Eldritch Knight: Anyone play it yet?

[andhaira]

So anyone got to play it yet to higher levels, like level 6-10? Is it any good? Does it fulfill the cravings for a Warrior-Mage class? What really annoys me about the class is not the small spell slots or spell selection, I can live with those. What annoys me most is the loooong wait to get the good spells, like Fireball/Lightning bolt. EKs get them at level 13! That's 8 levels higher than wizards...come on. I wish they had limited the EKs fighting abilities a bit, say give them one less attack, one less feat/attribute or something, like they limited it's schools, and instead give better spell progression.

[Ferrin33]

So anyone got to play it yet to higher levels, like level 6-10? Is it any good? Does it fulfill the cravings for a Warrior-Mage class? What really annoys me about the class is not the small spell slots or spell selection, I can live with those. What annoys me most is the loooong wait to get the good spells, like Fireball/Lightning bolt. EKs get them at level 13! That's 8 levels higher than wizards...come on. I wish they had limited the EKs fighting abilities a bit, say give them one less attack, one less feat/attribute or something, like they limited it's schools, and instead give better spell progression.

You could just go Fighter5/Wizard5 and get Fireball by 10th level.(or earlier if you take the fighter levels a bit later) Really, if you want to be more focused on spellcasting you can be, you just need to take levels in a class more focused on spellcasting. There are options to play what you want, you just won't be able to cherry-pick every specific class feature. :)

[archaeo]

I feel like EK has been underrated so far. In addition to being a Fighter, with all that entails (d10 hit die, second wind, action surge, fighting stance, extra attacks), you can pick up a lot of very useful magic as an EK. With some good feats and spells, I suspect the EK can really hold its own in battle while having more built-in flexibility than the other subclasses.

Most of the problem, imo, is that the PHB's spell organization makes it difficult to figure out which spells the EK has access to.

[Ferrin33]

I feel like EK has been underrated so far. In addition to being a Fighter, with all that entails (d10 hit die, second wind, action surge, fighting stance, extra attacks), you can pick up a lot of very useful magic as an EK. With some good feats and spells, I suspect the EK can really hold its own in battle while having more built-in flexibility than the other subclasses.

Most of the problem, imo, is that the PHB's spell organization makes it difficult to figure out which spells the EK has access to.

It's the same for all classes really. It's really a shame that the spells don't have the classes that can learn them in it. Well, it saves ink at least... :/

[Spacehamster]

I feel like EK has been underrated so far. In addition to being a Fighter, with all that entails (d10 hit die, second wind, action surge, fighting stance, extra attacks), you can pick up a lot of very useful magic as an EK. With some good feats and spells, I suspect the EK can really hold its own in battle while having more built-in flexibility than the other subclasses.

Most of the problem, imo, is that the PHB's spell organization makes it difficult to figure out which spells the EK has access to.

Speaking of the spell section I have never understood why they first do a nice class list with spell levels after each other in alphabetical order but no info on the spells, then another part where you get info but all spells in a jumble(not sorted in any way xcpt alphabetically). They should just put it all in the first list where it's sorted by class, level and alph.

And with spells that several classes have to save space just list name on every time it's mentioned after the 1st, and put a page number after for where the full description is.

Anyways enuf rambling. :)

Spacehamster to infinity and beyond!

[EvilAnagram]

I've been running a one-on-one campaign with the gf, and I've been using an Eldritch Knight bodyguard to babysit her in the early levels (and later kill off in a blaze of glory). Honestly, it's pretty sweet. You get solid ranged attacks and abjuration spells that complement your martial abilities very well. I haven't played it in high levels, but at level 5 they're beasts.

[Stan]

To figure out which spells an EK can use and generally to know which spell is in which school, I recommend using this spreadsheet:

http://mouseferatu.com/index.php/news/august-8-2014-a-special-gift-for-my-fellow-dd-fans/

[D1ng]

College of Valor Bard does pretty much everything you seem to be wanting here. Eldritch knight (to my mind) is more about grabbing buff/protective spells like shield than trying to be offensive with fireball/lighting bolt.

[Ferrin33]

College of Valor Bard does pretty much everything you seem to be wanting here. Eldritch knight (to my mind) is more about grabbing buff/protective spells like shield than trying to be offensive with fireball/lighting bolt.

Eldritch Knight is for a focus on physical combat rather than spells, Bard of Valor is for a focus on spells. Then for a combination of Melee and Spells there's the paladin and ranger, and if you want a balance between arcane and melee you can multiclass and pick the exact mix you want.

[EvilAnagram]

A CoV Bard is an excellent full caster who can deal decent physical damage. An Eldritch Knight is a phenomenal physical combatant who can supplement his combat prowess with buffs and long-range blasts.

[Rummy]

A CoV Bard is an excellent full caster who can deal decent physical damage. An Eldritch Knight is a phenomenal physical combatant who can supplement his combat prowess with buffs and long-range blasts.

My thoughts exactly. The only awkward part is getting spells at level three but getting war caster at level four. I see a level three EK using a long sword with two hands on his turn and with one hand otherwise (to free up a hand for shield). At level four you can go sword and board for ultimate defense or, my preference, two handed sword for serious damage. The build doesn't truly come into its own until 7th level with Blur, the Gish godsend. Also, at 7th level you can blade ward / attack for extra staying power. Blur + Bladeward + Shield = magical tank. Throw in Sentinel, or Polearm Master, or Mage Slayer for extra shenanigans.

[D1ng]

Agreed. It would be nice if there was a 1/2 caster arcane class to bridge the gap between full caster and 1/3 caster. However I guess that is doable by mixing EK with Sorcerer or (Abjuration) Wizard. Quickening hold person, then action surge + attack is an amazing nova for an EK / Sorc.

[Ferrin33]

Agreed. It would be nice if there was a 1/2 caster arcane class to bridge the gap between full caster and 1/3 caster. However I guess that is doable by mixing EK with Sorcerer or (Abjuration) Wizard. Quickening hold person, then action surge + attack is an amazing nova for an EK / Sorc.

There's no real need for a 1/1, 1/2, and 1/3 of Nature, Divine, and Arcane spellcasting classes for all of them. I'd welcome them if they bring something new and interesting, but with multiclassing you can achieve around the same results anyway.

[CyberThread]

To figure out which spells an EK can use and generally to know which spell is in which school, I recommend using this spreadsheet:

http://mouseferatu.com/index.php/news/august-8-2014-a-special-gift-for-my-fellow-dd-fans/


eww...


http://salty-ridge-7989.herokuapp.com/

much cleaner



An, well. I already did this also

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367128-Eldritch-Knight-Spell-List

[CyberThread]

but with multiclassing you can achieve around the same results anyway.


That is a varient rule, so WOTC should assume that is not in play, and make viable options in the future :)

[Ferrin33]

That is a varient rule, so WOTC should assume that is not in play, and make viable options in the future :)

A variant rule put in place to allow for more options in character creation.

I wouldn't say no to more archetypes and/or classes though. Mostly hoping for a Binder as its own class before a new magic type comes along. No, a warlock is not a binder.

[Inevitability]

Don't forget that you also gain some utility spells, like Sending, which will remain useful all the time.

And when splatbooks bring us new wizard spells, the EK will also benefit from that, something few other subclasses can claim.

[andhaira]

There's no real need for a 1/1, 1/2, and 1/3 of Nature, Divine, and Arcane spellcasting classes for all of them. I'd welcome them if they bring something new and interesting, but with multiclassing you can achieve around the same results anyway.

No, with multi classing you cannot achieve the same results. If that were true, there would be no need for the EK itself. Since even the designers of the game do not agree that multi classing is a effective tactic.

Multi classing has benefits, just 1 level of fighter can give a wizard weapon and armor proficiency. Unfortunately with Bounded Accuracy AC is not as important as it once was, which is why they allowed wizards to wear full plate in the first place in this edition, and also why d4 classes got shifted up to d6. Monsters will hit much more often this time around. So will PCs.

[Ferrin33]

No, with multi classing you cannot achieve the same results. If that were true, there would be no need for the EK itself. Since even the designers of the game do not agree that multi classing is a effective tactic.

Multi classing has benefits, just 1 level of fighter can give a wizard weapon and armor proficiency. Unfortunately with Bounded Accuracy AC is not as important as it once was, which is why they allowed wizards to wear full plate in the first place in this edition, and also why d4 classes got shifted up to d6. Monsters will hit much more often this time around. So will PCs.

I said "around the same". Of course you won't get the exact thing you want, but you can get pretty close to it.

[T.G. Oskar]

There's no real need for a 1/1, 1/2, and 1/3 of Nature, Divine, and Arcane spellcasting classes for all of them. I'd welcome them if they bring something new and interesting, but with multiclassing you can achieve around the same results anyway.


I wouldn't say no to more archetypes and/or classes though. Mostly hoping for a Binder as its own class before a new magic type comes along. No, a warlock is not a binder.

Strange that you don't care for an arcane/martial hybrid caster as a base class (rather than a subclass), but hoping for a specific class and disregarding the option that represents it. Just replace "Binder" with "Warden" and you can see what I'm talking about. Some people want a half-caster that has some martial potential beyond the Eldritch Knight, and judging by the Duskblade, the Swordmage and the Magus, they're valid possibilities. I figure it'll be hard to create new classes because they're meant to be general, while most of the old classes had some stuff that made them specific: the Psion is a given because Disciplines were fairly distinct to each other and Spell Schools (from the Wizard) provide a precedent, but other classes may not be so lucky: the Swashbuckler, the Ninja, the Runepriest and the Avenger are mostly out of luck (and in the case of Ninja and Avenger, they're part of existing classes like the Monk and Paladin, judging by the subclasses). Chances are that the specific focus of the Binder won't be seen unless collapsed with something else: quite probably, to see a Binder, you'll need to collapse it with something like a Summoner class and make the subclasses distinct from each other (probably bringing Pact Magic into it). However, for all intents and purposes, the Warlock swallowed the Binder in 4e and will remain the same in 5th; the mechanic has a chance of re-emerging, but without a given fluff, it'll be almost impossible.

As for the topic...I only had one chance to DM (not to play) 5th, and that was before the release of the PHB and the DM Basic Rules. The choice of Eldritch Knight wasn't there, so I couldn't really test it, but from what I've seen, it's certainly a "gish-in-a-can". It might lack the high-power spells (and the Transmutations, a necessary requirement because of the improvements it brings) but it has access to Abjurations, and certainly has tricks to increase its survivability. It also applies the concept of combining swordplay with sorcery by means of its subclass features. However, just by observation, it seems to be weaker than a College of War Bard by virtue of the latter having a wider access to spells and Magical Secrets compensating for the lack of properly gish spells (in the same way as the four "any school" choices of spells compensate for the intentionally limited EK spell list). Old-school Gish is impossible (BAB +16/CL 17th, in order to get four attacks and 9th level spells; in this case, that'd require 20 levels of Fighter and 17 levels of Wizard, as the last Extra Attack is gained at 20th level), but there's ways to get it close (Fighter 3/Wizard 17, with Eldritch Knight and Abjuration school as subclass choices), and it'll probably be better than the EK by virtue of having better spells, but won't have the same key aspects as the College of War Bard or the EK proper.

[Hytheter]

I figured the point of EK was to be a fighter, but pick up some out of combat and support spells to supplement your martial ability.

[Ferrin33]

Strange that you don't care for an arcane/martial hybrid caster as a base class (rather than a subclass), but hoping for a specific class and disregarding the option that represents it. Just replace "Binder" with "Warden" and you can see what I'm talking about. Some people want a half-caster that has some martial potential beyond the Eldritch Knight, and judging by the Duskblade, the Swordmage and the Magus, they're valid possibilities. I figure it'll be hard to create new classes because they're meant to be general, while most of the old classes had some stuff that made them specific: the Psion is a given because Disciplines were fairly distinct to each other and Spell Schools (from the Wizard) provide a precedent, but other classes may not be so lucky: the Swashbuckler, the Ninja, the Runepriest and the Avenger are mostly out of luck (and in the case of Ninja and Avenger, they're part of existing classes like the Monk and Paladin, judging by the subclasses). Chances are that the specific focus of the Binder won't be seen unless collapsed with something else: quite probably, to see a Binder, you'll need to collapse it with something like a Summoner class and make the subclasses distinct from each other (probably bringing Pact Magic into it). However, for all intents and purposes, the Warlock swallowed the Binder in 4e and will remain the same in 5th; the mechanic has a chance of re-emerging, but without a given fluff, it'll be almost impossible.

It's the mechanics and flavor of the Binder as a whole that brings something different to the game, where an arcane/martial hybrid is done with two archetypes already. Making pacts with multiple otherwordly entities and binding them to your body is something new that you can't do yet. The warlock makes a pact, yes, but he binds nothing to his own body and only with one entity. The warlock also uses magic which the Binder does not. (unless they'd change it and he'd also get Pact Magic, perhaps through an archetype)


As for the topic...I only had one chance to DM (not to play) 5th, and that was before the release of the PHB and the DM Basic Rules. The choice of Eldritch Knight wasn't there, so I couldn't really test it, but from what I've seen, it's certainly a "gish-in-a-can". It might lack the high-power spells (and the Transmutations, a necessary requirement because of the improvements it brings) but it has access to Abjurations, and certainly has tricks to increase its survivability. It also applies the concept of combining swordplay with sorcery by means of its subclass features. However, just by observation, it seems to be weaker than a College of War Bard by virtue of the latter having a wider access to spells and Magical Secrets compensating for the lack of properly gish spells (in the same way as the four "any school" choices of spells compensate for the intentionally limited EK spell list). Old-school Gish is impossible (BAB +16/CL 17th, in order to get four attacks and 9th level spells; in this case, that'd require 20 levels of Fighter and 17 levels of Wizard, as the last Extra Attack is gained at 20th level), but there's ways to get it close (Fighter 3/Wizard 17, with Eldritch Knight and Abjuration school as subclass choices), and it'll probably be better than the EK by virtue of having better spells, but won't have the same key aspects as the College of War Bard or the EK proper.

The equal to a BAB+16/CL 17th is impossible because it's blatantly overpowered if it's in 5e. The closest you will get is Eldritch Knight for the high BAB but lower caster level, or the Bard with the spell level but lower BAB. What you seem to be asking for is have slightly less melee power(let's assume that means one less attack compared to fighter), and 9th level spells. Just... Don't you see how wrong that is from a balance standpoint? You should be comparing it to the Duskblade, the 3.5 gish in a can, which is exactly what you'd want. All I'm saying is that I think the Binder would add something new and interesting whereas the Duskblade is only a slightly different version as the Eldritch Knight.

[T.G. Oskar]

It's the mechanics and flavor of the Binder as a whole that brings something different to the game, where an arcane/martial hybrid is done with two archetypes already. Making pacts with multiple otherwordly entities and binding them to your body is something new that you can't do yet. The warlock makes a pact, yes, but he binds nothing to his own body and only with one entity. The warlock also uses magic which the Binder does not. (unless they'd change it and he'd also get Pact Magic, perhaps through an archetype)

Again: I could concede the mechanics, but the Binder got orphaned of flavor when the Warlock took the concept of pacts as its defining concept. In fact, the Warlock already had that; the Binder had to deliberately focus on an otherwise inexistent concept in game (the Vestiges) to exist proper.

You could revive the Vestiges in 5e, but there's a problem: what with Subclasses? The Binder has the problem of being too specific (as I mentioned with the Swashbuckler); the Paladin got off it just because the Sacred Oath allowed for different conceptions of the same class (the Knight, the Avenger, the Warden, and judging by the Oathbreaker portion, the Blackguard), but otherwise, it would have been collapsed into the Fighter or the Cleric. The War domain Cleric could easily replace a Paladin if it weren't because of the Fighting Style and permanent Extra Attack, but judging by the Eldritch Knight, the Paladin could have easily been a Fighter sub-class (and, if you think about the origins of the Paladin, it was exactly that). What does the Binder offer in terms of variety to merit it becoming its own class rather than a sub-class of another one?

There's also traction. The Paladin had the problem of a very specific flavor, but they couldn't remove it from game since it was part of the system from Day...2, mostly (it wasn't part of Original or Basic, but it was part of Advanced), and has been in every iteration of the game afterwards. The Binder appeared only on one iteration of the game, and almost immediately it was "absorbed" by the Warlock, which managed to survive and even thrive because of its Traction. Note that the Warlord couldn't cross, being a PHB I class from 4th Edition, and one that also had a representative in an earlier iteration (the Marshal in 3.5); most likely because of its specific flavor (how many variants of a Warlord/Marshal you can make when the key flavor is "leader of armies"?)

Certainly, the mechanic is one that could be replicated, though it'd require its own book pretty much. There is a way to replicate the Binder, but it'd require breaking the concept of the Subclass: instead of having the Binder with a subclass, the Vestige effectively grants it one. However, it begs the question: with the Vestige replacing the subclass, what else does the Binder bring to the table? The original had some boons when bound, but otherwise there was nothing to distinguish it other than what you could do via Vestige. It is an intriguing concept that could be handled via homebrew, but it'll be difficult to think that the developers will attempt something so bold so early in the development of the new edition.


The equal to a BAB+16/CL 17th is impossible because it's blatantly overpowered if it's in 5e. The closest you will get is Eldritch Knight for the high BAB but lower caster level, or the Bard with the spell level but lower BAB. What you seem to be asking for is have slightly less melee power(let's assume that means one less attack compared to fighter), and 9th level spells. Just... Don't you see how wrong that is from a balance standpoint? You should be comparing it to the Duskblade, the 3.5 gish in a can, which is exactly what you'd want. All I'm saying is that I think the Binder would add something new and interesting whereas the Duskblade is only a slightly different version as the Eldritch Knight.

Umm...in what moment did I say I *wanted* a Gish class that behaved like such? (I have my issues with the Bard, which is already aiming to be such) I only mentioned that a Gish like in old times was impossible, because you couldn't have both of them.

That said: the Binder is new and interesting, but apparently it had no traction. The Duskblade/Magus/Swordmage/Eldritch Knight/Abjurant Champion/Bladesinger/Suel Arcanamach/Knight of the Weave? From Day ONE. The Elf was the original Fighter/Magic-User, and was one straight from Original D&D. You really can't beat traction like that. My argument is that chances are that you see another Gish class that fits the idea of the Paladin and Ranger before seeing a Binder because of various factors; whether it exists or not is irrelevant to me, since I already have the class I like (Paladin). In fact, if there's one class I'd like to see, is the Warlord/Marshal, if only because despite apparently having no traction, it IS one of the classes that appeared in the first Player's Handbook of one of the editions (4th) and people clamor for it. And even then, it's not like I'm really clamoring for it; more like "well, it'd be fun to see". Using your own terms: "No, a Battlemaster is not a Warlord" (It's a Warblade, and not the best Warblade if you think about it).

What I wanted to point out was that it's somewhat...I wouldn't say childish or arrogant or any such term because it's not fitting for what you want with it, but rather "self-absorbed" to like one thing (regardless of its argument) and decry another, when the argument is somewhat similar. The Duskblade/Magus/Swordmage is a popular class, and while there's one way to see it (the Eldritch Knight Martial Archetype), nothing says that it can't be its own class. However, to say then that the Binder must exist and that its effective replacement (the Warlock) isn't an example of one sounds a bit hypocritical. When you read it and think about it, the plea of both sides isn't so different: those who might want a Duskblade/Magus/Swordmage might not consider the Eldritch Knight as the representative of their class, and might want a proper class to represent what they want, just as you want a proper class to represent the Binder rather than use the Warlock as a proxy. I think the correct term would be "narrow-minded", and this isn't meant to belittle you; it only means that your argument, if you think about it on the big picture, is no different from theirs. I'd certainly be on the same place if the Paladin was placed as a sub-class of the Fighter rather than its own class, and even I have to admit that the concept of the Sacred Oath was a truly unexpected solution. Yet, that doesn't mean I'd be on the right if that were to happen, nor that I'd be on the wrong.

[Bakakiba]

Old-school Gish is impossible (BAB +16/CL 17th, in order to get four attacks and 9th level spells; in this case, that'd require 20 levels of Fighter and 17 levels of Wizard, as the last Extra Attack is gained at 20th level), but there's ways to get it close (Fighter 3/Wizard 17, with Eldritch Knight and Abjuration school as subclass choices), and it'll probably be better than the EK by virtue of having better spells, but won't have the same key aspects as the College of War Bard or the EK proper.

Just curious...why split at 3/17?

[Daishain]

Just curious...why split at 3/17?

probably wanted both the martial archetype and the 9th level spellslot

[Ferrin33]

Again: I could concede the mechanics, but the Binder got orphaned of flavor when the Warlock took the concept of pacts as its defining concept. In fact, the Warlock already had that; the Binder had to deliberately focus on an otherwise inexistent concept in game (the Vestiges) to exist proper.

You could revive the Vestiges in 5e, but there's a problem: what with Subclasses? The Binder has the problem of being too specific (as I mentioned with the Swashbuckler); the Paladin got off it just because the Sacred Oath allowed for different conceptions of the same class (the Knight, the Avenger, the Warden, and judging by the Oathbreaker portion, the Blackguard), but otherwise, it would have been collapsed into the Fighter or the Cleric. The War domain Cleric could easily replace a Paladin if it weren't because of the Fighting Style and permanent Extra Attack, but judging by the Eldritch Knight, the Paladin could have easily been a Fighter sub-class (and, if you think about the origins of the Paladin, it was exactly that). What does the Binder offer in terms of variety to merit it becoming its own class rather than a sub-class of another one?

There's also traction. The Paladin had the problem of a very specific flavor, but they couldn't remove it from game since it was part of the system from Day...2, mostly (it wasn't part of Original or Basic, but it was part of Advanced), and has been in every iteration of the game afterwards. The Binder appeared only on one iteration of the game, and almost immediately it was "absorbed" by the Warlock, which managed to survive and even thrive because of its Traction. Note that the Warlord couldn't cross, being a PHB I class from 4th Edition, and one that also had a representative in an earlier iteration (the Marshal in 3.5); most likely because of its specific flavor (how many variants of a Warlord/Marshal you can make when the key flavor is "leader of armies"?)

Certainly, the mechanic is one that could be replicated, though it'd require its own book pretty much. There is a way to replicate the Binder, but it'd require breaking the concept of the Subclass: instead of having the Binder with a subclass, the Vestige effectively grants it one. However, it begs the question: with the Vestige replacing the subclass, what else does the Binder bring to the table? The original had some boons when bound, but otherwise there was nothing to distinguish it other than what you could do via Vestige. It is an intriguing concept that could be handled via homebrew, but it'll be difficult to think that the developers will attempt something so bold so early in the development of the new edition.



Umm...in what moment did I say I *wanted* a Gish class that behaved like such? (I have my issues with the Bard, which is already aiming to be such) I only mentioned that a Gish like in old times was impossible, because you couldn't have both of them.

That said: the Binder is new and interesting, but apparently it had no traction. The Duskblade/Magus/Swordmage/Eldritch Knight/Abjurant Champion/Bladesinger/Suel Arcanamach/Knight of the Weave? From Day ONE. The Elf was the original Fighter/Magic-User, and was one straight from Original D&D. You really can't beat traction like that. My argument is that chances are that you see another Gish class that fits the idea of the Paladin and Ranger before seeing a Binder because of various factors; whether it exists or not is irrelevant to me, since I already have the class I like (Paladin). In fact, if there's one class I'd like to see, is the Warlord/Marshal, if only because despite apparently having no traction, it IS one of the classes that appeared in the first Player's Handbook of one of the editions (4th) and people clamor for it. And even then, it's not like I'm really clamoring for it; more like "well, it'd be fun to see". Using your own terms: "No, a Battlemaster is not a Warlord" (It's a Warblade, and not the best Warblade if you think about it).

What I wanted to point out was that it's somewhat...I wouldn't say childish or arrogant or any such term because it's not fitting for what you want with it, but rather "self-absorbed" to like one thing (regardless of its argument) and decry another, when the argument is somewhat similar. The Duskblade/Magus/Swordmage is a popular class, and while there's one way to see it (the Eldritch Knight Martial Archetype), nothing says that it can't be its own class. However, to say then that the Binder must exist and that its effective replacement (the Warlock) isn't an example of one sounds a bit hypocritical. When you read it and think about it, the plea of both sides isn't so different: those who might want a Duskblade/Magus/Swordmage might not consider the Eldritch Knight as the representative of their class, and might want a proper class to represent what they want, just as you want a proper class to represent the Binder rather than use the Warlock as a proxy. I think the correct term would be "narrow-minded", and this isn't meant to belittle you; it only means that your argument, if you think about it on the big picture, is no different from theirs. I'd certainly be on the same place if the Paladin was placed as a sub-class of the Fighter rather than its own class, and even I have to admit that the concept of the Sacred Oath was a truly unexpected solution. Yet, that doesn't mean I'd be on the right if that were to happen, nor that I'd be on the wrong.

I don't disagree that's it's possible we see another martial/arcane mix before anything similar like a binder due to the popularity of the archetype. However, to say a Warlock is similar to a Binder is only true as far as the name goes; "Pact Magic". It works completely differently, and the only similarity is that it's a pact you get some powers from. In addition to that the Binder was not a spellcaster at all, took pacts with multiple sources, and they directly influenced him as they shared his body and gave him unique powers not unlike many monsters.

You mention that the Binder is to specific, yet the same can be said about the Barbarian and Rogue. An Archetype that focuses on a single vestige, one that lets you bind more of them, and one that lets you summon aspects of your chosen vestiges are all possibilities just from the top of my head. Yes, the Warlock uses Pacts, but that's it. No other class uses pacts as a theme besides the warlock while divine magic, nature magic, and arcane magic is flung around like candy. A binder is to the warlock as the ranger is to the druid, the paladin to the cleric. It is not the effective replacement of the warlock just because the warlock uses a kind of pact magic as well. The warlock can not fulfill the same roles as the binder, it's mechanics are very different from a binder, the flavor is very different from a binder. Yes, there are similarities, but those only go so far.

To say my argument is the same as those wanting a baseline class for an archetype that already exists is absurd. What I'm saying is that it's more valuable(to me) to have a greater variety of archetypes to play rather than finding niches to fill within existing archetypes. The book the Binder was published in had 2/3's of it mostly unused, the book with the Duskblade was called Player's Handbook 2, and contained three other new classes as well as a slew of options for any number of players. If you'd have to spend your money on three classes where your DM would say no to most if not all of them; or four where the likelyhood of playing any of them is significantly higher, which would you get? Getting traction isn't merely of what people would like more, but also what is more readily available. Making a gish is something you can do by going Wizard10/Fighter10, it's an archetype people want to play. To make the archetype work however takes effort and classes that aren't fighter/wizard. But the idea of the archetype is there for everyone in the Player's Handbook. It's possible most people who play D&D 3.5 haven't even heard of Tome of Magic, but core with the eldritch knight?

I might have misunderstood you when you mentioned the 16BAB/17CL bit, but by the language you used it seemed as if you wanted something similar because it's not possible in 5th edition.

[toapat]

You could revive the Vestiges in 5e, but there's a problem: what with Subclasses? The Binder has the problem of being too specific (as I mentioned with the Swashbuckler); the Paladin got off it just because the Sacred Oath allowed for different conceptions of the same class (the Knight, the Avenger, the Warden, and judging by the Oathbreaker portion, the Blackguard), but otherwise, it would have been collapsed into the Fighter or the Cleric. The War domain Cleric could easily replace a Paladin if it weren't because of the Fighting Style and permanent Extra Attack, but judging by the Eldritch Knight, the Paladin could have easily been a Fighter sub-class (and, if you think about the origins of the Paladin, it was exactly that). What does the Binder offer in terms of variety to merit it becoming its own class rather than a sub-class of another one?

If we see Incarnum in 5th (unlikely. Incarnum was the result of multiple factors involved in the evolution of third that we probably wont see in 5th), the binder can be a subclass of the Incarnum classes or subclasses.

Spelltheft really got screwed though, and should get a full subclass dedicated to it

[T.G. Oskar]

I don't disagree that's it's possible we see another martial/arcane mix before anything similar like a binder due to the popularity of the archetype. However, to say a Warlock is similar to a Binder is only true as far as the name goes; "Pact Magic". It works completely differently, and the only similarity is that it's a pact you get some powers from. In addition to that the Binder was not a spellcaster at all, took pacts with multiple sources, and they directly influenced him as they shared his body and gave him unique powers not unlike many monsters.

Which begs the question of why the Binder's abilities were referenced as "Pact Magic", when they're nowhere near magical at all (they are supernatural, which is intended to be different).

That said: how would you translate that to 5th Edition? Mixing spell and sword is hilariously easy (it was done three times, and they went and added magic options to the Barbarian, Monk and Rogue for the heck of it), but the nuance of Soulbinding is far, far more complex. If you see how it works, it's mostly a string of sub-classes that mimic other classes in one way or another (or rather, reflect certain archetypes). Think of the Fiend as binding Asmodeus or Mephistopheles, think of the Archfey as binding Titania or Oberon, and think of the Great Old One as binding Cthulhu or Tharizdun. The way Otherworldly Patrons work, you could justify it as their own "take" on Binding, even though it's not an actual bind.

Now, return to a hypothetical Binder chassis. As it stands now, it'd be impossible to make such a class, because you'd have to break the very chassis established in the game in order to accommodate all the Vestiges. Either they're a bunch of "subclasses" and the Binder's main benefit is to access two or three (which breaks the concept of having one subclass chosen per class), or they have to exist as the Binder's class features, which implies justifying exactly what are the differences between one Binder or another besides their choice of Vestiges. The Wizard has access to the same spell list, but their specialization makes them distinct; an Evoker Wizard plays distinct to a Necromancer, and both play distinct to a Diviner. Remove that, and they could still be distinguished by their choice of spells (one focusing on damage-dealing spells, other focusing on debuffs and controlling the undead, the other focusing on rituals and divinations). The Binder would be in the same predicament: they could be distinguished by their choice of Vestige, but remove that, and they'd be the same, as they have nothing else that distinguishes them. Mechanically, they'd be a headache, and something that the developers might not consider as they're aiming for a simpler game. Hence, the simplest way to handle it would be to treat each Vestige as a Subclass, and breaking the concept behind it, by making the Binder the ONLY class that can change its subclass each day as a class feature. Most likely, they won't aim for that.


You mention that the Binder is to specific, yet the same can be said about the Barbarian and Rogue. An Archetype that focuses on a single vestige, one that lets you bind more of them, and one that lets you summon aspects of your chosen vestiges are all possibilities just from the top of my head. Yes, the Warlock uses Pacts, but that's it. No other class uses pacts as a theme besides the warlock while divine magic, nature magic, and arcane magic is flung around like candy. A binder is to the warlock as the ranger is to the druid, the paladin to the cleric. It is not the effective replacement of the warlock just because the warlock uses a kind of pact magic as well. The warlock can not fulfill the same roles as the binder, it's mechanics are very different from a binder, the flavor is very different from a binder. Yes, there are similarities, but those only go so far.

I could give you the Barbarian, although there's several ways to play it (the Conan take on Barbarians isn't the only one, and certainly Totem Warrior can expand to evoke warriors such as, say, Eagle and Jaguar Knights. How about a Barbarian subclass based on the battle cries of the Maori people (the haka)? That said, I dissent immensely about your appreciation of the Rogue as specific. Quite the contrary: if you think of the Rogue as the Factotum (what it should have been in the first place), you'll notice there's several archetypes that can be developed. The historical (not fantastical) conception of a Ninja has them closer to the Rogue than to the Monk; whereas the Monk applies the fantastical concept, the Rogue could go closer to the historical concept. Albeit sharing the name with one of the actual archetypes, the Thief-Acrobat plays distinctly from the Thief archetype; a rename, and it could be another archetype. The Swashbuckler fits a Roguish archetype (and make it the equivalent of the College of War for the Bard). So does the Juggler (a street performer skilled with throwing weapons; could overlap with the Bard, but its lack of magic flair definitely puts it in Rogue territory). Saying the flavor of the Rogue is too specific is myopic at best; it ignores the very concept of a Rogue by equating it to a Thief, a wound that hasn't healed since its inception in the earlier editions. The Rogue is more than just a Thief, and in fact, more than just a criminal.

Going by your line of thought, the Binder/Warlock comparison would be best served with Sorcerer/Wizard. One does long-term pacts and gains permanent powers with it, while the other would make short-term pacts for short-term boons. Your comparison has a specific point: the Binder would be a more "martial" approach to Pact Magic whereas the Warlock would be a more "caster" approach (or perhaps your intention was the inverse: Binder as "caster" and Warlock as "martial", except working in terms of "striker" rather than actual martial?). The Binder doesn't really play as a martial character; it plays more like a jack of all trades, whereas the Warlock plays as a master of specific aspects. This is the same way a Wizard (versatility) compares to a Sorcerer (utility). The problem lies in that, while there is enough distinction, it falls flat when you question what makes the Binder unique between its own counterparts. A Fiend-Patron Warlock plays distinct from a Fey-Pact Warlock by means of the powers granted, but they still share Pact Magic and Invocations; the Binder shares their access of Vestiges, but nothing truly sets them apart in the same regard as the Fiend-Pact and Fey-Pact Warlocks.


To say my argument is the same as those wanting a baseline class for an archetype that already exists is absurd. What I'm saying is that it's more valuable(to me) to have a greater variety of archetypes to play rather than finding niches to fill within existing archetypes. The book the Binder was published in had 2/3's of it mostly unused, the book with the Duskblade was called Player's Handbook 2, and contained three other new classes as well as a slew of options for any number of players. If you'd have to spend your money on three classes where your DM would say no to most if not all of them; or four where the likelyhood of playing any of them is significantly higher, which would you get? Getting traction isn't merely of what people would like more, but also what is more readily available. Making a gish is something you can do by going Wizard10/Fighter10, it's an archetype people want to play. To make the archetype work however takes effort and classes that aren't fighter/wizard. But the idea of the archetype is there for everyone in the Player's Handbook. It's possible most people who play D&D 3.5 haven't even heard of Tome of Magic, but core with the eldritch knight?

It's absurd only at the extent in which you don't see the resemblance. Your reasoning of why an archetype shouldn't be given a class whereas a former class should is valid, but so does theirs if looked from other perspectives.

As you mentioned, the Gish archetype has traction, whereas the Binder hasn't. If your idea while designing and developing this edition is to make things simpler, you could make a "Gish-in-a-can" class without problems. The fluff is simple to develop, there are ways to distinguish one from the other (one can be like the Abjurant Champion, the other could be sort of an arcane Soulknife). In that regard, it would be simpler to create the class. To say that, because there's an archetype that does this already (or because there's multiclassing to do so), the class shouldn't exist, is something I could consider absurd; it didn't stop the developers of 3.5 when they built the Duskblade...or the Hexblade. That's two gish classes, not one (how about dealing with the Hexblade, then? Or does the Pact of the Blade and the Pact Magic and the invocations means there's no need to make a Hexblade either?). The Eldritch Knight was there from the first version of 3rd Edition, and even then, they played with the concept several times afterwards.

The Binder, on the other hand, is more obscure, has less traction than other classes, and is more difficult to work with because their original design overlaps so much with Subclasses that they'd have to break the mold (something they seem to be reticent at) to make it work, and then you'd have a chassis for multiple subclasses rather than a class itself. Even then, despite the difficulties to build it, you could have a good argument for pushing the creation of a Binder; that said, it would be simpler to create a Gish class despite the existence of an archetype that does most of what it intends to do, than to work on the Binder.

But, without looking at design and development issues, let's go to the core of your statement: for you, abundance of archetypes is better than niches. In what way does the Binder increase the amount of archetypes a character can play? This is not a mechanical answer (that is: it doesn't increase the number of ways a character can play that are distinct to each other), but a fluff answer (how many subclasses can you develop from a Binder to justify its existence as a class?) I insist on saying this a lot of times because the weight of your argument lies in saying "I like the class, I like the flavor, but I don't like having to use the Warlock for it". That's a good argument, but not enough to support the existence of a new class, and particularly not one that would invite a developer to consider it. If a developer could find a way to have the Warlock, or perhaps the Wizard or the Sorcerer, or maybe the Cleric, to have the concept of Vestiges tacked in, you'd have a Binder without the need for a class itself. If that is simpler than making a new class, then your argument weakens; the only thing that would make it stand in the first place is "I want to have a 5e version of the Binder". Adding the concept of Vestiges to one of the existing classes would be a way to answer your statement (abundance of archetypes), thus making the creation of a new class a moot point. However, you can support the creation of a new class by mentioning what is the core of a Binder (Soul Binding) and what makes one Binder distinct from another besides their choice of Vestiges. Answer that, and you'll have a strong argument for having the Binder; however, by no means does that imply that making a new Gish class is absurd or pointless, considering that there's very strong arguments supporting it (traction, ease of design/development, multitude of archetypes that can emerge from it) that the Binder lacks.

[Ferrin33]

Sorry if I don't respond to every point in your post, but you seem to have some misconceptions;

"by no means does that imply that making a new Gish class is absurd or pointless" I don't mind seeing a martial/arcane hybrid, but I would prefer something for which the flavor and mechanics don't already exist in some form.

"it doesn't increase the number of ways a character can play that are distinct to each other" This is blatantly false if you know the first thing about binders and their vestiges with their signs from a fluff perspective alone. That's not mentioning the mechanical differences.

As far as archetypes for binders goes; someone mentioned incarnum here, which is actually not a bad idea as a base class. A class designed around binding things to your soul, of which the Binder, Incarnate, and Totemist are all possible archetypes. None of these is a spellcaster, yet they use a kind of magic, something more supernatural. "Which begs the question of why the Binder's abilities were referenced as "Pact Magic", when they're nowhere near magical at all (they are supernatural, which is intended to be different)." Magic is supernatural, the differences of Supernatural, Spells, and Spell-like were mechanical differences for 3.5, and some good fluff reasons I can't recall too. Not all magic comes from spellcasters, and the Binder's approach to it was in no way similar to that of spellcasters.

As a warlock, one can not play anything similar to a binder unless that binder only ever bound one vestige and never changed it. Even then you'd still need to use your spells as a warlock. It's absurd how you try to tie the two together for the name of something that sounds the same, but works completely different(Pact Magic). It's like saying you don't need a druid because the ranger is already there, or the other way around. They have a similar theme, I admitted this much, but this in no way invalidates the concept as there is plenty of room to work with the concept of binding things to your soul.

To have a base class with a variety of options I think combining the Binder and Incarnum into one class is an interesting idea. (The binder being an archetype of it, and the vestiges giving a little package of "Soulbinds" instead of separate soulbinds as the other archetypes might.) I think that you're so stuck with trying to make things simple to create that you throw it out straight away. But that would be something really bad to assume, and judging from the length of your posts this is very unlikely. But it's something important to keep in mind; just because something would be simpler to imagine doesn't make it the right way to go. Difficult concepts can have simple applications, and the trick is to find that.