I disagree. PF2e's Inventor and Alchemist work as a classes without monopolizing their specialties to the point that other characters can't interact. I do recognize the obvious differences, tech items and computers are far more pervasive here than, say, alchemical items in PF, but it's not impossible for that to coexist with Mechanic, it just needs to be handled carefully. And I definitely don't think we should pass those judgements until wee actually see the Mechanic playtest for 2e. If the team can't make it work then, we can call to axe it. Simple as.
Given how the Precog and Witchwarper were combined, I'd be curious to see the Mechanic and Technomancer combined as well. There's so many spells in Starfinder that interface with technology that I think it's be pretty easy to create a "tech class" that combined the Mechanic's drone and skills with the Technomancer's arcane magic. I could totally see the class as a wave caster with lots of extra utility spells up their sleeve and really powerful tech tools at their disposal, plus amazing access to tech weapons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. PF2e's Inventor and Alchemist work as a classes without monopolizing their specialties to the point that other characters can't interact. I do recognize the obvious differences, tech items and computers are far more pervasive here than, say, alchemical items in PF, but it's not impossible for that to coexist with Mechanic, it just needs to be handled carefully. And I definitely don't think we should pass those judgements until wee actually see the Mechanic playtest for 2e. If the team can't make it work then, we can call to axe it. Simple as.Do you really thinkt this way? The DCs of alchemical Items and Poisons don't scale because the Alchemist has a feature which grants you that ability. This could be baseline without the alchemist needing it to feel special.
The same thing goes for infused reagents. If the alchemist wouldn't have a need for a resource like infused reagents we could get feats which allow us to use nature or survival to find herbs which we can then turn in to alchemicals. But you can't make any feats which allow you easy access to potions whithout harming the alchemist.
Same thing goes for snares and poisons. Having a class interact with something limits the design space of what those things can do. This is because you need to give the class extra abilities to make them shine. But you can't make them broken. This usually leads to things with class support being underwhelming without the class support.
Your first argument is just incorrect. When the Core Rulebook was released in 2019, Alchemist did not have a class feature to make its items scale off of its class DC, yet alchemical items still had baked in DCs. The thing you describe was initially introduced as an exclusive subclass benefit for Toxicologist in the APG, and was only made a core class feature in PC2. I fail to see how an unplanned system rework years after a system released could have influenced the design consideration of an entire class of items at launch.
As for infused reagents stifling other concepts, it's really funny that you mention that because there's multiple non-alchemist archetypes that give it to any class for certain narrow thematic fields. No, seriously. Herbalist lets you make natural medicines with herbs using Nature instead of Crafting, Fireworks Technician gives you a fun way to use certain explosives, and Poisoner is a must-have for any Rogues that want to give their dagger swipes an extra sting. It is once again not Alchemist's fault that Paizo deems the ability to make alchemical items for free without spending downtime powerful enough to cost at minimum a class feat.
Your thesis is flawed. Classes can and do have increased support for certain mechanics without those mechanics being obsolete to others. Gish builds aren't impossible without being a Magus, trapmaster builds aren't impossible without being a Ranger, and consumables builds aren't impossible without being an Alchemist. They're simply a lot better if you are. I don't see why classes having specialties is a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. PF2e's Inventor and Alchemist work as a classes without monopolizing their specialties to the point that other characters can't interact. I do recognize the obvious differences, tech items and computers are far more pervasive here than, say, alchemical items in PF, but it's not impossible for that to coexist with Mechanic, it just needs to be handled carefully. And I definitely don't think we should pass those judgements until wee actually see the Mechanic playtest for 2e. If the team can't make it work then, we can call to axe it. Simple as.Do you really thinkt this way? The DCs of alchemical Items and Poisons don't scale because the Alchemist has a feature which grants you that ability. This could be baseline without the alchemist needing it to feel special.
The same thing goes for infused reagents. If the alchemist wouldn't have a need for a resource like infused reagents we could get feats which allow us to use nature or survival to find herbs which we can then turn in to alchemicals. But you can't make any feats which allow you easy access to potions whithout harming the alchemist.
Same thing goes for snares and poisons. Having a class interact with something limits the design space of what those things can do. This is because you need to give the class extra abilities to make them shine. But you can't make them broken. This usually leads to things with class support being underwhelming without the class support.
I don't think the reason for alchemical items not scaling with class DC isn't because of alchemists, but because of that's how items in PF2 work in general, whether they're consumable or permanent, alchemical or magical. Similarly, what you're talking about with the "Making anyone be able to take Infused Reagents" already exists in every archetype which grants Advanced Alchemy Benefits, yes it's a bit more specific and uses class feats, but if you wanted a skill feat to be able to give those benefits without being overly powerful then it'd require making the amounts and power of the reagents utter pittance.
Also notably, even if you did do both of those changes you recommended... it'd barely change the balance of Alchemist compared to other classes in the system, it'd be behind a single 5th level class feature. The only difference is that there's a bunch of options which are overly powerful for everyone now.I'm not overly certain why you're bringing up snares given the fact that outside a couple Ranger class feats (not features, just feats) which weren't reprinted in PC2, they're pretty much equally available to all classes via a skill feat, or taking an archetype if you really want to dedicate yourself to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to add, the same way an animal companion can be taken by anyone by taking the Beast Master archetype. Becoming a mechanic can be taken by anyone by taking the Mechanic archetype.
All classes get their own archetype, so that request is already baked in. The Starfinder classes will get theirs once the main class strategies are finalized.
Where is the Beast Master archetype info? I can’t seem to find it on AoN…[EDIT - ah. “Beastmaster”, not “Beast Master”. Finicky bit of search engine there…]
Please hear me out. I love the idea of a mechanic. But i think the mechanic should be split up in to different ideas and implemented not as a class.
I come to the same conclusion, but from the other direction.
I think there should be an archetype to have a mechanical companion or assistive AI.
And once that is an archetype that is available to any character, what is left for a Mechanic to have? Is it enough to build an entire class around?
Please hear me out. I love the idea of a mechanic. But i think the mechanic should be split up in to different ideas and implemented not as a class.
Almost any hacking, crafting and repairing ability from the mechanic could become a cool skill feat. And it makes sense in a setting like starfinder to allow any class to specialize in tech.
The drone which is arguably the coolest part of the mechanic could become something like an animal companion which could be taken by anyone. If you really need to have players spend class feats for something like this, you could make it a dedication like the beast master. But think it would be better to have a tech item called the rigging kit or drone control unit which takes up one of your hands which allows you to use the command an animal action to grant actions to your minion drones.
Drones could just be sold as tech items. And depending on the devs whishes drones could either share or not share your MAP. But the action economy balances itself.
This would also solve the weird SF1 problem where a spy drone was either a cheap tech item or a custom build class feature from your mechanic. It felt really bad to see that a cheap drone could to the same things your mechanics custom drone could do. And you always had to justify why the mechanics drone wa better. Im not talking about combat here. Im talking about the fact that it was a major choice for the mechanic to install a camera module on his drone while the cheap spy drone came with a fully functional camera.TLDR: I think making the mechanic is own class misses out on cool skill feats and will result in artifical restrictions on normal tech interactions to make the mechanic feel special.
Part of the fun of RPG games is to have fun with the typical tropes of a given genre. The space mechanic or engineer is such a common archetype of SciFi that the game would feel incomplete without it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanic is a pretty integral scifi niche. Whether or not the drone stuff is cut off as an archetype and the class focuses on other stuff, mechanic is a trope that should exist in the ship's party
|
My expectations from mechanic are an ability to interact better or at least more efficiently with tech than any other class. In SF1 that was most certainly true. This character interacted better (in total) with tech than any other class (or character) that i played with. The tradeoff was a lesser combat effectiveness. This is perfectly acceptable to me for SF2, and what I hope to be the case.
That said, I do understand the OPs perspective, it just seems like an overly simplistic view of the mechanic as a class. I say this because of the subclasses available to the mechanic in SF1 don't seem to be fully acknowledged. Sure, drone was referenced, but what about exocortex? Experimental armor? Experimental weapon? What about the cool demolitionist?
Please hear me out. I love the idea of a mechanic. But i think the mechanic should be split up in to different ideas and implemented not as a class.I come to the same conclusion, but from the other direction.
I think there should be an archetype to have a mechanical companion or assistive AI.
And once that is an archetype that is available to any character, what is left for a Mechanic to have? Is it enough to build an entire class around?
This is a fair point. A tech version of Familiar Master and Beastmaster* are obvious archetypes. Custom Weapons and a Power Armor specialist also really feal like they should be archetypes so they're available to any martial. And by now, we've carved out most of the things a Mechanic could do.
*This one in particular is necessary if Paizo wants Robot Companions to work for other classes as companions aquired via multiclass archetype feats are hopelessly underpowered.
Mechanic is a pretty integral scifi niche. Whether or not the drone stuff is cut off as an archetype and the class focuses on other stuff, mechanic is a trope that should exist in the ship's party
Yeah. The thing is, it may not be the same class.
So while there may be a class named 'Mechanic' in SF2, an existing SF1 Mechanic character may be better converted to SF2 as a different class and likely an archetype or two.
And that may be a disconnect that makes people unhappy. Just look at the Battle Oracle problems that people are bringing up with PF2 Player Core 2 currently.
Though, to be fair, I personally think that the same type of conversion problems are going to exist in several of the SF1 => SF2 existing character conversions. An Operative leaning into the role of a skill master may want to pick a different class in SF2 - possibly even importing the PF2 Rogue class instead of any of the SF2 classes.
Given how the Precog and Witchwarper were combined, I'd be curious to see the Mechanic and Technomancer combined as well. There's so many spells in Starfinder that interface with technology that I think it's be pretty easy to create a "tech class" that combined the Mechanic's drone and skills with the Technomancer's arcane magic. I could totally see the class as a wave caster with lots of extra utility spells up their sleeve and really powerful tech tools at their disposal, plus amazing access to tech weapons.
I think the two pull in too different a direction.
Like the SF1 mechanic is kind of a techy int-ranger that mixes martial combat with computers heavy skill options and the Technomancer is a Wizard. They're similar in the sense that a Paladin and Cleric are similar, but I don't think there's enough class budget room to really fit all of that in one space.
Plus the appeal for some people going into the mechanic is specifically that it's not magical.
I come to the same conclusion, but from the other direction.
I think there should be an archetype to have a mechanical companion or assistive AI.
And once that is an archetype that is available to any character, what is left for a Mechanic to have? Is it enough to build an entire class around?
I mean, yeah. PF2 has both a beastmaster archetype and a ranger, a marshal archetype and a commander, spellcasting archetypes and spellcasters.
"It could just be an archetype" reminds me of when people were acting like a fighter with wizard dedication fully replaced the Magus in PF2. It doesn't really work out that way, archetypes are too small.
My expectations from mechanic are an ability to interact better or at least more efficiently with tech than any other class. In SF1 that was most certainly true. This character interacted better (in total) with tech than any other class (or character) that i played with. The tradeoff was a lesser combat effectiveness. This is perfectly acceptable to me for SF2, and what I hope to be the case.
I am wary of having 'lesser combat effectiveness' be a balancing point of the class design. In PF2 some of the least liked classes are pre-Remaster Swashbuckler and Investigator... because they trade off some of their combat effectiveness for other benefits. The Remaster has helped to bring their combat effectiveness up to par without sacrificing their class flavor and mechanics.
As a side note, what you are describing there sounds like a Starfinder specific subclass or Class Archetype of Investigator. Probably similar to the Alchemical Sciences subclass.
I come to the same conclusion, but from the other direction.
I think there should be an archetype to have a mechanical companion or assistive AI.
And once that is an archetype that is available to any character, what is left for a Mechanic to have? Is it enough to build an entire class around?
I mean, yeah. PF2 has both a beastmaster archetype and a ranger, a marshal archetype and a commander, spellcasting archetypes and spellcasters.
"It could just be an archetype" reminds me of when people were acting like a fighter with wizard dedication fully replaced the Magus in PF2. It doesn't really work out that way, archetypes are too small.
That is a fair stance to take. Can you elaborate?
If there exists a Starfinder2e version of Beastmaster for the drone companion, and Bounty Hunter for the integrated AI, what mechanics and flavor of the SF1 Mechanic would you use to build a class with?
I haven't ever actually played a Mechanic character. So I can't really answer the question for myself.
I think they could go a couple ways with mechanic. If they want to go for a full class then leaning into the whole exo cortex feature to really lean into the AI boost/features.
One other option would be to go class archetype of inventor but it looks like they want it to be its own class so I suspect they lean into the exo cortex AI feature from SF1 and may or may not maintain the drone.
The exo cortex does seem like something they could really lean into, but if it becomes the focus of the class then you end up feeling more like a technology based evolutionist.
Which, don't get me wrong, is rad as hell, but it would look very different from the SF1 mechanic and would probably be better off just being an Evolutionist subclass.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fundamentally I think you'd just have more fleshed out versions of both within the class. In the same way that Bounty Hunter doesn't really give you the full value of Hunt Prey or invalidate the Ranger.
... Though I also think part of the discussion is difficult because the SF1 mechanic was kind of all over the place. You could be a backline support or a supersoldier with advanced gear. Sometimes the class felt more like the PF1 ranger than a true inventor.
And we've seen like, the SF2 Operative having almost no resemblance whatsoever to its SF1 counterpart.
On the flipside, the PF2 Inventor is weirdly similar to the mechanic, at least in the sense of being an int-based martial that can choose between a robot companion and upgraded weapons/armor. So that's another incentive to maybe not port the class straight.
Honestly I do think taking it in a different direction might be best, the SF1 mechanic was at its best when it using its mechanic tricks to augment themselves and allies while also weaving in some limited martial attacks.
Give them cool things to do, lean into SF1 ideas like remote hacking and overloading equipment. Let me two action overcharge shot for enhanced damage and then spend a third action on a support activity, or spend two actions supporting and a third taking a regular shot. Let a drone commander lean into bespoke actions for their companion. Stuff like that sounds fun to me.
I think the two pull in too different a direction.
Like the SF1 mechanic is kind of a techy int-ranger that mixes martial combat with computers heavy skill options and the Technomancer is a Wizard. They're similar in the sense that a Paladin and Cleric are similar, but I don't think there's enough class budget room to really fit all of that in one space.
Plus the appeal for some people going into the mechanic is specifically that it's not magical.
I'd say that actually simplifies matters quite a bit. Starfinder 2e is very much aiming to avoid "Pathfinder classes in space", so rather than have one class that's kind of a space Inventor, and another class that's 100% a space Wizard, having a class that blends heavy Computers skills, martial combat, and a bit of spellcasting would stand out in a way the component classes wouldn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd quite like to see the exocortex return somehow.
Actually, now that I think about it, what you could do is make the Mechanic's AI Buddy closer to the summoner's eidilon- A Symbiotic Partner instead of a sidekick. That would neatly sidestep the "Inventor in Space!" problem. Although the hp link is kind of necessary to balancing the eidilon, and I don't know how that would work with a technological companion that might have a physical chassis.
I just skimmed over the SF1e mechanic and yeah, its just the inventor but in space (or rather the inventor is the mechanic but in a medieval setting). For one I wouldn't bother a take two on the inventor since the inventor is IMO one of the worst designed classes in the system, but at the same time a mechanic+technomancer class that plays like a very tech-heavy spellcasters sounds really cool. Sadly, I don't see Paizo going back on their announcement so its pretty much set on stone we are going to have technomancer and mechanic as two different classes.
I just skimmed over the SF1e mechanic and yeah, its just the inventor but in space (or rather the inventor is the mechanic but in a medieval setting). For one I wouldn't bother a take two on the inventor since the inventor is IMO one of the worst designed classes in the system, but at the same time a mechanic+technomancer class that plays like a very tech-heavy spellcasters sounds really cool. Sadly, I don't see Paizo going back on their announcement so its pretty much set on stone we are going to have technomancer and mechanic as two different classes.
Honestly I'm vaguely excited for a take two (even if it's not exactly that) because the Inventor is kinda boring and Paizo's more recent class designs have been more interesting. The inventor is functional enough I don't see GnG remaster really doing much to fix it, at least not on a more systemic level.
|
|
I am wary of having 'lesser combat effectiveness' be a balancing point of the class design. In PF2 some of the least liked classes are pre-Remaster Swashbuckler and Investigator... because they trade off some of their combat effectiveness for other benefits. The Remaster has helped to bring their combat effectiveness up to par without sacrificing their class flavor and mechanics.
As a side note, what you are describing there sounds like a Starfinder specific subclass or Class Archetype of Investigator. Probably similar to the Alchemical Sciences subclass.
Lesser combat effectiveness was not the best wording to what I had intended. I meant for the chassis of the class to be focused on specific skills and/or fun interactions with tech, with combat damage in the subclass or class feat options. Yes, somewhat akin to Investigator but hardly an investor in space.
As for SF2 mechanic possibilities, it will likely be an int based class. Thus, class DCs will be Int based. As int is not an attack stat, it wouldn't be too far to have an exocortex as an option that gives a +1 circumstance or status bonus to a specific target. In fact, as a 1 action activity, similar to hunt prey, you could have a target lock. And, with a target locked, you could then have class options or features or subclass features that interact with your locked target. Subclasses like a drone pet getting some benefit against the locked target. Experimental weapon or armor getting a bonus against the locked target. Other subclasses could get a benefit to Computers checks to demoralize. Or cause the glitching status.
Class feats could translate across like neural shunt, tech tinkerer, tec..
I think there is certainly a whole class to be had.
I'd quite like to see the exocortex return somehow.
What I found good about the exocortex was it was the best way to achieve a full cyborg identity (until evolutionist) by installing all the armor upgrades and drone mods into your body. It was great if you had the money to do it.
Yeah. The thing is, it may not be the same class.
So while there may be a class named 'Mechanic' in SF2, an existing SF1 Mechanic character may be better converted to SF2 as a different class and likely an archetype or two.
I definitely am assuming any future Mechanic class will be completely new mechanically rather than converting 1e. The inventor already covers the key elements of 1e mechanic (use tech to enhance your attacks, have a robot minion, have experimental weapons/armour), so they'll go in a different direction. Maybe more support focused than martial focused.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanic and inventor get compared a lot, but there's a big difference. If I'm on a starship I don't want an inventor anywhere near the engine room or any other important piece of equipment that might explode. Unless I'm playing a space goblin, then the inventor is the perfect class.
I personally don't want an inventor near or away of anything if possible, but that's just me. As I said in one of the operative threads, I'm pretty sure G&G getting a remaster first is likely because of the operative and mechanic since, at least the operative, is likely going to be a direct upgrade to their equivalent PF2e class.
Inventor and Mechanic work on the same things, but are separated by the scientific revolution. The Inventor is pioneering tehnology in a world where empiricism and the scientific method are in their infancy, and the Inventor is woeking without much framework of research background. The Mechanic has millennia of science and engineering to fall back on, and is iterating on proven technologies. They should feel very different.
My main concern is that I feel custom armor and weapons should be archetypes because I think building cutting edge weapons and armor will feel better if you're also the best one at using them. It's not the most true to life, but I think the fantasy will feel better if it doesn't feel like the operative/soldier would use your custom super gun better than the character who built it but for aome arbitrary restriction. I think most people want to be Tony Stark, not Lucius Fox*.
*Yes, I know his son Luke uses his own power suit. But I don't know how much batfamily lore the average forum goer here knows.
Even I myself called Golarion "a medieval setting" in my earlier comment, Golarion is far from being truly medieval except for the obvious aesthethics. In fact, Golarion is a word that even if technologically behind when compared to 1920s Earth, culturally its closer to our modern world since stuff like racism, homophobia, or transphobia aren't really a thing (likely because its game being made in the modern world where that stopped being a problem a long time ago, but regardless) and also because a ton of stuff that are problems in world like a ton of diseases aren't seemingly problem since, at least humans, have the same (if not higher) lifespan than humans from our world or even the humans in the future of Starfinder.
Obviously this isn't (or wasn't since this is the future) because of technology but rather magic, that's why I would expect for both the mechanic and techomancer to not be "the class that focuses on technology" and "the class that focuses on magic" but rather be a blend of both. I didn't have too much experience with SF1e but I assume the technomancer wasn't restricted to use technology and probably even had some tech-based stuff too, but I would expect the mechanic to cover the niche of "its so good at doing X that it practically seems like magic". In mechanics (hah!), I mean something like a nonconventional martial that, much like a spellcaster, can fulfill multiple roles based on which spells you prepare. I don't know exactly how that would translate into the class exactly, but what I mean to say is that the classes should overlap into each other a little, with the technomancer being a mage that uses technology and the mechanic a martial that uses "magic".
I had similar ideas in a different thread that I might as well restate here:
Perhaps the mechanic could have an ability to do something like overclocking. Increasing a weapon's damage die, or squeezing more speed from a vehicle, all at the extend of damage done to the item/vehicle/structure that will have to be repaired.This feels a bit too Inventor, though perhaps because I thought Clockwork Celerity should have been the default level 1 Unstable ability and Explode a feat, so I imagine all inventors basically overclocking (between that and Overdrive) all day long.
That said, a new glossier version of Unstable might create a good through line between these two classes while they have different focus. Maybe "Hack" where instead of succeeding at a flat check to gain another use of Unstable, you have to succeed at an Hard DC computer or engineering check to sustain?
Actually, that might be an interesting direction to go. Have the mechanic specialize in computer and engineering flavored sustain actions, sort of like a techno-witch. That would be a solid differentiator away from the inventor, who creates contraptions that do Things no contraption like that should be able to do. The Mechanic instead would be the one that against all odds keeps a drone operating, that starship sailing, and the computer virus wrecking ever more havoc. Definitely a lot of iconic Mechanics would fit into that kind of character trope.
I further guessed that the drone could vary in how important it is, from most of the class budget (so, Eidolon) to Companion to Exocortex (familiar power level)*, and this variance could be the mechanic subclasses. That would be something new that hasn't yet been pulled off; a pet class with a dial on if you or your pet are more important, with the option to remove the pet almost entirely.
*What I mean by this is that I imagine an exocortex to be baseline an augment with changeable bonus abilities, and that more or less have the same power level as familiar abilities, including the ability to take certain actions on its own. Immobile by default, but the ability to detach from you and fly about on its own seems cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a thematic difference that can be made between a Mechanic and an Inventor, a difference which can apply to an Inventor in Starfinder, and a Mechanic in Pathfinder.
An inventor is always on the cutting edge. This can apply even in Starfinder, where an Inventor would create advanced weaponry or advanced armor, the likes of which you will not find on the market, but as research prototypes for products that are not ready for public release.
A mechanic, meanwhile, is not about innovation. They are about optimizing the present. A mechanic's place would be to be an efficient craftsman and repairman, the person who can pull 110% out of any item they are assigned to work over. Perhaps granting equipment extra upgrade slots, being the person who can squeeze in the one or two extra augments in either themselves or their patients, and the like. The Mechanic might be able to expand the discounts of created items beyond the 50% mark, for example. Or jerry rig a crafting using unoptimal parts.
Essentially the Inventor is unreliable, but cutting edge, while the mechanic is reliable, but locked into the present.
I really like this approach, though even if the flavor text tells you the inventor is all about "discovering new tech that hasn't been created yet" in practice an inventor is more like your description of the mechanic. A construct innovation is just an animal companion that happens to be a robot, a weapon innovation is as a regular weapon with one or two extra traits, and while the armor innovation is a little more unique at the end of the day it isn't that different from just a regular armor with some modifications thrown to it. A remastered inventor could change this a little, but fundamentally the core of the class isn't going to be changed. Well, its not like the G&G remaster has been officially announced yet, so its probably not even Paizo themselves know (yet) what are their plans with the inventor right now. I personally would really appreciate a full rework like the alchemist, but even if people tend to agree the inventor isn't in good shape it certainly doesn't have the same fame of being "unplayable" like the alchemist was, so probably for them it wouldn't be worth to do a revision of the class if people don't seem to demand something on that scale.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically and theme-wise having a mechanic on a starship in SF1e was a good thing even if not required, as long as someone had the engineering skill. We don't know yet what starship combat will look like in SF2e. Also vehicles and mechs are another place where mechanics fit in well theme-wise. I wouldn't mind seeing a class option that focuses more on being a starship, mech, or vehicle mechanic.
In SF1e operatives made good combat engineers, with operatives not being skill monkeys anymore the mechanics could take over that role now as one of their class options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given how the Precog and Witchwarper were combined, I'd be curious to see the Mechanic and Technomancer combined as well. There's so many spells in Starfinder that interface with technology that I think it's be pretty easy to create a "tech class" that combined the Mechanic's drone and skills with the Technomancer's arcane magic. I could totally see the class as a wave caster with lots of extra utility spells up their sleeve and really powerful tech tools at their disposal, plus amazing access to tech weapons.
I wouldn't be upset about this, but I also like the idea of a martial and a caster answer to the same question of who covers tech in the party. Wave caster wouldn't be an issue for me if it's like 4 and 4 instead of 2 and 2, and the studious spells equivalent gave more slots. However I think I'd prefer the technomancer to be able to use spells to summon/construct artillery/turrets/drones instead of firing a gun themselves, but I would still like it if they could also be competent with simple ranged weapons