View Single Post

Thread: [PEACH] Binder class (WIP)

  1. - Top - End - #51
    Ogre in the Playground
    Prince Zahn's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    my fireball can reach you

    Default Re: [PEACH] Binder class (WIP)

    EDIT: Ninja'd royally... I've been working all afternoon answering your previous comments... First of all, Thanks for the kind praise! I was hoping it would work better at least across more vestige levels. But if the need arises, I won't be surprised if we made a few more templates by the time the 5e binder reaches playtesting
    Quote Originally Posted by anaximander19 View Post
    You say that the abilities/spells should be "level appropriate for the binder's level" - should that be the vestige's level, (ie. roughly equivalent to a spell of that level, so a 4th-level vestige gets 4th-level spells or something of that power) or did you mean "appropriate to a binder at the level where they gain access to this vestige"? ...Actually, there's not much difference between those two, but still, worth clarifying how to determine what's "level-appropriate".
    Good question! As you said, the two options are remarkably similar, yet different. For the most part, I lean towards the latter, since the vestige's aren't solely reliant on spells, and because binders should have level appropriate tools. Note: I haven't the slightest clue how either one would interact with Paladin and ranger spells, that may require testing

    Quote Originally Posted by anaximander19 View Post
    I like the idea of one ability that scales with the binder's level, and one that doesn't. That covers the same kind of angle I was after when I decided on having abilities at half the level as well as the full level.
    I'm glad you like it! now we have just to figure out the scaling method... XD

    Quote Originally Posted by anaximander19 View Post
    Some vestiges (particularly higher-level ones) may need a broader spread of abilities; perhaps as well as the one or two levelled abilities, they might get one or two at half their level as well. I say this because some of the 3.5 vestiges grant up to six or seven abilities.
    See above remark about having more than 1 template. Frankly, high level play in any edition is not my forte (in my adventures I hardly ever really made it past 7th level.) but I think ranging between 4-6 major abilities is a fair balance regardless of a vestige's level. reserving a higher quantity of abilities to higher level vestiges will render lower-level vestiges nearly pointless and unable to keep up, which would be a shame. Also -More abilities = more work, and I'd like to save ourselves some work if possible, unless we establish a solid work force to divide the labor

    Quote Originally Posted by anaximander19 View Post
    I agree with your worries about skill proficiencies, and you're right, advantage on the skill check works much better. Part of this comes from me interpreting 3.5's bonus to skill checks as a modifier, hence proficiency, forgetting that in 5e bonuses usually take the form of advantage on the roll. I might be ok with a few vestiges (and I mean at most a handful, mostly in the upper levels) granting the odd skill proficiency (never more than one per vestige) where it's really thematically appropriate.
    If we can agree that the binder could never offer expertise, I can agree to 7th(?), 8th and 9th level vestiges offering a true-blue skill proficiency, since I know a binder won't be able to bind more than 2 such vestiges at once. Also - no save proficiencies... Or at best 1 vestige only, best at really high levels too.

    Quote Originally Posted by anaximander19 View Post
    This last point is more of a clarification but on the subject of abilities, where you've got "2 once-per-short-or-long-rest abilities/features" I think it's worth noting that not all of them should be once-per-short-rest except in exceptional circumstances - I don't really want a binder to be able to burn out one particular vestige and spend the rest of the day with that vestige being mostly useless. Of course, if the cantrips and proficiencies are good enough, that'll cover it, and there's always renegotiation, so for a few vestiges it'd be fine, but in general they should provide something of a little more power that remains useful all day. At low levels, cantrips are pretty powerful when your top level of spell is only 1st or 2nd, so only having once-per-long-rest features is fine, but an 8th-level vestige that you can exhaust in the first encounter and be left with cantrips for the rest of the day feels kinda wrong. Bear in mind that a binding lasts for 24 hours, so an ability that can only be used once per long rest really means once per binding in most cases.
    A: a good point. Since you got me thinking about this one :3. A short-or-long rest may be the most flexible option, as either a short rest or a long rest suffice in recharging it, you can probably use abilities at least once more if you are bound for a whole day. In the template's design, I went by the assumption that rest-limited abilities should be a big deal, they are cards the binder can whip out of his sleeve when he needs it (for the most part, if it needed a 5-round cooldown in 3.5, it'll probably be changed to at-will or rest-limited, depending on it's new strength). I was careful to offer through Naberius enough always available options so he can remain useful even after he used those abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prince Zahn
    2 once-per-short-or-long-rest abilities/features, (or spells,) that are level appropriate for the binder's level. One of which can get stronger or be used again at higher levels. high-level vestiges may get an ability that renews when rolling initiative instead.
    aka "encounter-abilities". I just realized we can also make some abilities at will by limiting their use to Rituals (I wanted to do that with disguise self, except you can't just decide an existing spell will be a ritual if it doesn't say so.)

    That last point reminds me, I should probably clarify at some point whether a vestige's once-per-rest abilities reset when you re-bind them, thus allowing you to use a once-per-rest ability, expel, rebind, and use it again. In short: no, that doesn't work. Technically this is already covered because it says "you can't use this ability again until you complete a rest", but I'd still feel better if somewhere it added "...even if you bind this vestige a second time".
    you can write that down where you explain about how making a pact works. while we're at it, writing down the binder as capable of rituals may open some doors for us. :3 also. - base vestige features' DC should be there, if you haven't wrote it yet, as opposed to writing it on all the vestiges. (Disregard if you already did. I just can't see without refreshing the page and losing this post)

    Could I also ask that the paragraphs of vestige information keep a clean separation between flavour and mechanics? In other words, don't bury something in there about getting advantage on the check in certain conditions or whatever. 5e does a good job of making it fairly obvious what's flavour text and what's rules, so I'd like to follow that example. I'll probably keep all mechanical stuff at the end of that section, next to the bit about the influences on a poor pact. This would also make it easier to produce quick reference cards for players by simply dropping the vestige information part and just adding the influences table.
    I don't know about you, but I would never let a friend who doesn't care about vestige legends play a binder in my vicinity. To me it's as bad as wanting to play an atheist cleric. it plays a huge role in our fondest pact-magic memories.
    That being said, what is it exactly that bothers you, the fact that I wrote things you can do to get on a vestige's good/bad side, that I gave it mechanical support, or because I mixed it all together? I respect your request, I'm just not sure what you mean.

    When this binder takes flight, I eagerly want to try out a lot of creatively variant things that I haven't brought up, because I'm almost convinced you guys would feel much differently about them than I do. Some of the details under Pact Information exist and are there with that in mind.
    Last edited by Prince Zahn; 2015-06-02 at 10:17 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Jette View Post
    If you write gibberish in common, even comprehend languages won't turn it into a sonnet.
    P.Z. - gamer; friend; royalty. 'Tis a pleasure.
    <<Cynthia the Witch by me. she's a nice gal, I promise!

    My player Resume, for potential DMs to read over.

    My Extended Signature