The problem with that setup (speaking as someone who played in the same group as a binder), was that it seemed totally random and arbitrary unless you'd read that writeup.
Right. But that can be a strength at times, as well. Lots of things are that way in D&D. The fey pact warlock makes absolutely zero sense if you don't have a working understanding of the fey (teleportation + mental attacks + mental domination = psionics?), but once you do, the interlocking of flavor and mechanics is great, and adds something that you simply can't have with a more generic class.
Which five people at the table hadn't. So it worked great if you wanted to be the crazy guy nobody understands (hey, Derek!). It didn't works so well if you wanted to have consistent abilities
"Consistent" is conditioned on our understandings of the flavor. Something like the druid is incredibly inconsistent... unless you understand the flavor. Leave out the flavor and what's the 4e druid? A werewolf that shoots lightning? Obviously there are limits, points where too much knowledge of flavor is required before something makes sense, but I didn't think that the Binder overstepped these. Or rather, it did, but it embraced it and turned it into a positive.
or, hell, even seem like the same character was coming to the table each week.
That was advertised as a design feature in Tome of Battle. I guess the changes really will be significant.
I liked all the flavor because it allowed for interesting combinations of concepts and mechanics that simply won't be possible under a system of less detailed fluff. Yes, it meant that other players didn't always follow what you were about, but telling them at least gave everyone something to talk about in character.
The vestige pact warlock drops the power level and significance of each vestige, but keeps the flavor of making pacts with specific people. Since most pacts are more genericized, I think this one still feels different. Would it be possible to make a class more like the 3.5 binder, with in-depth flavor for your vestige? Sure, probably. The vestige pact warlock didn't go that far with it. It's entirely possible to do an article that details the AP vestiges more, too.
From what I can tell, the degree of "pacts with specific people" flavor is about equal to the degree of "different types of rages" for the barbarian. You get a daily, an augment to an at will, and a pact boon.
Oh well. You win some you lose some with an edition change.
At least give out a utility or a feat that lets you change pacts mid combat. No one is going to travel around with Ugar active in hopes that they fight someone with concealment when they could travel with a pact that gives them extra damage.
Rechan said:
HINT: Write and submit said article if you want the mucho fluff for the Vestige Warlock!
I don't just want fluff, I want fluff intertwined with mechanics.
I suspect that this, like chromatic dragons (which are actually the same issue, really), will continue to be something that never satisfies me about D&D.
