The Binder is fixed!

[mudlock]

Eratta does not only have to be nerfing, it can be boosting also, something WOTC does not seem to agree with.

And they've said as much. "Boosting"-type fixes are, in general, handled by publishing new material (new powers, new feats, etc.) Errata is, in general, for nerfs alone.

 

[mneme]

mudlock: The way they didn't boost the Warlock by giving starlock a usable Cha path and a usable Con path?

Oh, right, they did that.

What about fixing Blurred Step? Oh, right, they did that too (eventually), didn't they?

They do do PLE (power level eratta) in both directions. But the nerfs are more urgent -- and they're right there; stuff that's too weak means that some material they use can't be used as intended for a while, but stuff that's too strong may warp the entire game. If clerics are too weak, maybe you don't play a cleric until that's fixed; if clerics are too strong, you have a good reason not to play warlords, artificers, shamen, bards, and sentinels.

 

[mudlock]

mudlock: The way they didn't boost the Warlock by giving starlock a usable Cha path and a usable Con path?

Oh, right, they did that.

...by publishing new powers and feats. Just like I said. Oh, and Dire Radiance can use either Cha or Con, which since it's a fixed power is a lot like the change they made to Blurred Step:

What about fixing Blurred Step? Oh, right, they did that too (eventually), didn't they?

I did say "in general." By which I mean, it's obviously their preferred method (new material=new sales). But something like blurred step (or dire radiance)--a feature/fixed power that's (arguably) necessary for the class to perform its role effectively--would be all-but impossible to fix by their preferred method. And they took a long time to do it, almost as if they spent a long, hard time trying to think of a *different* way to do it...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

...by publishing new powers and feats. Just like I said. Oh, and Dire Radiance can use either Cha or Con, which since it's a fixed power is a lot like the change they made to Blurred Step:



I did say "in general." By which I mean, it's obviously their preferred method (new material=new sales). But something like blurred step (or dire radiance)--a feature/fixed power that's (arguably) necessary for the class to perform its role effectively--would be all-but impossible to fix by their preferred method. And they took a long time to do it, almost as if they spent a long, hard time trying to think of a *different* way to do it...

Right, but in the case of the Binder, they REALLY need to do something. It is basically a non-functional class as it is now. There is no reason on this Green Earth why you would ever play a Binder at all. They WORK, but the class really is drastically underpowered. Even Seekers are substantially more effective.

I'd bet though that since there is now a new and equally poor build that they have no intention of doing an errata anytime soon.

 

[Gort]

I know nothing. What's the big problem with the binder?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I know nothing. What's the big problem with the binder?

In a nutshell, its pact boon triggers when you either kill something or an enemy dies in a square adjacent to you. The chances of that happening (for a class that has no reason to get near an enemy otherwise) is unlikely at best. So you basically have a pact boon that triggers maybe a couple times a level. At which point you get to slide or teleport an enemy 3 squares. Wow!

Beyond that you just have powers and whatnot that are strictly in every sense inferior to a regular warlock, lock stock and barrel. A straight warlock can poach all your powers (some have riders, but honestly a lot of the riders aren't that great).

It is just really sub-par and you can get ALMOST everything the binder offers without being a binder. It isn't unplayable, there's just no reason TO play it. The class needs something. Basically it needs a pact boon that actually works. If you could trigger the boon 2-3 times per fight reliably it would start to at least have a good core control function. You'd probably still need something else to spice it up. At least a couple good solid feats that can't be poached by other 'locks. Something.

Honestly I think the root of the problem is that the concept is weak and the class lacks a real niche that it owns. It is supposed to be a 100% controller version of warlock, but regular 'locks are really not bad controllers if built in that direction, PLUS they're still going to dish out some respectable (and at high levels very impressive) damage. So there's just insufficient differentiation there to give it any real niche protection. On top of that we have the Mage/Arcanist, which is a bang-up arcane controller too. There's just not a compelling archetype for the class to be built around nor a role niche that needed to be filled.

I think it was a class concept that really should have been axed, but at some point they must have realized they had nothing else to go with and a book that needed to be wrapped, so they went with it. Sometimes things just don't gel and the binder just didn't gel.

 

[mneme]

Abdul: I'd think it would trigger a lot more often than that, given that you will still kill things occasionally. But yeah, the pact boon is a problem (should be "when you kill something or when something you hit since your last turn gets killed").

I think a worse problem is that except for the at-wills, the class loses a big feature (+damage) and doesn't grant anything in return. Shadow Twist is a good replacement for Prime Shot, but in place of Curse damage, there is...nothing.

I mean, you could fix the binder with, say:

Binder's Malison

Whenever you attack a creature, it is affected by your Malison until the beginning of your next turn.

A creature affected by your Malison takes a -2 to attack rolls and saving throws.

Then have your boon trigger on creatures affected by your Malison and creatures you reduce to 0.

 

[Larrin]

Honestly I think the root of the problem is that the concept is weak and the class lacks a real niche that it owns.

This helps me put my finger on something about the binder. From the first time I read it, it left me cold, empty, and longing. To me its in the mechanics that it is weak and nicheless, and oh how weak and without niche it is. I read through the HoShadows binder part and could not tell what they did. They didn't make sense. The powers were 'fine' if not particularly inspiring (but thats how I feel about druids), there were class abilities that sure seemed like class abilities, but there was no hook where I could say "Oh, when you play this character you're going to be doing X, because of Y in flavor and Z in mechanics space". I've seen a few in play (very limited in D&D encounters, just two sessions with different people each time). The powers were nice. They work. But every other class has nice, working powers AND purpose, uniqueness, and interplay between powers and purpose. Binders don't get anything more than their powers, I've yet to see them use a class feature (such as pact boon), maybe shadow twist (actually i think they forgot to use it), and in that case, they're looking pretty weak and pointless.

And I've never seen them Bind anything! Where is the Bindage!

I think it was a class concept that really should have been axed, but at some point they must have realized they had nothing else to go with and a book that needed to be wrapped, so they went with it. Sometimes things just don't gel and the binder just didn't gel.

This I disagree with, though weakly. The concept has life. The idea that you're binding greater powers to yourself seems like it could be a smart take on the warlock schtick. Normal warlocks pledge themselves to willing patrons, binders bind a patrons power to themselves via ritual (or perhaps they bind themselves to the patron). This sounds like a go getter who owes their patron less, and is in more control of the pact. They chose/wrote the bargain and glued their patron into it. Maybe they can bind different powers to different chakras of their body or switch out who is bound to them (look at the vestige pact warlock for the concept of changing your pact benefactor) But nothing in the binder class suggestes this is being done, if anything they are more enslaved to their pact than a normal warlock, and gets a lesser share of warlock goodies to boot. The mechanics of the binder are devoid of any conceptual uniqueness and disjoint with any interesting concept. At best the concept of a binder seems to be "A shadowy version of an already shadowy class" and a shade of a shade is a shade too pale.


.....and the brain accidentally hit the ramble switch. This doesn't bode well for my day of work...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Abdul: I'd think it would trigger a lot more often than that, given that you will still kill things occasionally. But yeah, the pact boon is a problem (should be "when you kill something or when something you hit since your last turn gets killed").

Meh, not really. You're a controller, so you aren't really out to do a lot of damage. It isn't like binders have big AoEs either. They will hit multiple targets a decent amount, but if you figure random chance would give each PC in a group roughly 1 kill per encounter and the strikers are going to do considerably better than that then you're looking at a lower echelon controller like this one getting a kill maybe once every 2 encounters. There will be times where there are a bunch of minions and you can amp that up some, but when you compare it to most class features that trigger every time you 'do your thing' it bites. Your suggestion maybe is not bad. I'd almost just go for a 'when you hit an enemy' and keep it simple. The push could be knocked down to 1 square (you can always jack it up with various feats etc).

I think a worse problem is that except for the at-wills, the class loses a big feature (+damage) and doesn't grant anything in return. Shadow Twist is a good replacement for Prime Shot, but in place of Curse damage, there is...nothing.

I mean, you could fix the binder with, say:



Then have your boon trigger on creatures affected by your Malison and creatures you reduce to 0.

Eh, the boon itself isn't BAD. It is somewhat situational though. In some cases pushing enemies around the field is GREAT and in others it is almost irrelevant. Still, when it is good it can be hideously good. I think that was part of the problem. Somehow the devs think that a boon that works once in a great while and MAY do some horrendous damage to the enemy is wonderful, but it really isn't. Yeah, the malison idea might work.

I still say that fundamentally though it will always be a weak class because it just shares too much niche with the wizard and the regular warlock (not to mention bards can move stuff around like chess pieces). I just can't ask myself the question "what is special about this class that it does that some similar class doesn't do already?". I think the reason the mechanical design failed is because it had no vision behind it to start with. The best design has to be backed with vision. D&D isn't a boardgame you can just make up mechanics for.

 

[Zaran]

Why do the kickers require the warlock to be a Fey Pact (binder)? Wish they would learn that they shouldn't narrow their new content so much.