| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classes biggest differentiator of RPG characters. Starfinder has way too few and a few are uncompelling options. There are already 20+ races with a lot more on the way. We have plenty of backgrounds. There are 2 more classes a year away but let's review the six currently on tap.
Envoy: great class chassis (Team DPS, Skill Monkey), subclasses: 3 good and 2 weak, oddly situational, odd stat requirement subclasses. Strong feats. Best built Dex + Cha
Mystic: great class chassis (Healer, Caster), subclasses: 5 good although some odd stat requirement subclasses. Generally ok feats. Best built Dex + Wis
Operative: at best Mid class chassis (DPS), subclasses: 4 good and 1 situational, strong feats. Best built Dex + YMMV
Solarian: Nice flavor but disappointing class chassis (melee DPS, Tankyness), subclasses: NA, Generally ok feats. Best built Str + Con + Dex
Soldier: Great class chassis (DPS, Tankyness, Debuff), subclasses: 5 good, Generally ok feats (except for lvl1 bombards). Best built Dex + Con
Witchwarper: Nice caster chassis but disappointing Quantum Field pre feats (Debuff, Caster), subclasses: 4 good, Generally good feats. Best built Dex + Int/Cha
So Six classes with 2 being mid at best. People are playing all 6 but the builds are similar. Build wise, other than Solarian, Dex is all but required for defense and offense, so optimal weapons, skills, and armor choices come out the same. I've already had 2 SFS games where everyone in the party had piloting (dex) and no one had survival (wis). Build diversity is in a bad place.
We need more classes and at more than a 2 per year pace. It would be great to have more classes in which DEX was neither the key stat nor the attack stat.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would definitely be nice to have more classes but 6 (8 if you include the 2 playtest classes) is definitely enough to be getting along with for now.
And the classes are significantly more versatile than you're giving credit for. My SF2e experience so far has been completely in SFS (and some of the playtest stuff).
If you start at level 2 or are playing a human then most characters can just about dump Dex if they want (Medium Armor proficiency either via Soldier archetype or general feat). And I've seen characters do exactly that. Either rely on spells or Str and melee attacks assuming you've got some way to get into close combat (eg, flight).
If you think an Operative is Mid you're pretty much wrong. That +2 to hit is huge.
Solarian doesn't seem particularly mid to me either. Can be pure Str based, can use both Str and Dex. Getting Str to damage on ranged (short range, admittedy) and a reaction attack are pretty good features. And I've seen several different builds (reach weapon with shield, dex/Str, pure Str).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your issues with Dex aren't really going to be solved by just more classes, it's kind of baked into the system, Dex was a key stat in PF2 and it's only exacerbated by SF2's extra emphasis on ranged.
I also feel like any potential discussion of class options here is going to get clouded by your very offhand subjective assessments of things. I feel like you either need to explain your thoughts more, or maybe not talk about that at all since which sublcasses are good doesn't really seem to be like the meat of what you want to talk about.
I do generally agree that six classes is kind of a sad opening for the system, especially with some of them not having a lot of built in build variety making them pretty narrow.
... but I guess it's also worth pointing out that there are 27 other classes made for the same system you can go add to your games if you want. That would help variety a lot while waiting for more dedicated SF options.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the reason you have 6 classes in the Player Core book is due to the other 27 classes that work just fine in Starfinder 2e.
Like you can just play a Cleric or a Gunslinger or a Commander or an Exemplar. The important thing about the Starfinder classes is that they let you do something that you couldn't do with a Pathfinder character who has access to Starfinder options.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
SF1 launched with seven classes and didn't add any for a little over two years after launch. SF2 is splitting the difference - we will have one year with one fewer class, followed by one year with one more class.
Starfinder is operating with a smaller team, with a surprise early start due to the OGL crisis, and launching into the dual headwinds of tariffs and distributor bankruptcy. It's managing that by being able to lean on PF2, especially early on. I think it's realistic to say that more early classes would mean cutting something like starship rules from Tech Core.
It's a bit of a bummer, but my PF2 experience was "give the new system two years to really get going." In PF2's case, it was limited ancestry selection making the game a bit dry for a while. SF2 has no issues there, but the classes will take a bit to get going. Once we get the two classes after Tech Core, I think I'll be pretty happy myself.
As for nobody having Survival... that's already my expectation for groups even in PF2, a fantasy game. In a science-fantasy game, I absolutely expect nobody to have such a niche skill. That's where Envoy comes in, with flexible skill feat for skill training or improvised mastery to roll it as if master in it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to wait another got dang year to get SF2 out just to have a couple extra classes on launch I would have rioted. The starting lineup is plenty to get started, and that's not even considering the PF2 compatibility. I am quite impressed with what we got, and could see myself playing every class multiple times.
Either way, getting the system launched earlier rather than later was such a good call that I will forgive a LOT of foibles.
|
|
As for nobody having Survival... that's already my expectation for groups even in PF2, a fantasy game.
I must be strange. Over 1/2 my SF2 characters have survival (admittedly, most of them are mystics so there is a huge incentive to take wisdom based skills). And it has been quite useful in the SFS 2 adventures I've played in so far.
I must be strange. Over 1/2 my SF2 characters have survival (admittedly, most of them are mystics so there is a huge incentive to take wisdom based skills). And it has been quite useful in the SFS 2 adventures I've played in so far.
As for nobody having Survival... that's already my expectation for groups even in PF2, a fantasy game.
Well, I could be the odd one out too, and I'm in campaigns more than Society games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the overall number of classes is a problem (original D&D launched with just three and still did its thing just fine), but each member of the current selection still feels a little awkward, and the lineup doesn't really cover all the essential fantasies one might have about being a space adventurer (cough couch techie classes).
I think, if I had the same time/resource restrictions as the SF2 team, I would have launched with just four classes: envoy, soldier, mystic, and mechanic. I would have been sure to really flesh these options out to be adaptable to multiple character fantasies each, so that you could feasibly have duplicate classes within the party occupying different roles. For example, a soldier could be either a stealth specialist or melee bruiser (only somewhat possible now). All future supplements could build up from this all-purpose core.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
to add to that, the precog was combined with the Witchwarper, so we have 9 of the original 13 Sf1e classes.
Yeah, but ... all that the 1e and 2e Precogs have in common are the name :( The 1e precog was beautiful - playing with predestination with your banked Paradox d20 rolls, interesting and useful applications for even low Paradox rolls, and incredible build diversity: there was support for blasty casters, utility casters and/or off-healer, ranged attackers, or even (my personal favourite) a dodge-tank style melee build.
2e Precog is ... a -5 ft speed penalty to enemies in your zone /cry(Not to detail the thread; I miss the 1e Precog though.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly play SFS so I'm limited to the core starfinder classes and subclasses. The big lure that pathfinder had for me was build diversity. In D&D organized play, it felt like there was 1 optimal way of building each build. You want an archer, these are your class and feats. In PFS, if I want a gish, I can play a magus, warpriest, kineticist and each build plays and feel different. In sfs, I guess Solarian is closest to a gish. I'm sure 5 years from now there will be more and better options but at a 2 year pace, it may take that long.
I get the limited staff argument but we are now getting a second book of ancestries before another class. With 20+ out already, that would not have been my call. The prioritization seems off. Worse, the overreliance on dex based, gun based characters is disappointing and making the classes that exist very samey.
I mostly play SFS so I'm limited to the core starfinder classes and subclasses.
Technomancer and Mechanic are legal in Starfinder Society, although rebuilding once Tech Core launches will be mandatory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your issues with Dex aren't really going to be solved by just more classes, it's kind of baked into the system, Dex was a key stat in PF2 and it's only exacerbated by SF2's extra emphasis on ranged.
I also feel like any potential discussion of class options here is going to get clouded by your very offhand subjective assessments of things. I feel like you either need to explain your thoughts more, or maybe not talk about that at all since which sublcasses are good doesn't really seem to be like the meat of what you want to talk about.
I do generally agree that six classes is kind of a sad opening for the system, especially with some of them not having a lot of built in build variety making them pretty narrow.
... but I guess it's also worth pointing out that there are 27 other classes made for the same system you can go add to your games if you want. That would help variety a lot while waiting for more dedicated SF options.
I believe this is why they made sure to have the technomancer and mechanic play test to go before SF2e core book came out and they are SFS legal. So right off the jump there are 8 playable SF2e specific classes although two of them are going to be getting some changes when the tech book comes out.
I do think one thing that might be compounding it a bit is that the SF2 classes are somewhat narrower than their SF1 counterparts. Soldiers were much more generic, Operatives had more tech options built into their playstyle, technomancers and mystics were easier to gish with, and even Solarians had some weird early lifecycle build variations. With SF2 it's fairly easy to understand what a character might play like only from their class choice, with only a few exceptions.
One decision point I think really kind of sucks here is how SF2 sort of silo'd off melee builds into their own space. The fact that you can't be a melee ghost operative because Paizo decided to make your abilities not work unless you took the melee quarantine subclass hurts build variety a lot, and maybe contributes to that feeling of restrictiveness.
But it also seems somewhat clear to me that they do expect PF2 classes to at least be something you think about, and that one of the reason SF2 classes are so specific is because the more generic versions already exist.
Obviously not every table format is going to accommodate that, but that's kind of a table thing too if class variety is a problem for you.
|
I mostly play SFS so I'm limited to the core starfinder classes and subclasses. The big lure that pathfinder had for me was build diversity. In D&D organized play, it felt like there was 1 optimal way of building each build. You want an archer, these are your class and feats. In PFS, if I want a gish, I can play a magus, warpriest, kineticist and each build plays and feel different. In sfs, I guess Solarian is closest to a gish. I'm sure 5 years from now there will be more and better options but at a 2 year pace, it may take that long.
I get the limited staff argument but we are now getting a second book of ancestries before another class. With 20+ out already, that would not have been my call. The prioritization seems off. Worse, the overreliance on dex based, gun based characters is disappointing and making the classes that exist very samey.
The tech playtest classes are usable in organized play. Now that the playtest is over, it's hard to find the PDF for it if you don't know what to look for, so here is the link
The "Cantina Feel" was one of the top priorities of SF1e players when SF2e was announced, so not surprised that there are more ancestries than classes. SF1e had over 140 playable species. SF2e is only missing 4 classes from SF1e
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think one thing that might be compounding it a bit is that the SF2 classes are somewhat narrower than their SF1 counterparts.
I think you are right, but it might be a good thing too. With PF2e being compatible with SF2e, that's a lot of classes. To have any design room left for more classes, it helps to make them more narrowly focused. It's also easy to add more features to or add new subclasses.
I'm also guessing that, over time, we will see some PF2e classes allowed in SF2e organized play. There's a big difference between allowing a PF2e character in SF2e and making an SF2e character with a PF2e class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think one thing that Paio should do to underline "Pathfinder classes work here" is that in some book or another to create feats, subclasses, etc. for PF2 classes that give them both the tools and also the flavor they would need to fit easily in any SF2 games. You could also do the same thing for the Starfinder classes to fit better in Pathfinder.
This would also be a way to signal like "these classes are good to go" and also highlighting which other classes might not fit easily in the other game without a lot of work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, SFS won't let you use Pathfinder classes?! Like, I forgave the limited class variety in Starfinder because I always figured, "Pathfinder has it covered," especially when a design point of Starfinder classes is not stepping on the toes of Pathfinder classes. With that design decision, it made sense if players were being assumed to bring up Pathfinder classes into Starfinder.
I saw no need for a survival class, for example, because why not just play a Druid or Ranger and give them a gun?
But if you're actively forbidding Pathfinder classes, all that will result in is, well of course, the limited selection, but second, being forbidden from making Starfinder classes that fulfill these niches because Pathfinder has them, effectively locking potential classes out of Starfinder.
SFS really should just allow Pathfinder classes. (And PFS should allow *some* Starfinder classes that fit within the fantasy-steampunk framework).
Having a design philosophy that Starfinder and Pathfinder classes should not step on each others toes is simply not compatible with keeping them entirely separate in organized play.
I'm not really sure how you're picturing it playing out, but I see some downsides to that approach.
- There are three or four times as many PF2 classes as there are SF2 classes. The result would be that people would go in interested in playing SF2, only to find that it's just PF2 2: Now Electric.
- The systems do have different balance and assumptions. Dropping a reach weapon melee Fighter with a large-size reach ancestry into a fight designed around ranged enemies is just going to be a cakewalk in a way that standard martial progression off-stat melee Soldier won't be. Investigator's relatively inoffensive Studied Strike is a lot more of a menace when you hand them a sniper rifle. Thaumaturge gets weird once you move away from a "two hands" assumption. I don't believe that Paizo has the time to pore over all those PF2 classes and handle all the edge cases that are going to be a problem. People do also play stronger things more, so the broken edge cases would be over-represented.
- It's a means a lot of system bleed. Having Swashbuckler means certain skill feats must be in SF2. Having Alchemist means all the alchemy items need to be in the system.
- I expect a lot of GMs wouldn't want to deal with two games at once, even if it's the same underlying engine.
Overall, it seems like an experience that would give new folks a poor impression of Starfinder, and I'd expect a lot of posts complaining about how they should be separated again, at least for Society.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see it this way:
The devs changed the soldier and operative specifically so they wouldn't be "the fighter in space" and "the rogue in space". All well and good.
However, in games without the Pathfinder classes, such as SFS, you no longer have a fighter or rogue. The soldier kind of covers fighter, but not really. Likewise, either the operative or envoy kind of cover rogue, but not really.
There's just big holes in SF2E's class design space that the devs have plugged with the existing Pathfinder classes, if you're in a game where you're allowed to play them.
And if the systems are meant to be interbalanced, why aren't they allowed in SFS?
Or vice versa?
I dunno. For most things the trappings rarely seem to matter and the underlying mechanics are largely similar.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One decision point I think really kind of sucks here is how SF2 sort of silo'd off melee builds into their own space. The fact that you can't be a melee ghost operative because Paizo decided to make your abilities not work unless you took the melee quarantine subclass hurts build variety a lot, and maybe contributes to that feeling of restrictiveness.
I loathe it when they do this. It's easily my biggest pet peeve when they design new classes.
Let the options breathe!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- There are three or four times as many PF2 classes as there are SF2 classes. The result would be that people would go in interested in playing SF2, only to find that it's just PF2 2: Now Electric.
I mean it is, but also the opening premise of this was a player who didn't want to play any of the Starfinder classes. So this reads more like a solution than a problem.
The systems do have different balance and assumptions.
Marginally, but mostly in terms at what levels certain options come online, and most of those options favor Starfinder anyways. The underlying math and most of the mechanical guidelines are literally the same. The idea that they're operating on totally different wavelengths is super overblown.
It's a means a lot of system bleed.
Is it system bleed if we're just talking about two different things built for the same system?
Like it sounds like you're just sort of arguing against splatbooks in general.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Compatability between the systems is a bonus, but SF2 is intended to stand on its own. A pure SF2 experience should feel different than a pure PF2 experience and from a hybrid experience. It will take a bit for the options to be fleshed out; PF2E has quite a few more books to work with.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one reason we don't have PF2e classes in SF2e organized play yet is that the devs want to give Starfinder a chance to be Starfinder first. To that end, it's likely only a few PF2e classes at a time would be added in. For one, I think the investigator makes more sense in SF2e than PF2e. Although it could use some updated features to fit the flavor more. I think the fighter would be great for Vesk Doshko honor guard. I like the idea of PF2e rouges in SF2e, so we have a rogue that is not also a hacker, at least not as a class feature.
For organized play, I think the biggest issue is not access to PF2e classes or ancestries; it's that the organized play rules are not compatible between SF2e and PF2e.
I have lots of interesting ideas for characters with just the classes we have now, and I never even got around to playing all the classes in SF1e. So I'm in no hurry for more classes than I can play. But anytime you have a new game, there are fewer options, so I try to build characters that we have not wanted. I wish we had, and I'm never disappointed. I still like getting new options, but I'm not in a rush for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the game's compressed development timeline, 6 classes was probably too much already to be able to release them and an entire core book in a polished state. As much as I would've liked to see the Technomancer in particular released as part of the base game, I honestly feel the developers already had more than enough on their plate already, and could have benefited significantly from more time and onboarding to 2e as a system.
I do agree as well that melee builds in SF2e are strangely siloed in a way that isn't really mirrored in Pathfinder: although PF2e generally assumes melee by default, its way of enabling ranged builds is usually via a 1st-level feat, such as the Monk's Monastic Archer Stance. By contrast, Starfinder forces you to commit your subclass, and that I don't think is the most conducive to build diversity. This I think is one of those instances of 1e design prevailing over 2e, and I feel this kind of problem is going to remain baked into SF2e for a long while.
|
|
Another reason I don't think we will see mixing classes in organized play soon is that devs on both sides of the fence had to wait for Sf2e to be out before doing a lot of testing on how to mix it. There was some of that in the play test, but you really need the final version to test it right. Also gives the player base time to try it out on their own and give feedback, before anything official is done. Meanwhile, I think there are a lot of interesting options to try out right now.
I do think the SF2e universe is one that still has PF2e classes, for sure, the Cleric being the most obvious example. I can understand organized play keeping content separate for the foreseeable future, though, because it'd be a bit sad for Starfinder classes to be made obsolete by existing content that's much more fleshed-out. The Mystic I think has a good chance to stay relevant (in fact, I think they'd be an excellent addition to Pathfinder as well), and the Soldier I think has the raw statistical power to still be picked, but the other four classes I could see getting all too easily sidelined in favor of Bards, Commanders, Fighters, Rogues, and Sorcerers.
I think in a sf2e environment witchwarpers likely would still be a popular pick even with other casters around. Stuff like everybody in a giant area friendly concealed/have cover or enemies treat everything as difficult terrain that can be upgraded to basically be a 100 foot field of immobility is a pretty damn powerful tool.
Also with creative use of the field witchwarpers can have very long range to their spell casting and most of the field effects are very party friendly where you can do things like exclude the squares your party is in and then do an aoe that only effects things inside the field.
Witchwarpers have to be at the top or near top of battlefield control and unlike most casters their feats are really good.
Wouldn't PF2 classes being options unlocked via whatever their play credit system is called an ideal solution?
Stuff like everybody in a giant area friendly concealed/have cover or enemies treat everything as difficult terrain that can be upgraded to basically be a 100 foot field of immobility is a pretty damn powerful tool.
That 100-foot field only comes online from level 19, so that's about 2 levels of extremely excessive power on a class that otherwise never really manages to connect their gimmick to their spellcasting, at least not in my experience. There are some feats that are genuinely quite overtuned, like Twisted Dark Zone and Complete Transposition (especially post-level 19), but I don't think that necessarily makes the class feel especially interesting or smooth to play, as opposed to the Mystic blending Transfer Vitality quite smoothly alongside their spells.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't PF2 classes being options unlocked via whatever their play credit system is called an ideal solution?
I believe that the OP staff have indicated that more PF2 content will come online eventually through boons, but we'll have to wait and see what kind of timeframe that involves.
IMO, one of the biggest arguments for not opening the floodgates between the two OP campaigns immediately is that SF2 is new for ALL GMs right now, even the ones who have run PF2 for years. In a home game, the GM has more control over how much material from the other system to allow, and playing with the same people long-term makes it easier to know what those PCs are capable of and how they work. But in OP, every session is potentially an all-new mix of players and PCs. Give everyone some time to learn SF2 as its own thing before you start to ease in the non-native stuff.
Conversely, not all PF2 GMs will (or will want to) make the same effort to become familiar with SF2 content so they'll need time to adapt, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly play SFS so I'm limited to the core starfinder classes and subclasses. The big lure that pathfinder had for me was build diversity. In D&D organized play, it felt like there was 1 optimal way of building each build. You want an archer, these are your class and feats. In PFS, if I want a gish, I can play a magus, warpriest, kineticist and each build plays and feel different. In sfs, I guess Solarian is closest to a gish. I'm sure 5 years from now there will be more and better options but at a 2 year pace, it may take that long.
I get the limited staff argument but we are now getting a second book of ancestries before another class. With 20+ out already, that would not have been my call. The prioritization seems off. Worse, the overreliance on dex based, gun based characters is disappointing and making the classes that exist very samey.
I think comparing Starfinder 2e as it is now to Pathfinder 2e as it is now is somewhat of an unfair comparison. Starfinder 2e's Player Core only released 73 days ago. Comparing that to a system which is over six years old at this point in "how many options are there?" is somewhat unfair (You even said yourself it'll be better in the future).
NOTE: Now, this isn't to say five years from now SF2 will have as much stuff on its own as PF2 had by that point, as just unfortunately SF has always gotten around half as much stuff as PF and it doesn't look like the new edition is gonna change that (It's not like SF2 is getting a seperate "Desna's Spiral" line on top of its main Rulebook line like PF2 gets), but still just pointing out it feels weird to complain "This system has way too few options on release" and then bring up a class option which didn't exist until 4 years into PF2's lifespan as an example on how this is an especially unique issue for SF2.
I think in a sf2e environment witchwarpers likely would still be a popular pick even with other casters around. Stuff like everybody in a giant area friendly concealed/have cover or enemies treat everything as difficult terrain that can be upgraded to basically be a 100 foot field of immobility is a pretty damn powerful tool.
Also with creative use of the field witchwarpers can have very long range to their spell casting and most of the field effects are very party friendly where you can do things like exclude the squares your party is in and then do an aoe that only effects things inside the field.
Witchwarpers have to be at the top or near top of battlefield control and unlike most casters their feats are really good.
Their focus spells are way ahead of most PF2 focus spells, too. The downside is needing to have the QF active and juggling the anchoring trait to make it most useful (casting a focus spell in round 2 is optimal for QF maintenance, but many of them are 2 actions and lock out regular spellcasting you may need or 1a like the precog temp HP that you may want up as soon as possible in round 1 when the free anchoring sustain is useless).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Starfinder is just sort of doomed to get a portion of what Pathfinder gets, even if they started at the same rate, unless Starfinder really does pick up some traction. The compatibility helps, I mean, it has me winding up to run Guilt of the Graveworld. But really the only reason I'm humoring it is because it's compatible enough, and if it was much more incompatible, I'd have entirely ignored it. But my next plan is Pathfinder, so. If I couldn't allow all Pathfinder classes and most Pathfinder ancestries, I'd have not bothered. A well-oiled conversion system is what it'll take to keep the Pathfinder 2E players coming back to using Starfinder stuff.
But for example, even if they started at the same pace, Pathfinder simply gets more. The Pathfinder Core Rulebook had 12 classes, with 4 more the following year in the Advanced Player's Guide. Starfinder began with 6 classes with only 2 more planned for next year. (But granted, if Starfinder began with 12 classes, that'd be problematic for coming years, as Starfinder only had 13 classes, reduced to 12 if we combine Precog and Witchwarper, which means if Starfinder began with 12, we'd have the entire 1E roster day 1, with everything the following years having to be entirely new. It's a valid strategy, as it gives Paizo a 3-year buffer before they have to figure out completely new classes)
Starfinder also does sort of make up for it by giving ancestries at a faster rate than Pathfinder, though.
I do like how they are leaning all the way in on ancestries. I think of all the things I would immeditely okay poaching from PF2 though is ancestries. There are a whole bunch of really neat PF2 races that would be hard to really mesh with most campaigns that would be dead simple to integrate in SF2. Take the aquatic races environmental suites built into nearly all armor means right from the jump they are totally viable in any adventure. Then you get weirder stuff like the automata, conrasu and some of the more odd ball ones again are a lot easier sell in a science fantasy setting where they are just one more person in a sea of diversity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel this is one of many instances of ambiguity as a result of sloppy writing: it seems like the intent from the very beginning is for the Witchwarper to choose who's affected or not by their quantum field and by extension any effect associated with it (including spells affected by Isolated Spell Matrix). RAW, however, you would still be affected by the spell at 3rd level, because you'd still be in the quantum field, even if you'd be excluded from its other effects. It's only at 19th level that you'd be able to immunize your teammates by excluding squares they're occupying from your field.
I feel this is one of many instances of ambiguity as a result of sloppy writing: it seems like the intent from the very beginning is for the Witchwarper to choose who's affected or not by their quantum field and by extension any effect associated with it (including spells affected by Isolated Spell Matrix). RAW, however, you would still be affected by the spell at 3rd level, because you'd still be in the quantum field, even if you'd be excluded from its other effects. It's only at 19th level that you'd be able to immunize your teammates by excluding squares they're occupying from your field.
Even if a GM rules that way you would still be able to shift the field so you could use big aoe spells even at basically point blank range. As long as your people are just outside the field drop what you want in it and they would be unscathed. This lets you use some big booms in narrow hallways/cooridors without risking making your own party uncomfortably crispy. Then once the spell goes off your team mates would be free to step into the field to gain the positive benefits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shifting the field requires spending an action just to Sustain; it is not something you can just do in an encounter with no opportunity cost. Because the area is a burst, the problem of affecting all the enemies you want while protecting all the allies you want is also not always solved just by moving it around. The combination of both mechanics does certainly allow the Witchwarper to protect their allies and extend the range of their spells, but the process is nonetheless costlier and less efficient than more specialized effects like Safe Elements.