Mines Exocortex is so ill-fitting it's better off cut

[DMurnett]

Brought to you by the author of "Akashic Connection Should Be Deleted From The Game", now presenting: Mines Exocortex Needs To Be Reworked Beyond Recognition Or Replaced Outright

It's mechanically (heh) poorly supported, has notable action economy problems, potentially has an even worse case of playtest Necromancer's grounded thralls issue, can potentially run out of its main class feature with no recourse (which as of remaster not even Alchemist does), and is just... Strangely narrow as a base concept. But I don't believe it's completely beyond saving. For one, making it a more nonspecific trapper than just mines could do it wonders in increased adaptability, and wouldn't compromise its area denial shtick. For another, it could focus on one mine (or ideally other traps but for now I'll stick to mine lingo to avoid confusion) at a time instead of peppering the battlefield with them, which would make it easier to balance letting you mod it and possibly removing their resource restrictions, though admittedly this would make it less unique. Even barring that, Mines Mechanic should absolutely get a default way to generate more mines mid-combat somehow, either at an action tax or reduced functionality or possibly both, similar to Alchemist.

[Xenocrat]

One thing I'd like to see is some feat options that borrow from the Starfinder Enhanced-era menu of bonkers grenade options available to mines to give them utility, debuffing, and buffing options. They could spray out foam that provides temp HP or energy resistance, counteract a spell in their area, radiation, the quantum/time scrambling stuff for haste/slow/repositions, etc.

[Perpdepog]

DMurnett wrote:

Even barring that, Mines Mechanic should absolutely get a default way to generate more mines mid-combat somehow, either at an action tax or reduced functionality or possibly both, similar to Alchemist.

I think leaning into "similar to the alchemist" would help the mine exocortex a lot. Consider swapping out bespoke mines for craftable grenades, similar to an alchemist's versatile vials which can only produce alchemical bombs, for example.

It gives them an in-built way for them to have diverse explosives, like an alchemist's bombs, would probably save on page space, and solves a couple other issues, like needing to spend an action or reaction after a mine is deployed because you can just huck a grenade. It also means that mine mechanics would have a goody to look forward to in future books when new grenades are introduced, expanding their kit, which I think is what someone like a demolitions or explosives specialist should want. Turrets grant flexibility with deploying cover, drone pilots get flexibility through having an extra set of hands, and mine specialists get flexibility through explosion effects.
Making them mines wouldn't be hard either. Just mention being able to modify grenades to explode on time release or in accordance with your reaction or whatever and the class feature is pretty much the same.

[ssims2]

As an alternative suggestion, what about mines that could fly and pass sensor data back to the mechanic. I'd call these drones, not mines, except that the name is taken. Blowing things up would then be only one of the things you could do with your mines.

[DeltaPangaea]

I'd agree with this, yeah.

As a person who's often interested when an option for mines comes up, it *can't* be your sole method of operation in a game where you are usually the one aggressing into a space, or you're just throwing them at people's faces and then defeating the point of them being mines.

A game like Lancer can have a mine-specialist because the game notably encourages things like defense objectives and the like, but in a game like this it's just gonna be throwing mines at people's faces. Or two mines from level 6 onward.

Mine options for 1e alchemist? Sure whatever. Mine gadgets in 2e? I'd never use them without Gadget Specialist (and the DCs blow) but sure. The point though is they're not the MAIN THING and they're not broadly useful *as actual mines*.

Ultimately?

Mines is a weirdly specific niche, and most of what they do is just blowing people up. An Explosives subtype though can be utilized much more practically, and has a lot more room for utility and satisfying a more broad range of class fantasies.

'I can set mines' is an additional ability, not your major class choice.

[Teridax]

I get the impression the developers had a tough time coming up with subclasses for the Mechanic, which is why we have one that's directly lifted from the Inventor (though with actual companion options, so that's an improvement), and another that's basically another companion that doesn't move and uses your Dex to attack from range. The mine option looks interesting for area control, but as mentioned in the OP the ranged deployment looks costly, the mod options are surprisingly low on utility, and it doesn't look like you're really deploying a minefield at a time so much as just throwing grenades with lots of extra steps.

I do think the idea of explosives makes perfect sense on a Mechanic, though, so I'd be fully up for a demolitionist who can produce and throw lots of explosives on the fly. In fact, I feel this playtest could have been a good opportunity to test out delayed explosives, a player request that came about quite frequently and would likely have been great to test out on one or both tech classes. Even just having a mod that delays your grenade's explosion by 1 round in exchange for massively enhancing its effects would be great for flushing enemies out of cover, and could have added some more variety to the class. Similarly, one could easily implement a mine function by having a mod that lets grenades stick and lets you detonate them as an action or reaction later on. Really, adding more functionality to grenades instead of coming up with an isolated mechanic could likely have given the Mechanic a lot more options, plus would have given playtesters an easy way to integrate a whole range of new items in Starfinder into their playstyle.

[Xenocrat]

Teridax wrote:

I get the impression the developers had a tough time coming up with subclasses for the Mechanic, which is why we have one that's directly lifted from the Inventor .

I disagree and think this is backwards. The inventor subclasses were a direct borrowing/adaptation of the post-Character Operations Manual SF1 Mechanic subclasses. Core Mecehanic already had a drone, so none of this conceptually came from Inventor except adopting the advancement/numbers from PF2, and COM had a weapon and armor Mechanic that obviously inspired the Inventor subclasses.

I think mines will suffer the same way the Solarion does - what do you do if the enemy is more than 30' away? You're just a guy with a gun and a few adaptable tricks then. Better invest in some of the defensive/support options that don't rely on your exocortex.

[Teridax]

Xenocrat wrote:

I disagree and think this is backwards. The inventor subclasses were a direct borrowing/adaptation of the post-Character Operations Manual SF1 Mechanic subclasses. Core Mecehanic already had a drone, so none of this conceptually came from Inventor except adopting the advancement/numbers from PF2, and COM had a weapon and armor Mechanic that obviously inspired the Inventor subclasses.

I feel this is an answer to a point that was never made. The current subject of discussion isn't the genealogy of the Inventor's mechanics, but the predicament the Starfriends found themselves in when adapting the Mechanic to 2e, a process that chronologically followed years after the Inventor's release. The difficulty comes not just from the thematic closeness to the Inventor, who likely did take inspiration from 1e's Mechanic, but from the general process of changing systems and quite possibly the amount of time the developers had to decide on the mechanics. The drone could very well have followed a different model from the Inventor's, for instance, and the Mine exocortex could have instead used Starfinder's grenades. What we got was a class whose mechanics didn't always innovate when I think they should've, yet sometimes did reinvent the wheel when they could've built upon existing content instead, which to me suggests there was a level of difficulty in deciding how to implement this class in the playtest.

["Dr." Cupi]

I disagree. I am excited to playtest this subclass. Maybe the action economy criticism is valid, but it did not appear so on the surface.

Notice, terraforming mines zero gravity can be combined with gravitic mines big bang for an explosion that bumps an enemy into the air and imparts zero gravity to completely prevent their movement if they have no way to fly or propel themselves. These effects also, RAW, are not affected by a failure, success or crit success.

Edit: Also, Proximity Mines effect is not a reaction, therefore can occur as a result of forced movement.

[kaid]

Xenocrat wrote:

Teridax wrote:

I get the impression the developers had a tough time coming up with subclasses for the Mechanic, which is why we have one that's directly lifted from the Inventor .

I disagree and think this is backwards. The inventor subclasses were a direct borrowing/adaptation of the post-Character Operations Manual SF1 Mechanic subclasses. Core Mecehanic already had a drone, so none of this conceptually came from Inventor except adopting the advancement/numbers from PF2, and COM had a weapon and armor Mechanic that obviously inspired the Inventor subclasses.

I think mines will suffer the same way the Solarion does - what do you do if the enemy is more than 30' away? You're just a guy with a gun and a few adaptable tricks then. Better invest in some of the defensive/support options that don't rely on your exocortex.

Like with any kind of trapper options it largely depends on how the GMs are setting an adventure up. Are they letting the players have situations where they can setup defenses and enemies are forced to come at them. If so having a couple 1 action deploy mines at a choke points and movement make sense. The mine layer mechanic actually has more tools to their "traps" offensively than I have really seen before. It is action hungry but you start off the bat being able to deploy a mine at a pretty reasonable range and then you can either pop it now or wait till enemies turn. They can either stay stationary and not trigger a reaction or try to move and you can reaction blast them.

Their ability to redeploy/move their mines around gets pretty good at higher levels so they have pretty good area control and the damage of the mines even unmodded is pretty darn strong right off the bat.

I think this is a spec that probably will undergo a good bit of change between now and its official release but at least as a starting point it seems functional and pretty strong. If enemies are cowering and never attempting to move up you still have a martial with martial weapons and the ability to improve/upgrade them. One issue that the turret and Drone folks are going to wind up with is having to keep multiple weapons for them and their drone or turret fully upgraded/modded which is going to get expensive. A mining mechanic can devote their cash to their own personal equipment.

[Zoken44]

So, I have a question that I haven't seen asked...

Do enemies recognize your mines as mines or dangers?

More over, can they see you deploy a mine and do they automatically see deployed mines?

[Xenocrat]

At higher levels I do like the idea of the mines running forward on their little crab legs to blow up guys hiding behind cover. Need a way to maintain line of sight to guide the mines in while you're in total cover or concealment.

["Dr." Cupi]

Zoken44 wrote:

So, I have a question that I haven't seen asked...

Do enemies recognize your mines as mines or dangers?

More over, can they see you deploy a mine and do they automatically see deployed mines?

I assume so. My brain treats it like spellcasting, unless there is a special situation, peeps know what you did. Though, not necessarily the specifics. Like, they don't know if you have gravitic mines, proximity mines, etc.., but they would know that it is a mine.

[Zoken44]

So I'd like a feat for Deploying a mine invisibly.

And while I get that it would obviously be seen, would they know (if they haven't fought your character, who is kludging together their equipment themselves, that they are a mine? Yeah, the would absolutely see it being thrown, and especially smarter enemies would know it could be dangerous, but would they know it's a mine?

[kaid]

Zoken44 wrote:

So, I have a question that I haven't seen asked...

Do enemies recognize your mines as mines or dangers?

More over, can they see you deploy a mine and do they automatically see deployed mines?

It does seem to indicate that they can potentially be disarmed if they are detected but it isn't really clear about how easy they are to detect. Probably something that would need more clarification.

["Dr." Cupi]

Zoken44 wrote:

So I'd like a feat for Deploying a mine invisibly.

And while I get that it would obviously be seen, would they know (if they haven't fought your character, who is kludging together their equipment themselves, that they are a mine? Yeah, the would absolutely see it being thrown, and especially smarter enemies would know it could be dangerous, but would they know it's a mine?

As a GM I'd say yes as long as the Int is -3 or higher. Though no if the enemy is from a primitive (technologically) planet.

[Zoken44]

so if their int is -3 or higher they know the object you dropped is an explosive mine automatically? Again, I get recognizing it could be dangerous, but recognizing it as a mine? I would counter that at -3 (and not from a low/no-tech world) They recognize it as dangerous, and can make a recall knowledge check against a standard DC for your level (not class DC) to figure out it's an explosive. I agree, they still recognize it's probably dangerous, but not exactly what it is. and +3 or higher, yeah, automatically clocking, that's an explosive.

["Dr." Cupi]

I'm not going to completely disagree with your concept, however, my position is more from a mechanical simplicity and balance standpoint. It's nice when mechanics and sensibility can align, but it's not always possible.

[kaid]

I sort of suspect that the mines are going to be very tiny in game so not super conspicuous. Even if they were not concealed I would suspect enemies that are smart enough to know what a mine is should at least require a perception check vs the mechanics class DC.

[Zoken44]

I can accept a mechanical argument on that. But it is something we should mention in the survey that they neglected to clarify.

["Dr." Cupi]

Yeah, my GM brain says that it is reasonable to give a perception against class DC if they were not present when the mine was placed and auto notice if present when placed.

[Xenocrat]

I wonder if mines are going to share rules with a separate set of explosives available via archetype/credits ala snares in PF2, and the explosives rules that modified grenades in late SF1 when the explosives Mechanic came online. If so, those rules will provide the rules for identifying, shooting/disarming them. Mine mechanics will just have free/enhanced versions.

["Dr." Cupi]

The bunker buster mod kinda hints at the possibility. Bunker buster ignores more Hardness in addition to the extra damage from razing. That plus double detonation has potential, but I don't think it is going to scale well enough, but maybe I'm wrong.

Edit: I think I was wrong. I just did the math, and it does seem to scale well.

Razing is additional damage equal to (# of weapon dice)x2. Bunker Buster ignores 5+razing value of Hardness.

Edit 2: Also, with double detonation, you could end up with 2x(mine damage] + 3x(int) while ignoring 5 Hardness.

Edit 3: Though as written, mines only do damage to creatures.

[DeltaPangaea]

I will also raise the curiosity that mines themselves are deployed to spaces, but their aoe is a burst. Bursts are from grid intersections, no?

So which corner do they explode from? All or do you get to pick? What about the aoe range that triggers the reaction to detonate? Is that all of them or do you pick when you put it down or what?

Fiddly.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

I'm kind of surprised to see a pretty negative reaction to the mines! The mines have been the best experience one of my players and I have had with SF2E combat.

They're relatively simple, compared to the drone and the really unsightly turret statblock (my player entirely new to the system latched onto them quickly). You get more than we could use in a single fight, and you get them back with no effort. They can deal physical or energy damage, which allows them to deal effectively ANY damage after a certain level.

Mines did exactly what you wanted them to do- you spent an action to create an area on the battlefield that impedes enemies with the threat of watching their toes go flying. Mines did nice consistent damage- "2d6+4 or half on a save" always felt like an impactful amount of damage, in contrast to the swingy nature of Starfinder's d10-no-modifier weapons. Enemies moved around them differently, but had ways to avoid them if needed. In turn, the Mechanic could either use them reactively, or proactively.

It felt like it really fulfilled the fantasy of being an intelligence-based, AoE-blasting, battlefield positioning class that cobbles together dangerous machinery.

[ElementalofCuteness]

I don't understand it either to be fair. The mines are awesome lets be real here! They do everything and sure you can nuke a boss but that is your own personal choice at that point onhow to use your mine resource!

[Justnobodyfqwl]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

I don't understand it either to be fair. The mines are awesome lets be real here! They do everything and sure you can nuke a boss but that is your own personal choice at that point onhow to use your mine resource!

I'm suddenly realizing that the biggest determining factor is that this thread was probably made entirely pre-playtest errata. I haven't played with the old version of mines that was 2 actions to throw 30 feet, but I wouldn't be happy with it either.

[ElementalofCuteness]

WAIT there was Playtest ERRATA!?

[keftiu]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

WAIT there was Playtest ERRATA!?

Went up May 2nd and is still stickied!