vestige level seems like a handy prereq for stronger PAs that would be abusable if over-taken. Let's be a little careful not to step on eachother's toes if possible.
Inb4: where do you stand on giving Extra Attack at Binder 5?All I'm saying is that given what we have so far, what does a binder without vestiges have over a commoner? I guess their ability scores are above commoner level, and the HP they get at each level, and the base proficiencies they get at 1st level, but other than that... nothing. No vestiges means no pact augmentations, so not even those. Maybe some feats, if the DM is allowing feats (so easy to forget they're a variant rule in 5e, after feat-heavy 3.5). Thus, I want to give it some features that don't rely on vestiges at all.
I respect the notion, I'm just less keen on the proposed execution (unfettered Binder seems fine at a glance, haven't got to thoroughly inspect it. We have creative differences over the exact execution, despite our ideas comparable :3.
No feats - it's an optional rule I don't want to depend on. >_<
I liked everything you said here, especially about our archetypes potentially co-existing. I'll try not to step on your toes. Mind you the warped Binder's sign weapons should at at least have a more powerful damage die than Amon's Ram horns, which I can't decide if it's a d6 or d8.I'm so torn between the two options, I might end up just finishing the three I posted, then building your vestige-set idea, and presenting both for people to choose from. They're so different, I think there's totally room for both. In fact, I have ideas for two other things that use vestiges; at one point "binder" was going to be a subclass of something else, but really the other two subclasses from that idea could be full classes of their own. In time, vestiges could be a common feature of multiple classes, so that vestige/pact magic is an actual group just like arcane magic and divine magic, rather than just a thing that one class does... But that's something for another day