Where's The Old Exocortex?

[DeltaPangaea]

For those unaware, 1e Starfinder Mechanic had two options. It went with a Drone, or an Exocortex. The exocortex personally improved *you*, made you more martially capable, let you target lock people, and allowed you to install a number of upgrades in yourself as you progressed, as well as do some extra nifty hacking with free actions solely for that. A number of Mechanic Tricks affected your drone or just you depending on if you took drone or exocortex.

Why is this completely, entirely absent here? Instead we have two Deployable Friends, one that walks and one that has a bigger gun, and... mines. SPECIFICALLY mines. Not overall demolition with one option being mines, just mines. Mines that 90% of the time are going to be flung directly at people and immediately detonated, especially since Double Deployment apparently just lets you ignore the extra action needed to throw them.

Inventor already has a mechanical companion option, *which also has the option to turn into a turret*. Why they gotta be separate?

Look I'm not here to talk down to anyone who enjoys the current options, and *mechanically* yes I'm sure turret and drone are very distinct, but you've taken a class that previously let you delve into the tech-savvy self-improving cyborg hackerman fighty engineer fantasy and made it 100% about deployables, two of which are conceptually nearly the same and one that's going to be Bombs With An Extra Step most of the time. And Modify I suppose which just feels empty to me. One round does not satisfy the desire to modify and improve equipment, nor does waiting until level 13 to make ONE permanent.

So if we're not getting that tech-savvy self-improving hackerman fighty engineer with mechanic... why? What did it do to offend you?

[Milo v3]

I imagine the issue is that "Use tech to enhance by combat abilities" may look too close to the inventor doing that with it's overdrive.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

I think the simplest answer is just that it's an entirely different class in an entirely different system.

SF2E and PF2E by extension try a lot harder to justify a unique mechanical niche for each class than any 1e game did. The soldier is not "fighter in space" anymore, with a million options to play with any kind of weapon. The soldier is an AoE Debuffer Martial. It likes two handed weapons and tough armor.

And I love that! The class is trying to do something specific, and that makes it very clear why it's fun to play this class while allowing the class to be built around encouraging that.

While I pretty much agree about the mines, the overall point stands that the Mechanic is a Battlefield Positioning Support Martial. It's a deployables class, like the Necromancer or Summoner. The class is very clear about what it is, and why its doing it.

You're a mechanic. Your focus is on the stuff you build and physically interact with. The technomancer deals with intangible code and spells. But you have A Thing that you have to maintain and operate, physically. It feels like a very distinct fantasy from someone who uses technology to personally enhance their own living body and fight better.

[DeltaPangaea]

Milo v3 wrote:

I imagine the issue is that "Use tech to enhance by combat abilities" may look too close to the inventor doing that with it's overdrive.

That didn't stop them giving it functionally two robot buddy options when Inventor also does that.

[Lyra Amary]

Yeah, I don't think Starfinder class design should have to dance around existing Pathfinder classes. Especially if they want Starfinder 2e to be seen as its own standalone game rather than just an extension of Pathfinder.

Not that I think Mechanic should or should not get its old Exocortex, but whenever its brought up, it just feels like people are afraid of Starfinder classes getting anything that even remotely resembles an existing Pathfinder class ability.

[HolyFlamingo!]

I know it'd be way down the road if it happens at all, but maybe they're saving the self-enhancement stuff for the evolutionist?

[Justnobodyfqwl]

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

I know it'd be way down the road if it happens at all, but maybe they're saving the self-enhancement stuff for the evolutionist?

I was also thinking that. I think "enhance your body through artificial augmentation" is very ripe design space, both flavorfully and mechanically.

I think it would make a lot of sense for some characters who were SF1E Mechanics to be SF2E Evolutionists-Shifters-Whatevers.

[Master Han Del of the Web]

In 1e the Exocortex was pseudo-Full BAB. Spend a move action and get effectively full BAB against a target. Solid concept that let you play the equivalent of a tech-themed soldier.

In 2e this would be the equivalent of spending an action to increase you proficiency with a class of weapons... except 2e Mechanic already has this system's equivalent of full BAB, hitting master rank at level 13. This is a strict upgrade to the core idea of mechanic.

Frankly, a cybernetically enhanced, accurate shooter that gets bonuses from spending actions to aim... that sounds a lot like a 2e Operative who budgeted for cybernetics to me. It just has a different label.

[QuidEst]

You have martial proficiency and a skill increase line with skill feats. For my old Exocortex character, I'm just flavoring that martial proficiency as being from a targeting computer.

There are some mid to high level feats for built-in targeting systems, too.

[Perpdepog]

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

I know it'd be way down the road if it happens at all, but maybe they're saving the self-enhancement stuff for the evolutionist?

I was also thinking that. I think "enhance your body through artificial augmentation" is very ripe design space, both flavorfully and mechanically.

I think it would make a lot of sense for some characters who were SF1E Mechanics to be SF2E Evolutionists-Shifters-Whatevers.

This is also my guess why it's not there. Evolutionist and Nanocyte kinda filled that space, and conceptually fit there more than the mechanic. I also wouldn't be at all surprised for Cyborg to become an archetype anybody can take.

[DMurnett]

Lyra Amary wrote:

Yeah, I don't think Starfinder class design should have to dance around existing Pathfinder classes. Especially if they want Starfinder 2e to be seen as its own standalone game rather than just an extension of Pathfinder.

Not that I think Mechanic should or should not get its old Exocortex, but whenever its brought up, it just feels like people are afraid of Starfinder classes getting anything that even remotely resembles an existing Pathfinder class ability.

Strange take IMO. Partly because we have heard the design team specifically talk about not wanting the SF2e classes to be too close to the PF2e ones. I agree there's room for overlap, there has to be some just by virtue of the systems needing to enable the same playstyles to the same degrees, but I do believe that striving for variation is good for both systems. And I think the current Mechanic mostly sits in the sweet-spot of being kind of Inventor-like but not being the same class again. Even if it could benefit from a bit more oomph. Seems to be a running trend of SF2 so far...

[Lyra Amary]

DMurnett wrote:

Strange take IMO. Partly because we have heard the design team specifically talk about not wanting the SF2e classes to be too close to the PF2e ones. I agree there's room for overlap, there has to be some just by virtue of the systems needing to enable the same playstyles to the same degrees, but I do believe that striving for variation is good for both systems. And I think the current Mechanic mostly sits in the sweet-spot of being kind of Inventor-like but not being the same class again. Even if it could benefit from a bit more oomph. Seems to be a running trend of SF2 so far...

It's exactly because the design team said that that I wanted to express my opinion on the matter. We've already seen instances where the need to dance around existing PF2e classes has gotten in the way of SF2e class design, such as the Envoy playtest where they decided to make it a penalty to AC on enemies specifically not to step on the Bard's toes, only for it to not work with flanking. Predictably, they ended up changing to a bonus on the player's side in the end, directly in the Bard's court, and it's an improvement.

Like I don't particularly think Mechanic should get its 1e Exocortex or anything, but not because it steps on the Inventor's toes. The Mechanic and Inventor are already separate classes that are only linked because they're both tech themed, but on completely opposite spectrums. They shouldn't have to dance around each other. And I do think Mechanic could use a bit of a boost in the weapon damage department. A mod to do that could work. I don't think we should deny the option solely because it vaguely resembles an Inventor's Overdrive. The Mechanic already does enough to stand out from the Inventor.

[Zoken44]

um... I have a good reason for it not to have the 1e exocortex... because it was a misnomer. Exo means external. If it is an internal upgrade to the brain, that's not external, and thus not an Exocortex.

[DeltaPangaea]

Zoken44 wrote:

um... I have a good reason for it not to have the 1e exocortex... because it was a misnomer. Exo means external. If it is an internal upgrade to the brain, that's not external, and thus not an Exocortex.

It's external to the rest of your brain.

[moosher12]

I'll repost my thoughts on the Exocortex here:

I wrote:

As for a personal opinion, the term “exocortex” feels vestigial and misleading. The class introduces you to the concept of the exocortex, making you think you’re getting an augmentation that, for a player who is familiar with Starfinder 1E, would be its own suite of personal buffs, but the exocortex itself simply acts as a middleman to your actual subclass. There are very few feats that directly buff your exocortex to boost your body independent of your actual subclass, being the Drone, Mine, and Turret. The term exocortex also feels awkwardly used, as effects often target your exocortex, rather than the controlled tech. An effect says you target your turret exocortex for example, but that sounds more like you're affecting your own self, rather then the target turret, which reads awkwardly.

What’s more, your Drone, Mine, and Turret, are features that can be controlled via an augmented reality HUD on an eyepiece or within your helmet, a touch pad on your arm-mounted data pad, or otherwise from your custom rig, in addition to flavoring it as an installed cybernetic. Giving all mechanics an exocortex feels limiting as well, as various characters in media can be fulfilled with the Mechanic class, but do not use cybernetic prosthesis. For example, Dr. Robotnik for a drone, Bomb Voyage for mines, and Borderland’s Axton for turrets. On the one hand, acknowledging the exocortex is limiting to the kind of characters you can make. But also problematically, the exocortex is so ignorable if you don't want that to be a feature of your character unless you get very specific feats that it becomes vestigial until feat choice makes it exist again. And it is at that point that the exocortex should be a flavor option, rather than the canon method that all mechanics use.

I feel the exocortex should be renamed to something more freeform, like Controller, Firmware, OS, and so on. Or simply to incorporate it into the custom rig instead, like calling it a Demolitions Rig, a Drone Rig, or a Turret Rig. Alternatively, the Mechanic can refer to them as a unique type of Toolkit that only they can use, incorporated into their custom rig. Drone Toolkit, Turret Toolkit, and Demolitions Toolkit.

If the exocortex was to stay, I feel it should do more. Incorporating a free hacker’s toolkit into the exocortex instead of as an option for your personal rig could be a start. To give off the fantasy of using your augmented reality to manipulate the world about you. Feats to give the exocortex enhancement features to improve your vision to low light and darkvision, or feats to give your exocortex benefits against will or reflex saves as the technology gives you a sanity check against illusions and holograms or warns you of danger, or a feat to make your exocortex function as its own integrated computer system that can take the place of a comm unit, these sorts of things.

[WWHsmackdown]

Remote hacking from your exocortex ( or other limited techy buffing/debuffing) would help.

[Teridax]

I do think OP's request could have been addressed quite easily by having a fourth subclass that let you take on additional augmentations, and slot those in and out much more quickly and without a check (and perhaps also do this with your own gear as mod actions). You'd basically be the ultimate self-customizer. I also agree with moosher that the term "rig" would be more appropriate as the general name for your piece of tech, with the exocortex being the rig specifically built for self-augmentation. I also find it strange how there's no option to let you Hack from a distance using your rig, particularly as that's a heritage benefit you can get on the Android.

[Zoken44]

Teridax, I agree with the consensus that "Rig" is a better name for the subclasses, but in that case, I would want the Exocortex as you described it dropped. the way you described it would be stepping on the toes of the Evolutionist, assuming the plan to eventually adapt it.

[Teridax]

That's also fair; if the intent is to have a class that focuses entirely on self-modification, then might as well save that for the Evolutionist. I do think it's a shame to hold back on one thing that'd work really well on one class just because it's also meant to exist on another, but then I suppose that's always going to be bit of an issue on the Mechanic when they sit so close to the Inventor already.

[Squark]

Teridax wrote:

That's also fair; if the intent is to have a class that focuses entirely on self-modification, then might as well save that for the Evolutionist. I do think it's a shame to hold back on one thing that'd work really well on one class just because it's also meant to exist on another, but then I suppose that's always going to be bit of an issue on the Mechanic when they sit so close to the Inventor already.

I don't think the old exocortex actually fits well with the new Mechanic, though. The new mechanic's subclasses deal with area control (By putting extra bodies on the field or using AoEs). An augmentation to your own prowess like the Barbarian's Rage, the Operative's aim, or the Inventor's overdrive doesn't really fit in the class.

[Zoken44]

I completely agree with you Squark, but I can see a counter coming up, so I will go ahead and pose it: Modify. you have all kinds of modifies that make your weapons and armor more effective. would this not suggest play-space for a more direct and aggressive mechanic.

["Dr." Cupi]

Also, I'd like to see a change to Modify so that I can modify an adjacent ally's weapon.

[Zoken44]

YES! This is what I want modify for! I want to duck tape something onto an ally's weapon and grunt, "There, now shoots farther"

[Squark]

Zoken44 wrote:

I completely agree with you Squark, but I can see a counter coming up, so I will go ahead and pose it: Modify. you have all kinds of modifies that make your weapons and armor more effective. would this not suggest play-space for a more direct and aggressive mechanic.

A subclass that hyper focuses on only one part of the class? That could happen, but I think it's better suited to a class archetype that has more to modify, and the system needs to mature a little for that.

Modding allies gear sounds fun and it's something I'd love to do, but I wonder if they were worried that would push Mechanics too much into support- Feeling like it was selfish to mod their own gear when other characters could use it better *Flashback to my experiences with the commander playtest* (Maybe that's just a me thing, though)

[moosher12]

Teridax wrote:

I also find it strange how there's no option to let you Hack from a distance using your rig, particularly as that's a heritage benefit you can get on the Android.

If I remember right, I believe they mentioned in one of the streams that they are planning to change it to where all hacker's toolkits work at range. So that would not need to be a feature anymore. But that has not been implemented in errata yet, so we won't know for sure if they actually do that until the Core Rulebook's release.

[moosher12]

Teridax wrote:

That's also fair; if the intent is to have a class that focuses entirely on self-modification, then might as well save that for the Evolutionist. I do think it's a shame to hold back on one thing that'd work really well on one class just because it's also meant to exist on another, but then I suppose that's always going to be bit of an issue on the Mechanic when they sit so close to the Inventor already.

I'm in agreement. I have a weird opinion on this, but I think it's fine for two classes to have overlap. Not like an 80% overlap of course, but 30-40% should be acceptable. There's always going to be some overlap, but the full package should fill out a distinct feel from another package, despite both being able to share a role in one aspect.

[DeltaPangaea]

moosher12 wrote:

Teridax wrote:

That's also fair; if the intent is to have a class that focuses entirely on self-modification, then might as well save that for the Evolutionist. I do think it's a shame to hold back on one thing that'd work really well on one class just because it's also meant to exist on another, but then I suppose that's always going to be bit of an issue on the Mechanic when they sit so close to the Inventor already.

I'm in agreement. I have a weird opinion on this, but I think it's fine for two classes to have overlap. Not like an 80% overlap of course, but 30-40% should be acceptable. There's always going to be some overlap, but the full package should fill out a distinct feel from another package, despite both being able to share a role in one aspect.

The thing about class overlap, right, and something I really enjoy to this day about 1e Pathfinder is that there's multiple ways of doing things. Like, if I wanted to play a pet class (which I never will but that's me) there's multiple different avenues to do that, and they all have their own differences and accompanying features. Do I wanna druid, do I wanna ranger, do I wanna cavalier, or go all in on summoner...

Things can share ideas, their differences are what separate them. And additional options for the same thing means people are more likely to find one they want. Like if we accede the domain of self-enhancement and modification entirely to Evolutionist and then... I hate it. It just doesn't vibe with me, does things in a way I dislike... I'm just outta luck.

But if there's multiple that are allowed to share that space, then there's multiple I can pick from for an idea.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

I think it's less that "the mechanic shouldn't have the body mods because the evolutionist might happen", and more "this version of the mechanic seems very intentionally focused on Placing Crap On The Battlefield™".

I've seen people ask why they have mines specifically, instead of just explosives or grenades. I think it's the same reason - this is clearly meant to be a class in the same vein as the Summoner or Necromancer, where battlefield control is a core mechanical niche.

I think a Mechanic that trades Putting Crap On The Battlefield for better strikes would be as if there was a Soldier subclass that traded any AoEs for just better strikes. (Action Hero doesn't count!) It would be really weird and ill-fitting to have a subclass that just trades in their core mechanic and purpose in a team for Being Better At Shooting ™.

[moosher12]

Though at that point, Mechanic does not sound right as a class name, as the more appropriate term for that sort of role would be a field engineer. Mechanic carries the connotation of boosting specific equipment, augmentations, and vehicles, basically, issuing equipment and vehicle buffs. field engineer carries the connotation of battlefield control.

As an example, Team Fortress 2 has the Engineer (And in hindsight, I should have used the Engineer as a turret example instead of Axton).

[Teridax]

Squark wrote:

I don't think the old exocortex actually fits well with the new Mechanic, though. The new mechanic's subclasses deal with area control (By putting extra bodies on the field or using AoEs). An augmentation to your own prowess like the Barbarian's Rage, the Operative's aim, or the Inventor's overdrive doesn't really fit in the class.

I think you've correctly identified the intended niche of the Mechanic's subclasses in the playtest, but I don't think that ought to exclude other subclasses with a different niche that are appropriate for the class. If we put augmentations aside, a rig that let you produce ammo on the fly, plus temporary weapon and gear upgrades that could even bypass the normal upgrade limit, would be perfectly in line with the Mechanic's theme while catering to a more supportive buffer niche instead. There's probably room for a mech subclass too, one for hardlight constructs, and so on, not necessarily in this tighter playtest but definitely something worth having nonetheless. Area control need not be the only thing the Mechanic's good at, and there can be room for a subclass closer to the old exocortex where the Mechanic focuses on technological buffs.

[Xenocrat]

I think the issue with focusing on technological buffs is that they'll still be constrained by the overall design that buffing classes like the Bard and Envoy (and I guess Commander and Marshal archetype) fit in. You're not going to be allowed to break the math, so you'll just be making yourself baseline competent as martial with extra steps or adding a +1 to the party. But doing so via tech is going to mean item bonuses, which is very redundant and unhelpful in most cases.

How do you avoid being techno barbarian or techno bard in a way that is worth doing?

[Teridax]

Well, the Alchemist is already a good example of a class who can give out item-based buffs without treading on the Bard or Barbarian's toes, but on top of that there's plenty of examples of buffs that add damage to weapons, and even certain mechanics that add extra property runes, which in Starfinder's case would mean upgrades. Even if we operate on the basic premise of giving armor and weapons bonus upgrades that don't take up an upgrade slot, that already leaves a ton of room for a wide variety of buffs, and what's more, those buffs would integrate neatly with Starfinder's variety of tech, such that I'm surprised there isn't more of that on the existing class even in feat form.

[Xenocrat]

These are good points. Perhaps they have some ideas they aren't playtesting for some reason. I did notice the survey asks if we want the additional space in the final release used most heavily for more feats for exocortexes, more feats for mods, or more feats for "other stuff." We didn't get much "other stuff" in the playtest.

["Dr." Cupi]

Yeah, I think it would be nice to at least get the ability to use Mods on ally weapons.

[DeltaPangaea]

Xenocrat wrote:

I think the issue with focusing on technological buffs is that they'll still be constrained by the overall design that buffing classes like the Bard and Envoy (and I guess Commander and Marshal archetype) fit in. You're not going to be allowed to break the math, so you'll just be making yourself baseline competent as martial with extra steps or adding a +1 to the party. But doing so via tech is going to mean item bonuses, which is very redundant and unhelpful in most cases.

How do you avoid being techno barbarian or techno bard in a way that is worth doing?

Could always go the utility and abilities route. Support doesn't always have to be purely mathematical. Like the hovering ability they can grab now, or the ranged hack they had in 1e (Although I think I'm being told that's being folded into normal hacking kits?), or an extra action solely for interacting with computers they're hooked to/hacking like 1e. We DO already have plenty of examples of "Quickened, but only for this specific thing."

[moosher12]

I think it would make sense for Mechanic to buy into a limited temporary consummable allotment per day with a feat, like how the inventor can make gadgets, and the witch can make potions.

Likely to make either grenades or certain tech consummables.

[Perpdepog]

moosher12 wrote:

I think it would make sense for Mechanic to buy into a limited temporary consummable allotment per day with a feat, like how the inventor can make gadgets, and the witch can make potions.

Likely to make either grenades or certain tech consummables.

Heck, I'd love if they also made gadgets. Bring gadgets into SF2E and we get a larger selection of them for both mechanic and inventor.

[Zoken44]

This is a really good point. The inventor had a feat chain for this, and it makes even more sense for the Mechanic to have it. (and there are several shared feats/chains between classes so it wouldn't really step on toes)