>>95974127
Conceptually and mechanically, the class is really fucked. It's definitely playable, it isn't like Medium or Shifter or Vigilante, but it lies in the similar vein of "Why did you make this?"
>The customizable item gimmick is really bland and leads more into boring feature trees than getting to make something truly unique.
>Overdrive is a broken mechanic that is painfully awkward, eats all your actions every round, and turns the class fantasy into "Being a broken lawnmower to turn into INT-Barbarian". No one has fun luckshitting out the ability to be the class.
>Construct Inventor suffers the most from 2e's hard-on for massive feat investments for companion builds. Eating up 4 out of your 11 possible class feats stomps down hard on the customization aspects, and again, the innovations aren't impactful enough to replace what you lost.
>Armor Innovation bonuses are entirely passive. Post-remaster Errata does make them ironically the best out of the lot but they still struggle to be an engaging part of the class.
>The INT-Barbarian concept means they are entirely DPS focused, on a class that doesn't get to add its Key Ability Score to its hit rates.
>Being entirely DPS-focused, they don't add anything to a team beyond being good crafters. Since the team can't use your innovations and the only feats that helps the team are Searing Restoration and gadgets, something technically anyone can use, you are utterly replaceable. You don't even get anything for Recall Knowledge!
>Unstable feats poorly scale compared to Focus Spells as of the Remaster. You can only get 2 surefire uses out of them by Level 14 and that is still a feat. Meanwhile actual casters would have 3 FP fully refreshed in 10 minutes by this point.
>Even if all the stars align, your damage output is not better than actual Barbs, Swashbucklers, Thaumaturges, or Monks.
>Almost every concept they have has been completely powercrept by Exemplar.
It's just ass, man... Worst designed 2e class.