| moosher12 |
Here are my thoughts on the Mechanic:
• A clarification that modifications to weapons do not apply to weapons mounted on drones or to turrets within the Modify class feature would be appreciated. This ruling becomes vague until the Modify Drone feat is found, which can result in misunderstandings for new players. Additionally, I’d propose for Modify Drone to be renamed to Modify Exocortex, allowing it to apply weapon mods to drone-mounted weapons and turrets, and allowing it to apply grenade mods to mines.
• The Big Boom, Bunker Buster, Incapacitant, and Long Range modifications can probably apply to Mine Exocortexes.
• The turret mechanic has two conflicting conditions for Hardness. One point says it has Hardness equal to half your level, rounded up, and another point says that hardness increases to 10 at level 5, 15 at level 10, and 20 at level 15.
• The Instant Deployment feat needs clarification on whether you can Deploy a Mine with 2 actions or just 1.
• The Mobile Deployment feat needs clarification on whether you can Deploy a Mine with 2 actions or just 1.
• The Self-Destruct feat might also make sense for the drone.
• The Double Deployment feat could do with clarification that the two-action Double Deployment is being used.
• For the Refined Chassis feat, graceful and burly companions are not defined. If Nimble and Savage are what’s meant, it’d save on confusion to simply use the Pathfinder nomenclature.
• The Expansive Array feat deals too much damage, and should instead deal 1d8 damage.
• The Gravitic Dampener feat should say “which moves with the exocortex,” not “which moves with the drone.”
• The Rocket Boosters feat is missing the “Effect” text.
• The Terraforming Mines has the same Big Bang feature as Gravitic Mines, and is redundant.
• For gravity ranging, clarification is needed on how the penalties are applied for high and low gravity. (Is a maximum range Strike at high gravity -4 or -10? Is a maximum range Strike at Low gravity -22 or -10?) What is the effect of zero gravity on range? The old method from the Playtest worked better, where the range increment itself was multiplied, rather than adjusting the maximum number of range increments allowed. Zero Gravity also lost its 10x multiplier?
• The Multitasker feat talking about controlling mines feels odd.
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.
Otherwise, I really like the class. A bit more polish and it will be brilliant. The TLDR is that exocortexes should either be removed, or given more presence that is represented with mechanics.
| Candlejake |
Id have to take a closer look in what sets turret and drone apart. Turret gives you cover which is very nice. Both gain a damage boost mod, with turrets starting stronger, but drones eventually overtaking. That said does the drone actually eventually become expert with their integrated weapon? Mechanic weapon expertise mentions the drone getting crit specx if it is expert but how would it become expert? Maybe im just not seeing it. Drone has the advantage of being able to use different weapons, gaining customizations, and not using the same MAP as you. Turret has lower damage dice and less range than a lot of weapons the drone could use, but can change damage type easier and having better accuracy, since the drones stats upgrade slower than yours. The turret is also more durable. But the drone more agile. But have to upgrade the weapons for more damage so recource cost is the same. Drones seem to be better to me, mostly because they dont share your MAP and you get the benefit of two actions for one, or one for free. But thats only if the drone actually can get expert with their integrated weapon, otherwise the turret has the accuracy advantage from level 5 on.
Also the level 6 feat "tactical team up" seems straight up worse than the level 2 feat "coordinated fire". Coordinated fire allows for two actions you and your drone or turret to each make an attack at the same MAP (dont know why this applies to drone since you dont share MAP). The damage gets combined (which seems to be the only benefit this feat gives drones). The level 6 feat tactical teamup applies only to turrets. It also allows you to make one attack each for two actions, but they apply MAP normally. Your attack needs to be the secone one, but the target is off guard against it. Mathematically, using the same MAP is a lot better than gaining off guard on the second attack. It also doesnt combine damage. This seems worse.
Mines look very fun and have much flavour, but super action intensive imo. And double deployment seems weird because it doesnt allow range.
| kaid |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The turret options are more interesting than I expected. Less mobile, flexible than drones but at least starting out higher damage and more diverse damage options and you can deploy it to help flank a target or as semi mobile battlefield cover. In a game with a ton of ranged combat having on demand partial/full cover could be really darn handy.