feel that getting something for free/extra from baseline is bad... and cheapens their other choice. That because you got A and B, it makes A less valuable, and if A was their most important choice to their concept, feeling like they have to pick a C and the fact someone else might choose A too might make them feel less.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that if those individuals had first read the rules, and the baseline had been one feat per level, I don't know they would have found it problematic, but by the baseline being less and getting more they feel it is inflation.
I get the idea of the simplicity... but I like the variance and nuance of even little abilities. I'm exited to hear what they are going to do with the magical School AP. Sounded like an example of Free Spellcasting Archetype, potentially starting at level 1, so I'm existed to see how they work that in, if that is right.
I love the sound of granting a specific, or a subset of potential free archetypes to fit a campaign story arc. All wonderful flavor options to bring characters together.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One options I thought of was Free Class feat at odd levels.
This gives all the classes that don't get one by default one to play with without having to be human.
If you delay your feat, you can save it for your next level and it counts as a second class feat for that even level 1 higher than when you first got access to it. (alternately, you could allow retraining liberally, and allow them to get a level 1 feat and retrain it to a level 2 feat the next level if they want)
This would be a more liberal offering than the strictly free archetype, but would give them a free second class feat they could certainly use for buying and progressing an archetype, if that is what they want. Otherwise they can double-down on class feats.
I did that, except I didn't let them save their feats (that's too messy and encourages waiting for more powerful options) but I did reduce all dedication feat level requirements by 1. This lets you start your multiclassed character concept at level 1 if you want, as well as some other benefits.
When I am the GM (or when I propose the Free Archetype rule as a player) I like to propose that PCs who want to opt out of it can get a free class feat at odd levels (starting at level 3). It is 1 less feat by the end and is always 1 level later than Free Archetype, which I feel makes up for it letting the PC focus more on their concept (i.e. potentially they are more powerful than if they took Free Archetype).
This one and Ancestry Paragon, another favorite of mine, feel like rules that should be voted on by the group collectively, rather than decided by GM fiat. They are practically no impact to the GM.
When I am the GM (or when I propose the Free Archetype rule as a player) I like to propose that PCs who want to opt out of it can get a free class feat at odd levels (starting at level 3). It is 1 less feat by the end and is always 1 level later than Free Archetype, which I feel makes up for it letting the PC focus more on their concept (i.e. potentially they are more powerful than if they took Free Archetype).
This one and Ancestry Paragon, another favorite of mine, feel like rules that should be voted on by the group collectively, rather than decided by GM fiat. They are practically no impact to the GM.
Have you seen Ancestry Paragon in play? How does it compare to Free Archetype in terms of power and/or versatility? I'd guess they are similar enough.
Considering ancestry feats are not necessarily more powerful than class feats. I don't see how it can imbalance much. Though it would definitely encourage me to go the adopted route to combine ancestry feats
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played with Ancestry Paragon in a lot of games.
At lower levels Ancestry Paragon doesn't feel like a power-boost at all. Low-level ancestry feats aren't powerful, and the few that are (debatably) powerful, a power-gamer will take even without Ancestry Paragon.
Some of the higher-level ancestry feats are more powerful... but I'm not sure they're that powerful relative to class feats and magic items the PCs already have access to at those levels.
I do wonder what the reactions would be if I offered free archetype feats. Keyword "offer". I really like the extra wiggle room when I'm building characters for fun, and I think the group(s) I'd like to run this game with are full of players that would like the extra options as well.
But for those who didn't, who I wouldn't push to fill those extra feat slots, would it be a problem of feeling like they need to do extra work to keep up? What if those slots could be filled at later level-ups and/or were offered at odd levels instead of even ones? Would it not be a problem of feel to them, even if the extra versatility of others crowded them out a bit?
I imagine I might have to give guidance of some sort to keep problems like that from occurring -- the book itself already mentions that doubling up on a niche does actually increase power sometimes.
Honestly, as long as none of them play alchemists (the one class that really depends on feats to keep up) they probably won't notice the difference. There's a lot of overlap between people who don't want free archetypes and people who don't care about their feats that much in the first place. And because feats are largely things you need to choose to actively use, if you don't remember your feats and what they do they won't make a huge difference in play.
I use a less powerful Free Archetype variant in most of my games, where they get a free feat for an Archetype at L3, L7, and so on.
To answer the concern "what if they don't want to branch out into an archetype?", Ive given them the option of taking a General Feat instead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are running this rule in our game, first PF2e game for us.
So far, it has been a fantastic rule. It has made concepts more complete - we didnt do a free choice but rather the players told me what sort of character they wanted to play and then we went through the options that would congeal that best. It means that they are free to visit concepts such as Hellknight, which cool on paper, generally lackluster mechanically. Much richer an experience, I reccomend it.
Caveat: dont use it to min max.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are running this rule in our game, first PF2e game for us.
So far, it has been a fantastic rule. It has made concepts more complete - we didnt do a free choice but rather the players told me what sort of character they wanted to play and then we went through the options that would congeal that best. It means that they are free to visit concepts such as Hellknight, which cool on paper, generally lackluster mechanically. Much richer an experience, I reccomend it.Caveat: dont use it to min max.
ive tried to u se it to min/max and honestly, i gain very little power most of the time. given how power is always tied to conditional modifiers or action sinks. you can stack a lot of damage, but it wont be fully online until round 3 lol.
Thanks to a lovely Redditor, there is actually some frequency data to answer the original question of this thread!
Surprisingly close to 50% of respondents
Assuming I'm reading this right (the graph is messing up a bit on my phone) 41% of people use Deep Backgrounds, which is the only one that comes close to Free Archetype. Which makes sense to me personally, I haven't used it yet but it's one of the only other ones I've considered.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It makes sense to me.
As I said before, we grafted Free Archetypes onto existing 15th level characters and it just felt great.
Things like damage, health, defences, DC’s, all largely stayed the same. What did increase was our flexibility, build options, action economy, and sheer fun of the characters.
It’s not hard to see why it’s so popular.
|
I have used it in a side game, where my players are all Hell knights and used that as the archetype they had to pick. It's really fun for themed games like that. I believe if you limit what they can choose, I had an idea of doing a prison one where each player has to pick from certain ones such as scrapper, medic, improviser and so on. The players aren't super powerful compared to normal games ,but they have more options in and out of combat. Hope that helps.
Thanks to a lovely Redditor, there is actually some frequency data to answer the original question of this thread!
Some interesting data about a bunch of rules/options/approaches. Interesting alternate options for hero points and in general homebrew rules.