List your possible exploits

[Ixal]

While most threads in the playtest are discussing the intended use of rules, lets talk about the unintended uses, a.k.a exploits.

What type of possible exploits have you noticed with the mech rules, even if they are just theoretical and depend on GM interpretation?

One thing would be if a character has a huge power armor, thus is the same size as a mech to use the mechs build points to make a level appropriate weapon for himself.

[Ixal]

You could use Baelful Polymorph and voluntarily fail the safe to reduce the size category of a mech to large, thus making it useable during normal adventuring.

[avr]

A rocket launcher in siege mode reduces movement to 10'. Teleporting works just fine in that mode though. Not sure if this is intended.

[Ixal]

As mechs are vehicles and vehicles are apparently classified as objects (making the above mentioned polymorph exploit impossible) they would be very vulnerable to the discharge spell which would instantly depower them without a save.

The optimize technology spell would repair a mech completely for 10 UPB as you only need to repair a single HP for it to become fully healed.

[Garretmander]

Ixal wrote:

As mechs are vehicles and vehicles are apparently classified as objects (making the above mentioned polymorph exploit impossible) they would be very vulnerable to the discharge spell which would instantly depower them without a save.

The optimize technology spell would repair a mech completely for 10 UPB as you only need to repair a single HP for it to become fully healed.

Or cast make whole.

I dunno about discharge removing PP though, it says charges, not PP. That said, a clarification in the final rules about spells and their interactions with mechs would be very much appreciated.

[Ixal]

Garretmander wrote:

Ixal wrote:

As mechs are vehicles and vehicles are apparently classified as objects (making the above mentioned polymorph exploit impossible) they would be very vulnerable to the discharge spell which would instantly depower them without a save.

The optimize technology spell would repair a mech completely for 10 UPB as you only need to repair a single HP for it to become fully healed.

Or cast make whole.

I dunno about discharge removing PP though, it says charges, not PP. That said, a clarification in the final rules about spells and their interactions with mechs would be very much appreciated.

If a device does not has charges it is instantly powered down for 1d4 rounds.

[Raia of Jabask]

You have several threads all based on a single faulty premise. Since the foundation is faulty, all of the threads are faulty.

[Ixal]

Raia of Jabask wrote:

You have several threads all based on a single faulty premise. Since the foundation is faulty, all of the threads are faulty.

You don't seem to have anything constructive to add.

[Raia of Jabask]

Actually, under your 'are mechs creatures' thread, I just added items that refute your entire hypothesis. You are the one without anything constructive in these threads. You just repeat your hypothesis, take it as proven, and then create problems off of that which do not actually exist.

[NightTrace]

Mechs are not a valid target for Baleful polymorph.

[Ixal]

Raia of Jabask wrote:

Actually, under your 'are mechs creatures' thread, I just added items that refute your entire hypothesis. You are the one without anything constructive in these threads. You just repeat your hypothesis, take it as proven, and then create problems off of that which do not actually exist.

If you are not able to read my posts, don't comment on them.

There are problems no matter how you rule as either mechs are affected by things they shouldn't, but work in combat, or they are not affected by spells which should affect them while other spells have clearly unintended side effects.

[Raia of Jabask]

Are there issues for gameplay? Yes. And some of them will need to be worked out. Can baleful polymorph be used on a mech, since it is a creature (your hypothesis for over half of the issues you raise)? No, because it is NOT a creature, it is a vehicle. It is explicitly stated as being treated as a vehicle in the playtest rules.

If you are willing to concede and drop that particular dead horse, then perhaps we can have a productive discussion on what needs to change about spell targets, but as far as the definition of creature, it is not nearly as vague as you try to make it.

[Ixal]

Raia of Jabask wrote:

Are there issues for gameplay? Yes. And some of them will need to be worked out. Can baleful polymorph be used on a mech, since it is a creature (your hypothesis for over half of the issues you raise)? No, because it is NOT a creature, it is a vehicle. It is explicitly stated as being treated as a vehicle in the playtest rules.

If you are willing to concede and drop that particular dead horse, then perhaps we can have a productive discussion on what needs to change about spell targets, but as far as the definition of creature, it is not nearly as vague as you try to make it.

I have conceded it in the 4th post already in this thread. Read.

But there are still problems. See the discharge spell. Its a safe or suck for mechs.
Or how several damaging spells do not work against objects (which vehicles are also).
And a single spell completely negates the need to spend money on repair for mechs. (And another spell makes repairing mechs to full instant) if you classify them as objects.

[Raia of Jabask]

Issues which I have been addressing in other threads you started. My initial objection was that you had too many threads that you started on essentially the same subject.

However, since this is perhaps the better thread to keep going, I will repeat things here.

Discharge spell would, at most, disable a mech for 1d4 rounds. It is not power armor operating off of a battery, it is a vehicle with a power plant. Since there are a number of spells that can do the same thing to PCs, most of which I only hear complaints about when the particular PC gets hit with them, I do not consider that effect overpowered.

Since the issue with other spells that you mention is a general issue with vehicles (as you state), it is something to be resolved outside the playtest.

Show me any point in the mech rules where a cost for repairs is listed. Mechs are built like starships, using build points granted by the GM. This means that no PC can decide on his own that he wants to get a mech, and force the GM to deal with the issues. This also means that no player resources are lost if a mech is destroyed other than any post destruction battlefield issues. And further, it means that the GM is perfectly free to say 'oh, your scout mech got heavily damaged? Here, have a combat frame.'

[Ixal]

Raia of Jabask wrote:

Show me any point in the mech rules where a cost for repairs is listed. Mechs are built like starships, using build points granted by the GM. This means that no PC can decide on his own that he wants to get a mech, and force the GM to deal with the issues. This also means that no player resources are lost if a mech is destroyed other than any post destruction battlefield issues. And further, it means that the GM is perfectly free to say 'oh, your scout mech got heavily damaged? Here, have a combat frame.'

Page 15 above the header

Restoring lost Hit Points is fairly difficult and resource intensive. You can restore a number of Hit Points equal to twice the mech’s tier by spending 1 hour performing repairs, succeeding at an Engineering check (DC = 10 + 1-1/2 times the mech’s tier), and expending 10 UPBs per point of damage to be repaired. If you exceed the check’s DC by 5 or more, you can reduce the repair time by half or the UPB cost by half. If you exceed the check’s DC by 10 or more, you instead reduce the time and cost by half. If you fail the check by 4 or less, you choose either to make no progress or to increase the UPB cost per Hit Point by 5 for that hour’s repairs. If you fail by 5 or more, you make no progress

[Raia of Jabask]

Okay, so the difference between expending healing items to patch up your buddy, or having the mystic/envoy do the healing. Hmm. 10 credits per mech HP plus half an hour's time to restore tier hp, no limit on how many hours per day, versus one time per day heal HP equal to level. Looks to me like mechs are easier to fix without magic than a PC, so why shouldn't they be about as easy, or maybe a little easier with magic?

[Ixal]

Raia of Jabask wrote:

Okay, so the difference between expending healing items to patch up your buddy, or having the mystic/envoy do the healing. Hmm. 10 credits per mech HP plus half an hour's time to restore tier hp, no limit on how many hours per day, versus one time per day heal HP equal to level. Looks to me like mechs are easier to fix without magic than a PC, so why shouldn't they be about as easy, or maybe a little easier with magic?

Because when you make already make rules that you have to spend money on repairs, having a single spell bypass that is not a very good design as it makes this spell much more useful than originally intended.

It also means that in the future Paizo can never create a spell that heals an objects HP with a standard action as that would mean you could instantly heal mechs.
Currently there is none, but imo the danger that they want to create something like that in the future is there.

Also, which 3rd level spell which stuns for 1d4 rounds do you mean? The closest I know is Greater Synaptic Pulse which is aoe but also higher level and as it has no friend or foe detection harder to use.

[Raia of Jabask]

I did not say 'stun', I said disable. Read. To meet the conditions of equivalency, the spell would need to render a PC unable to act effectively for 1-4 rounds. 2nd level Mystic spell Hold Person paralyzes a single target for 1 round per level (meaning a minimum of 3 rounds, barring saves, exceeding the average for Discharge at its lowest possible duration without saves). In addition there are a number of creature special attacks which have similar effects. Further, Discharge does not prevent the pilot from opening up the hatch and firing their personal weapon or casting spells.

Regarding your first paragraph, so Mystic Cure is bad design? You should only use the long term recovery rules, since they exist? There is a cost to having caster levels in a party, part of which is sitting around being bored a lot of the time if you built solely for casting, much like soldiers tend to get bored in diplomatic situations. The game is trade-offs, not wish fulfillment. And it shouldn't be designed around 'the worst possible solution to every problem is the only one you can use'. That solution is there for when the GM is being not kind and you didn't choose to get access to any other, better solutions. Not kind means that the GM doesn't decide to handwave the damage with 'well, your mech is going to be out of service for a while. Give me a perception check. Okay, that pile of boulders over there? Turns out it's a partially buried, but otherwise functional mech. It will take one man hour of digging and a DC 15 Engineering check to get it working.' Perfectly possible given that mechs are granted by GM fiat. If I want you to have a mech for the next encounter, you will have one.

And for the second paragraph? It just means that such a spell would have to be higher than 2nd level. There is a long history in d20 of higher level spells doing things faster or better than similar lower level spells.

[Ixal]

Raia of Jabask wrote:

I did not say 'stun', I said disable. Read. To meet the conditions of equivalency, the spell would need to render a PC unable to act effectively for 1-4 rounds. 2nd level Mystic spell Hold Person paralyzes a single target for 1 round per level (meaning a minimum of 3 rounds, barring saves, exceeding the average for Discharge at its lowest possible duration without saves). In addition there are a number of creature special attacks which have similar effects. Further, Discharge does not prevent the pilot from opening up the hatch and firing their personal weapon or casting spells.

Regarding your first paragraph, so Mystic Cure is bad design? You should only use the long term recovery rules, since they exist? There is a cost to having caster levels in a party, part of which is sitting around being bored a lot of the time if you built solely for casting, much like soldiers tend to get bored in diplomatic situations. The game is trade-offs, not wish fulfillment. And it shouldn't be designed around 'the worst possible solution to every problem is the only one you can use'. That solution is there for when the GM is being not kind and you didn't choose to get access to any other, better solutions. Not kind means that the GM doesn't decide to handwave the damage with 'well, your mech is going to be out of service for a while. Give me a perception check. Okay, that pile of boulders over there? Turns out it's a partially buried, but otherwise functional mech. It will take one man hour of digging and a DC 15 Engineering check to get it working.' Perfectly possible given that mechs are granted by GM fiat. If I want you to have a mech for the next encounter, you will have one.

And for the second paragraph? It just means that such a spell would have to be higher than 2nd level. There is a long history in d20 of higher level spells doing things faster or better than similar lower level spells.

Except that Hold Person allows a save every turn and there are ways to remove conditions. That makes it much weaker as discharge, especially as that spell takes out a very strong enemy.

And when recovering HP costs money then yes, Mystic Cure would be a bad design as it would widen the gap between groups who have it and groups who don't a lot, especially as because of the wealth by level guideline money is a important resource.

And no, even a spell higher than 2nd level would be problematic as in combination with Optimize Technology it would act as a D&D 3E heal spell in a system not designed to have abilities like that. The gap between groups who have those spells and who do not would be gigantic and every mech combat could be won by attrition as it is also hard to counter unless you have a non mech enemy cast dispel magic on the mech and you need to have one of those enemies in basically every mech combat.

[Raia of Jabask]

I disagree on the strength of not allowing a save every turn versus allowing a save every turn when the maximum duration is four turns, and the average is 2 1/2 turns. As for removing conditions, that requires specialized abilities or gear.

What part of GM FIAT do you not understand? Mechs are not something PCs buy with money. Starships are not things that PCs buy with money. They do not affect wealth by level calculations, and you don't have any guarantee that they will be available at all times. The GM says that you have x points to build a mech with, or hands you a premade mech. They shouldn't have a charge when you turn them back in for repairs. You are focusing on a trivial section and making it a part of the Rocky Mountains.

There are no indications that Mechs will be allowed as anything other than throw-aways in Society play, much like the vehicles that some scenarios hand out. And potential effects on Scenario rewards are something to be handled on a scenario by scenario basis.

Who cares if my home campaign level 10 party has more wealth than your level 10 home campaign party? House rules alone are going to make differences in powers and no reasonable player should assume that they can just bring in a character from another campaign without alterations. The only place that is an expectation is in Society play, and this is not (explicitly not, since they are not being allowed in society play for this playtest) a test of how they work in Society play.

[Raia of Jabask]

Recovering HP without magic takes time, which in many ways is more valuable than money. Have you ever had to use the long-term recovery rules? Talk about something that will take a character out of action for a long time, that is measured in days, not rounds.

And as for the importance of money? I've run multiple APs, and looted gear provides almost all of the equipment used. The non-AP home games I've been in don't have much use for credits either. So I disagree on money's importance outside of Society play.

[Ixal]

No idea why you bring in building mechs into this. The rules are about repairing them. And if you use GM Fiat to gloss over things you frankly should not do a playtest. The goal is to ensure that the rules work and you don't achieve that by ignoring rules during testing.

For whatever reason Paizo decided that healing mech costs money. A combination of spells can remove this need with far less spells required than normally. And there is the big danger than at some point Paizo will introduce something for a quick HP boost on mechs which will cause an unintended synergy with Optimize Technology. Maybe it won't happen, but it also means that this single spell is limiting the possible options that can be added.

Discharge as it is now is a D&D 3E save or suck spell, something Paizo actively avoided even in Pathfinder. The only reason discharge is written the way it is was because objects were originally not intended as combatants. With mechs this changes (technically it worked against vehicles before, but combat with vehicles was always an afterthought so far).

[Kent Hawk]

A few spells are mentioned that might allow for the full repair of a mech at no cost but I see a small issue with one of them:

Make Whole: Can target constructs of any size (mechs are not constructs) or objects up to 1 bulk/level. That means even at 20th level the caster could only just affect a medium-sized battle harness power armor from the Core Rulebook and I would think Mechs are bigger than that.
In case someone wanted to use the spell Shrink Object from Character Operations Manual there are still issues with the choice of target. At 6th level the spell does allow up to 160 bulk of object to be affected, there is also a limit of 16 cubic feet and that is again a bit small for a mech.

Optimize technology: This spell can target vehicles of any size so this might actually work.

[Raia of Jabask]

Ixal wrote:

No idea why you bring in building mechs into this. The rules are about repairing them. And if you use GM Fiat to gloss over things you frankly should not do a playtest. The goal is to ensure that the rules work and you don't achieve that by ignoring rules during testing.

I bring it up because the particular horse that you are flogging right now is that having cheaper and faster methods to repair mechs affects WBL. And I am pointing out the reasons why, in actual game play, it is a non-issue. The initial mech does not come out of WBL. A replacement mech does not come out of WBL. People who plan for it can repair their mechs at no long term costs, even if the GM decides to make them pay for repairs. And those horrendous costs to repair? The mostly fit well within a character's expendables budget, even if they didn't plan ahead.

A Tier 1 mech, available at 2nd level unless the GM overrides the rules, or there are 2 or more operators, has about 10hp. So it costs 100 credits to fix from destroyed or nearly destroyed, around the price of a level 1 fusion seal or 2 Mk 1 serums of healing, which would heal an average of 9 hp to a pc, with no guarantee of more than 2hp. So a fixed repair cost that is about the same as expendables that average slightly less healing, and have no guarantee of hitting average. Now, if the party has a Mystic handy, they can fix that pc up with a few castings of spells for no WBL consequences. And if the party has a Technomancer who has chosen to set up for mech repair rather than any of the other options they have, they can fix the mech with a couple of spells for no WBL cost. Your argument basically boils down to 'I didn't think to pick up the cheap option, so no one should be able to'. Mine boils down to 'the expensive option is about in line with a non-optimized party's cost to patch up a PC'.

I happen to think that my argument is the more relevant for overall play balance. The objective shouldn't be everyone is on the same level within the mech rules, regardless of how well they plan, but rather is this out of line with the existing rules set for a similar level of optimization. Nobody can stay within the general rules system and optimize everything. You have to choose strengths and weaknesses, and every party or player is going to have to choose what they prioritize, and therefore be on uneven footing with another party, depending on circumstances. And we aren't just testing the mech rules against themselves, but against the entire game system.