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

[Kurotowa]

I also just don't think base D&D 5E has the mechanically depth to really deliver on the diversity of the 3.5 Binder. A5E, maybe.

Simplicity can be a virtue, sometimes. The group in my current campaign hit 7th level recently. For most of us, leveling up took less than five minutes. The only one who took longer was the Cleric having to pick out their 4th level spells, and it was only a little while longer. And for most of the players, who are on the casual side and have less of the book memorized than anyone here on ENworld? They liked that they didn't have to spend half an hour combing through options and recalculating statistics.

So it's a question of priorities and trade offs. D&D 5e went with simplicity and ease of use, and the cost of that is that the design space is more limited. Classes can't get as weird or experimental. You need a more complex system with more moving parts for that. Which some games do offer, but at the cost of alienating the casual players who want something they can just pick up and play easily.

 

[Necropolitan]

Hey folks, can we either get back to talking about the Binder or let this thread die? Because I'd love to talk more about the Binder.

Started rereading my copy of Tome of Magic a couple of nights ago, and I'm pleasantly surprised by just how much of my nostalgia of the flavour is not, in fact, rose-coloured glasses. I will say though, that due to said flavour, it's even more tightly bound to a setting than even a cleric is. With clerics, their god can be abstracted (especially since you can "worship" a concept for your power). But with the Binder, each Vestige is a unique character, many of which their backstories and powersets are closely tied into a specific world's history.

I'd love to find other games with similar classes, where your bargaining for power with distinct entities is actually mechanically reinforced. It's almost enough to make me want to play PF1 again.

There's a Pathfinder 1st Edition Binder from Radiant House and a 5th Edition D&D version by Mage Hand Press.

I haven't finished reading the 5E version, but it seems promising in terms of providing the desired playstyle.

 

[BrokenTwin]

@Kurotowa Yeah, I'm not necessarily saying the level of complexity of D&D 5E is bad (though for me, it sits right in the uncomfortable zone of not being complex OR simple enough).

Ironically, I think Binder is a class that could be better expressed in both simpler AND more complicated systems.

@Necropolitan Huh, someone DID do a 5E binder? I'm curious enough to check it out. I've seen the PF1 version, and it's definitely better balanced than the original, though a bit less flavourful for me.

 

[Necropolitan]

@Necropolitan Huh, someone DID do a 5E binder? I'm curious enough to check it out. I've seen the PF1 version, and it's definitely better balanced than the original, though a bit less flavourful for me.

I'll post my opinion on the 5E Binder here once I'm finished reading it.

 

[Staffan]

The biggest difference I saw was how each new vestige really changed your role - it wasn’t a spell list, it was a set of at-will abilities that pushed you towards a specific style of play.

As I recall, the Binder was also one of the first places where we started seeing encounter abilities. They weren't called that, but some of the vestiges had abilities that recharged after 5 rounds, which basically made them 1/encounter.

@Necropolitan Huh, someone DID do a 5E binder? I'm curious enough to check it out. I've seen the PF1 version, and it's definitely better balanced than the original, though a bit less flavourful for me.

PF1 also had an official binder-like class in Occult Adventures, the Medium. They were more about channeling class/stat archetypes than the highly idiosyncratic vestiges the Binder deals in, though.

 

[fuindordm]

One of my biggest worries about a theoretical 5E Binder would be them just boiling it down to interchangeable spell lists in flavourless blocks. Like, I get the usefulness of having generic "Archer Vestige" and "Necromancer Vestige" divorced from a specific setting, but it just doesn't hit the same. I do like the basic idea of a vestige giving you a cantip, skill (expertise if you already have it), relevant tool proficiency, and/or an outright class ability.

One of the things that really impressed me with the Binder is that most of the vestiges avoided common stereotypes and archtypes

 

[Tigris]

I honestly have no idea how you could make the Binder work in the design language of modern D&D.

I wanted to say its not just rhe design language but also the gamedesign space of 5e but

@Kurotowa Yeah, I'm not necessarily saying the level of complexity of D&D 5E is bad (though for me, it sits right in the uncomfortable zone of not being complex OR simple enough).

You kind of said the same thing later.

Ironically, I think Binder is a class that could be better expressed in both simpler AND more complicated systems.

I think this has not only to do with the complexity bjt depth of 5e and game design space.

I think Beacon or even strike, which both are more streamlined than 5ey have a broader range of possible abilities than 5e. Just from the way they are designed. (Longer combats (more turns), more importance of forced movement and positioning and different roles and allowing more complexity outside spells).


Also I hope 6E will be more streamlined than 5e but especially I hope it will have again a way bigger design space.


Having said that here how I would make a 5.24 binder:

Level 1 fake pseudo subclass (like druid or priest or kind of druid with fighting style vs canteips) to make it kind of work before level 3 and you can change it every morning. Maybe giving 3 choices here.

Level 2?? Maybe improve the fake level 1 subclass.

Level 3 instead of a subclass you can choose each day 1 vestige. The vestige decides which fake level 1 subclass you choose. It gives you some other passive effects and 2 "once per shortrest" abilities. Each vestige has like 2 parts. The level 3 vestige gives both parts.


Level 5 2nd vestige, but only half its part (like 1 short rest ability).

Level 7 improved 2nd vestige. Gives full vestige abilities.


Level 11 3rd vestige first part.

Level 13 3rd vestige full

Level 17 4th vestige first part

Level 20 4th vestige full.


Each vestige first and second part each has 1 passive non combat ability. 1 passive ability helping in combat, 1 active ability per short rest.


Each first part of a vestige gives an "attack option" (cantrip, good weapon proficiency + Weapon mastery, but maybe also "hunters mark" (proficiency times per day) etc).

Each second part improves this attack ability. (Cantrip improvement (like wis to damage, or additional rider), fighting style, hunters mark needs no concententration etc.)


Level 6, 10, 16 give feats, but they can be changed if 1st, 2nd, 3rd (level 6, 10, 16) vestige is changed.



Not ideal, but uses the 5.24 framework "only" needs to break subclass a bit.