The setting I'm making has an overabundance of magical power, so the Ancestral Paragon variant rule sounded like a solid starting point. My main idea was to allow the players to take two heritages, limited to one versatile for everyone and one half-elf/orc for humans. (That means Half-Orc Human Dhampir is legal.) Two heritages that counteract each other are blocked, but I don't see anyone doing that on purpose.
The first of the other ideas I had was to allow someone to replace the second heritage (and the second 1st level ancestry feat) with an archetype dedication (only 2nd level). My main question on this is: would allowing them to take the class feats of that dedication in place of AP's additional ancestry feats (3, 7, 11, 15, 19) be too strong by comparison to the extra heritage? I think it is, but I'm not sure how to tone it down. Maybe limit it to only two in ancestry "slots"?
The second idea is to allow a mutation heritage as replacement to the versatile one. The character has been born with a physical characteristic of a different born ancestry (no Leshies or other made ancestries) and can then take physical/biological/magical feats of that ancestry (the opposite of Adopted Ancestry) as normal. That gives us mutants like Unbreakable Kobold and Taloned Elf.
I feel the mutant one is safe, but I might be overlooking something. Anyone have thoughts about this?
Ancestry feats are notably weaker than class feats (once a day casts, half damage on breath weapons, etc), so allowing them to take class feats in ancestry slots will result in something markedly more powerful than those taking ancestry feats
As far as allowing physical ancestry feats across races, they normally have chains through ancestry to keep improving those feats. If you are allowing multiple ancestry feats per unlock, you will end up with a lot of magical empowered, lucky, flying creatures, and you are likely to end up with a fairly homogenised party with similar mutations and ancestry feats for the utility they bring to the table, with some reserved for roleplay purposes
It would still only be one per odd level except two at 1st (the actual Ancestry Paragon rule), but I am seeing the potential problem of the mutation system now. Would limiting it to just the relevant feats to the mutation (the feats that have the heritage as a prereq) keep it in line?
At this point, I feel just giving a free dedication and the (non-mutant) second heritage would be easier to keep track of.
It would still only be one per odd level except two at 1st (the actual Ancestry Paragon rule), but I am seeing the potential problem of the mutation system now. Would limiting it to just the relevant feats to the mutation (the feats that have the heritage as a prereq) keep it in line?
Probably not, as if they want the benefit, they will just target the relevant heritages. It's why the versatile ancestry system requires that the player take the versatile ancestry as their heritage, as that tend to open up possibilities while locking out potentially problematic cross feats
At this point, I feel just giving a free dedication and the (non-mutant) second heritage would be easier to keep track of.
Maybe even just look at normal ancestry rules, and grant a free heritage and maybe a magically inclined low level ancestry magical feat, or selection of low level magically inclined magical feats. Easier to record and keep track of than two ancestries and two classes.
I'm most concerned about players feeling redundant; a small homebrew magic quirk feat is better for the long run. In that case, the AP rule won't break anything.
One thing I am absolutely changing though is giving something to ancestries with darkvision taking the VH, even if it's just better darkvision.
See this is why I posted this, I needed to be talked out of making things way too complicated.
One thing I am absolutely changing though is giving something to ancestries with darkvision taking the VH, even if it's just better darkvision.
It's weird that Paizo didn't specify "if you have darkvision, you get greater darkvision" themselves. It can't be that they consider greater darkvision too powerful, dwarves can get it with a 5th-level ancestry feat (Defy the Darkness)....
I'm most concerned about players feeling redundant;
What do you mean redundant? That their choices made are not meaningful or something else?
One thing I am absolutely changing though is giving something to ancestries with darkvision taking the VH, even if it's just better darkvision.
Why?
By redundant, I mean the homogeneity issue. If everyone's character can all do the same things, what makes their character special? That's why I like your low-level magic feat idea; so much simpler and I can make it fit the setting easily.
The darkvision thing just feels like an oversight. Normal vision get low-light and feats (including dark), low-light get dark and feats, but Dwarfs and Orcs give up the same heritage (and possible feats) for just feat access. The cost doesn't feel equal and, if it were just better darkvision, then the feat would upgrade for low-light ancestries too (and anyone crazy enough to want to spend two feats from the normal sight).
Most players, once they have darkvision, will select either for roleplay or feats. There is no real reason to muck around with improving/substituting something for those races that already have darkvision.
In terms of balance as well, Greater Darkvision sees through magical darkness, which can dramatically change some encounters. It's generally reserved for higher than starting levels
I could just have it be delayed to fifth level then. As Fuzzy said, Dwarfs get it as a feat then.
The question is, do you REALLY want to? Having enemies that can utilise darkness effectively is a great utility for a GM, especially at low to mid levels. The feat is an uncommon from an adventure path from memory, and so not something most players would naturally have access to.
I feel like if it's just one player, it's not a problem; enemies can still use it to limit the party and might realize which one isn't falling for it. If most of the party decides to be dwarfs and orcs just to take it, then, yes, I'd go with something smaller and more thematic, like Dhampir Orcs getting their bite for free.
The question is, do you REALLY want to? Having enemies that can utilise darkness effectively is a great utility for a GM, especially at low to mid levels. The feat is an uncommon from an adventure path from memory, and so not something most players would naturally have access to.
Nope, it's from the APG. Well, I suppose it might also be an uncommon in some pre-APG AP.
EDIT: And the feat does make you give up (via oath) the ability to use darkness effects yourself, so you can't just spam darkness effects... but as I read it you can put up with your allies doing so as long as you don't encourage them.