I would like to receive critiques for this Archetype I made.
Essentially, I have taken the idea behind the Binder, a class from D&D 3.5 edition, and trasported that idea here in Pathfinder. There are many takes on the Pathfinder Binder, here is my own as an Archetype for the Summoner class and I hope someone of you will enjoy it.
Every feedback or note or comment is really appreciated, thanks in advance.
Disclaimer: it's a Work In Progress.
The forum just ate my post:(
In short:
- I like the idea. Especially having the possible lack of control grants the class some very interesting opportunities.
- Spellcasting: You need to remedy somethings to make sure he can cast spells while in control. First of all, he need to retain his own mental abilities. Otherwise he might end up as a being of low charisma, making him unable to cast his spells. Secondly, many forms don't have hands or the ability to speak, so he need an equivalent of Natural Spell.
- The class seems weak in my opinion. What does he gain by becoming his summoned creature instead of just having it beside him as normal (where it gets its own actions)? He might a HP battery, but otherwise the creatures a character is able to summon tend to be significantly weaker than a character of that level.
- Overall I think the Synthesist has the baseline for what you seek. Make the eidolon you binding instead, and you have your binder. If you make some changes, you could do something quite interesting by adding in the possibility of loosing control, perhaps in exchange of having some versatility in form.
- Thank you. Most of the class design is made upon the idea to play more of a single character instead of just spamming summonings all the time.
- 1) my fault, I will clarify in the descriptive text that the Binder retains and uses her mental scores for spellcasting 2)Wow, don't know why I missed that, thank you very much. Fixing right now.
- Well, it's the same dilemma between a normal Summoner and the Synthesist Summoner I suppose.
A normal summoner needs to spend ranks in Handle Animals to control and handle his summoned animals, and in Linguistics to have an opportunity to speak with his summoned outsiders. The binder also augments the forms of the 'summoned creatures' with his current magical equipment and can directly direct (sorry for that) the actions of the Binded creature all without speaking (I admit that these are subtle advantages that also does not have any real effect in a normal campaign run, but still is an advantage!). Finally, the Binder does not risk to die while fighting in the binded form and adapts quickly to the needings/surroundings.
For these reasons, I'm not really convinced that is a weak class. Also, if he needs to fight hard, he still has his Favorite forms. But I'm open up to every possibility so I will give it a bump if you say it's needed :)
- I know that particular archetype and with that in mind I'm designing this one with the focus on Summon Monster, because I prefer them over the Eidolon and because the statistics for the summoned creatures are easier and ready for use (the eidolon needs time for the building process, also players can make mistakes in the process).
Thanks again, I will post the changes when finished.
This doesn't seem like a Binder to me. Have you ever seen pictures of Binders? They retain their own form, but may have signs.
I played with them, thanks for caring. I just augmented the signs feature into a total Polymorph. I will though make a note that during a Binding with a Summoning it will retain some minor aspects of the Binder.
As I mentioned in the firts post, I just take the Idea beyond the Binder class, so this is not going to be a redo of the 3.5 class (otherwise it wouldn't either have to call simple summons, but instead more powerful and unique beings...), it's an Archetype for the Summoner and it's entirely made for Pathfinder playing (no correlations with the 3.5 Binder).Also, minor editing is made for today, I will continue tomorrow.
I associate alchemists with guys that have metal arms, does that make the Alchemist class seem like less of an alchemist to me? Nope.
Other than the fact is was a twists on what you said, which sounded like you were, despite encouraging the houserule, saying this Binder wasn't a Binder in a way that sounded like an insult because it didn't match up with an artist's representation of the Binder you like?
Go ahead and house rule all you want, I want to encourage it. I'm just saying that it doesn't feel like a Binder to me because I heavily associate the Binder class with those cool pictures.
In that case, I will find a compromise if it is so important. I have to admit that the 3.5 Binder used to have really cool pictures.
Other than the fact is was a twists on what you said, which sounded like you were, despite encouraging the houserule, saying this Binder wasn't a Binder in a way that sounded like an insult because it didn't match up with an artist's representation of the Binder you like?Its acceptable for each of us to have our concept of the class.
Agreed, here's mine.
I'm sorry to say that I don't like this archetype at all. The binder's greatest strength in 3.5 was it's amazing fluff, and by simplifying it into a polymorph effect, you've removed that amazing personal identity from the class.
This isn't a binder. This is an alternate synthesis summoner.
Agreed, here's mine.Other than the fact is was a twists on what you said, which sounded like you were, despite encouraging the houserule, saying this Binder wasn't a Binder in a way that sounded like an insult because it didn't match up with an artist's representation of the Binder you like?Its acceptable for each of us to have our concept of the class.
I like it because it's really a trusty version of the original Binder.
I'm sorry to say that I don't like this archetype at all. The binder's greatest strength in 3.5 was it's amazing fluff, and by simplifying it into a polymorph effect, you've removed that amazing personal identity from the class.
This isn't a binder. This is an alternate synthesis summoner.
Thanks for the input and don't be sorry for that, but putting aside for a moment the homonymy what do you think about this class? Maybe it's just the name I've chosen that's 'deviant'...
Thanks for the input and don't be sorry for that, but putting aside for a moment the homonymy what do you think about this class? Maybe it's just the name I've chosen that's 'deviant'...
I have to say, you're definitely one of the more level-headed homebrewers I've seen. Very well, I'll give you a more in-depth review.
Bind Summons: My first problem with this ability is that you repeat yourself a lot in the opening sequence. It's kind of a distraction. The second problem is that over half of the monsters that you can summon via summon monster cannot be polymorphed into; there are no spells that let you take the form of an angel or a devil, for example.
There are a lot of odd rules associated with it; especially the whole "the Binder gets whisked away" thing. The overall language of the ability is fairly poor as well; I really have to study the ability to know what I am reading about.
Eschew Materials: I don't quite get why the Binder gets this ability.
I also don't like the "lose control of your body" mechanic. To be honest, I'd have to think how I would handle this mechanic. The biggest hindrance is that you simply don't have a large chunk of summonable creatures equate to polymorph effects.
During the 3.5 era I made an attempt at DM-ing "Curse of the Crimson Throne" for some friends... one of them really wanted to play a Binder (and I owned the 3.5 ToM, so I said yes).
I liked the Binder for a variety of reasons... but for me one reason in particular was... I got to "ham" it up when the player made attempts to bind his vestige(s).
I especially enjoyed RP-ing the summoning/binding of Nabarius (sp? - book is not nearby) ... essentially the 3-headed hound, Cerebus (but denying this name).
Anyway... reason I liked it so much... I would buy a beef jerky (teriyaki flavor for those that'll ask) ;) and rip a big chunk out of it (in homage to the description under Nabarius) and do the little RP bit.
Like I said, fun for me, and the players enjoyed it too.
"Curse of the Crimson Throne" sort of derailed... the players got way to distracted... didn't focus on the story really... and died when I tried to steer the AP back on course. (Long story short).
Seeing the Binder as an alternate class for the Summoner does make a lot of sense to me. I'll look in and view the updates/progress.
Cheers!
~Dean