D&D General The 3.5 Binder was a really cool class

[Voadam]

I also found the Greyhawk lore for Binders really interesting because a lot of deities and their worshipers actively opposed Binding and hunted down Binders. There was even an alliance between Good, Neutral, and Evil deities (one of them Vecna) specifically to eliminate Binding.

It was interesting and had potential, but I mostly came down on the side of not really seeing LG paladin Hieroneous and LG cleric St. Cuthbert churches allying with explicitly evil Vecna priests just to war upon pact magic users. Possibly if pact magic were unleashing an apocalypse or destroying the gods, but pact magic was essentially just a different kind of magic and less bad than the then explicitly fiendish warlocks. The Seropenaean order of secret church alliance concept would have worked better if it was set up to thwart something of a more existential common threat like Tharizdun cultists in Greyhawk.

 

[Hussar]

I also found the Greyhawk lore for Binders really interesting because a lot of deities and their worshipers actively opposed Binding and hunted down Binders. There was even an alliance between Good, Neutral, and Evil deities (one of them Vecna) specifically to eliminate Binding.

When I ran Candlekeep Mysteries, one side plot that I tried to get off the ground was the idea of binders and the sort of "secret war" that the various faiths had going on. It didn't really go anywhere (mostly due to my own lack of preparation than anything else) but, I always thought that this would make an absolute fantastic campaign.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I played a binder in 3e and really enjoyed it. Flavor is my cup of tea, and the character I played was a changeling who would shift form to resemble the various vestiges she was binding (her name was Rasa, as in "Tabula Rasa"). The fiction for the vestiges was very, very good. Great role playing mechanics in there.

It was very complicated, but by late 3e this wasn't too big of a deal.

In 5e, a Warlock could do it, though I'd love some Vestige-flavored Invocations. And a key element of delight was in the vestiges showing their little personality traits, so if those Invocations came with a bit of personality, that'd be dope. Hm....

 

[I'm A Banana]

There was a recent thread talking about Wild Magic, and it make me really think about how highly "random" abilities work best in a scripted format where there's nothing random about them and it's all decided by the author for maximum narrative impact. Meanwhile having genuinely random features in a game means you're more likely to get a frustrating or anticlimactic result than a narratively satisfying one.

When I play a wild mage, frustrating or anticlimactic results are part of the fun. If I wanted control, I'd write a novel (or, at least, NOT play an archetype that revels in lack of control).

 

[jmartkdr2]

When I play a wild mage, frustrating or anticlimactic results are part of the fun. If I wanted control, I'd write a novel (or, at least, NOT play an archetype that revels in lack of control).

The problem is when someone else at the table doesn’t want that level of randomness.

 

[Necropolitan]

When I ran Candlekeep Mysteries, one side plot that I tried to get off the ground was the idea of binders and the sort of "secret war" that the various faiths had going on. It didn't really go anywhere (mostly due to my own lack of preparation than anything else) but, I always thought that this would make an absolute fantastic campaign.

I'm wondering if I should try to get a Binder-related 3.5 or Pathfinder 1E PBP campaign set up.

Binders can fill multiple rolls so if it started at a higher level you could have multiple Binder PCs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem is when someone else at the table doesn’t want that level of randomness.

Seems like they designed the randomness to not swing too dramatically in 5e, judging by the lack of people I've seen generally complaining about the modern wild mage (which is to say, maybe single digits, over the course of 10 years).

You don't think so?

 

[Kurotowa]

When I play a wild mage, frustrating or anticlimactic results are part of the fun. If I wanted control, I'd write a novel (or, at least, NOT play an archetype that revels in lack of control).

Right, but that's a very niche taste. Which sure, there's room for narrowly niche options in the game. But as pointed out, getting buy in from the entire group can sometimes be hard when it impact everyone.

 

[Alzrius]

Right, but that's a very niche taste. Which sure, there's room for narrowly niche options in the game. But as pointed out, getting buy in from the entire group can sometimes be hard when it impact everyone.

All groups are different, but that sounds like something of an overstatement. D&D is a team game, and most players realize before they ever sit down that A) the actions of someone else's character can impact their own, and B) bad rolls of the dice happen.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Seems like they designed the randomness to not swing too dramatically in 5e, judging by the lack of people I've seen generally complaining about the modern wild mage (which is to say, maybe single digits, over the course of 10 years).

You don't think so?

My personal experience has been that it’s very frustrating at low levels if one of the bad results come up. IE a tpk from a fireball centered on a party of level 2 pcs.