I really like the current design of the Witchwarper because it can satisfy 2 very different crowds of players:
- The beginners, players who dislike complexity and those with low tactical acumen who can ignore the Quantum Field feature and play a 4 slot caster with 8 hp per level and light armor proficiency (which is a very valid character power-wise). They won't get the most out of the class but they don't get the most out of any class anyway.
- The players who like complexity and with high tactical acumen who will engage with the Quantum Field feature which is as of now rather hard to use and complex.
The issue is that the Quantum Field takes a bit too much space by limiting the use of many abilities that don't need to be that limited: Namely your Anchor action and your Warp spells. This limitation prevents the first crowd of players to feel happy about the way they play their Witchwarper as they are far too aware they don't use a significant portion of the class.
Currently, the Anchoring trait does 2 loosely related things:
- It prevents the use of an ability if your Quantum Field is not out
- It Sustains your Quantum Field
So it could be easily split into 2 traits: one indicating that it Sustains your Quantum Field and the other one preventing the use of the ability/spell if your Quantum Field is not out.
Thanks to that change, many baseline abilities of the class could be made available all the time allowing the first crowd of players to play their Witchwarper without engaging with the Quantum Field but still benefitting from most of the class abilities. And as such the 2 crowds of players could be simultaneously satisfied, which is a great deed considering their differences.
As a side note, we will also stop wondering if Anchoring reactions Sustain your Quantum Field and how ;)
These were my 2 cents.
If it is possible to completely ignore a class's defining feature and still perform just as well as anyone else, that class is both overtuned and poorly-designed. I don't play a Barbarian in Pathfinder because I want to never turn on my Rage, nor would I play a Mystic and never touch my vitality network.
The Sorcerer already exists as a generically good 4-slot caster, so I'd rather make Quantum Field more relevant to the Witchwarper and much more impactful too, even at the cost of their generic spell power. In this respect, I think it is fine for the anchoring trait to do two things at once, and I'd personally like to take things even further: as an extreme suggestion, it would be interesting for the Witchwarper's spells to only work inside their Quantum Field, but in exchange the field is a) much larger, b) much more powerful (for instance, it could boost all your attack rolls and spell DCs), and c) could extend the range of any of your spells to wherever the QF is, so even your 30-foot cantrips could hit a target 100 feet away. That would incidentally be a way of having the Anchoring trait do only one thing by itself, in that it would just have the action Sustain your QF.
The Sorcerer already exists as a generically good 4-slot caster
It's SF2, not a new PF2 rulebook. The existence of the Sorcerer doesn't really impact the Witchwarper.
If it is possible to completely ignore a class's defining feature
If it's on the side, it's not more of a defining feature than Shield Block on a Fighter: It is a base to some builds and forgettable for others.
it would be interesting for the Witchwarper's spells to only work inside their Quantum Field
That'd make the class unmanageable from a gamedesign point of view as it's effectiveness will crumble or explode depending on the player tactical acumen.
Anyway, I was not expecting you to agree with me. I don't think our points of view can align as they come from very different places.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I firmly disagree that the Quantum Field should be more optional. Quite the opposite, it should be a lot more worthwhile and encouraged than it is right now. It's the thing that sets apart Witchwarpers from other casters. Saying otherwise is like saying Oracles shouldn't be pushed to use their curses or, for a more apt comparison, Mystics shouldn't be pushed to use their vitality network. If I wanted to play a no frills, simplistic but effective, versatile caster I'd play Wizard Sorcerer. Now I know that SF2 doesn't have Sorcerer, but that is not grounds to create Space Sorcerer. That is explicitly something the Starfriends said they wanted to avoid. Witchwarper shouldn't feel like a simple class. It's an int class for Arazni's sake! You bend reality itself on a more fundamental level than even spellcasters normally can through a mix of innate talent and rigorous practice. The idea that they should be able to just start blasting like Sorcerer goes against what the class is about. If you do want to play a class with solid casting and a straightforward game plan that you'll usually be able to just flowchart with, Mystic has you covered already.
Saying otherwise is like saying Oracles shouldn't be pushed to use their curses
Well, you should take a glance at the remaster then, because it's exactly what happened.
When you design a class, you have to think about both the ceiling and the floor. If the ceiling is too high you break the game. If the floor is too low the class is elitist and will only satisfy a very small portion of the player base.
And complex/difficult classes tend to push the ceiling away from the floor. So the more you put into Quantum Field and the less balanced the Witchwarper will be.
If I wanted to play a no frills, simplistic but effective, versatile caster I'd play Sorcerer.
And also another game. There are no Sorcerers in Starfinder and as of now nothing guarantees there'll ever be.
If you do want to play a class with solid casting and a straightforward game plan that you'll usually be able to just flowchart with, Mystic has you covered already.
On that I fully agree. The Witchwarper should stay a more complex class than the Mystic. Still, it should also be playable by the average Joe.
It's SF2, not a new PF2 rulebook. The existence of the Sorcerer doesn't really impact the Witchwarper.
Yes, it does, as the game intends for compatibility with PF2e and aims to avoid overlap. That is why the Soldier was redesigned to be distinct from the Fighter.
If it's on the side, it's not more of a defining feature than Shield Block on a Fighter: It is a base to some builds and forgettable for others.
It is no more “on the side” than a Barbarian’s Rage or a Witch’s familiar. It is not a side benefit made to aid certain builds and not others, it is the Witchwarper’s central class feature, and its subclasses and feats heavily focus on it.
That'd make the class unmanageable from a gamedesign point of view as its effectiveness will crumble or explode depending on the player tactical acumen.
A class’s effectiveness depending on the player’s skill within reason sounds like good design to me!
Saying otherwise is like saying Oracles shouldn't be pushed to use their cursesWell, you should take a glance at the remaster then, because it's exactly what happened.
When you design a class, you have to think about both the ceiling and the floor. If the ceiling is too high you break the game. If the floor is too low the class is elitist and will only satisfy a very small portion of the player base.
And complex/difficult classes tend to push the ceiling away from the floor. So the more you put into Quantum Field and the less balanced the Witchwarper will be.
I have seen the remastered Oracle and I despise it. I do recognize that it needed changes but Paizo 100% overcorrected. The class is just absolutely nothing now. And even then, you're still very much expected to use your Cursebound actions in your standard gameplay because guess what, they're really good. If a class doesn't feel like itself when you play it, you didn't succeed at accessibility, you failed at design. There's classes dedicated to being simple but effective you can play instead, like Sorcerer. Speaking of...
If I wanted to play a no frills, simplistic but effective, versatile caster I'd play Sorcerer.And also another game. There are no Sorcerers in Starfinder and as of now nothing guarantees there'll ever be.
I repeat. The answer to that isn't to make Space Sorcerer. I do agree that this system should be measured on its own merits instead of as a glorified Pathfinder supplement, but the design team has been very vocal that when it comes to classes they do want to make them unique from Pathfinder's. They don't want to make Space Rogue or Space Cleric or Space Fighter. They want to make new classes with unique selling points that happen to be a new set of core classes. And "simple but effective caster" is a niche we have filled, as I pointed out.
If you do want to play a class with solid casting and a straightforward game plan that you'll usually be able to just flowchart with, Mystic has you covered already.On that I fully agree. The Witchwarper should stay a more complex class than the Mystic. Still, it should also be playable by the average Joe.
Then what's the problem again? If Witches (now a core class) get to have even more micromanagement of their gimmick than pre-remaster, why is it unreasonable to want the same from Witchwarper? Seriously, the familiar abilities are great out of the box and require a lot of your attention. Quantum Field should too.