Kinda Wish This Could Be a Binder

[Alexander Augunas]

I know a lot of people are excited about getting another nature / divine spellcasting class, but the flavor of the animist just SCREAMS "binder" to me in a way that Secrets of Magic's Pactmaker archetype just doesn't. This class does everything I'd want a binder to do, and I kind wish this could BE the creepy guy who makes weird pacts with strange entities they don't really understand.

I feel like this wouldn't be super difficult either. Most martial classes can pick Strength or Dexterity as their Key Attribute. What if this class could pick Wisdom or Charisma, and if you picked Wisdom you used the divine spell list and if you picked Charisma you used the occult spell list? It's an easy enough house rule I suppose, but there's nothing quite like the rule being ubiquitous in the book, eh?

[Squiggit]

Is there any reason you feel you can't be a guy making weird pacts with strange entities who also happens to use the divine list? I don't feel like those things have to be mutually exclusive.

[JiCi]

That's a term I haven't heard in years :P

[Unicore]

The divine list is the list you get in PF2 if you are getting to add a bunch of spells from other lists to it. It was designed to handle it well. The Occult list is too broad on its own to handle it as well.

The Charisma option does have the opposite issue. Animists saves are low. Their perception is low with out investment. If this class had a Charisma based option, it would be a bit of a trap option

[Sanityfaerie]

For what it's worth... it's possible that this is not the end of this path as far as classes are concerned. Like, Animist has pretty clearly eaten the "Shaman" lore slot, but the Binder was never really that anyway. On the rules side, this is a significant step in teh direction of exploring a character who's based on profound connections with a rotating cast of potential bonding entities. Now, it's certainly eaten the "full-caster" slot for that sort of character, but a wave caster might still be possible, and there's some really interesting space for both martial and non-martial slotless versions of same.

Now, I wouldn't expect to see that any time soon. First off, they'd ideally want to get Animist all the way out into full usage first and see how it plays before they try anything like that, and second because those of us who are really into slotless magic-wielders are going to be blissed out on Kineticist for a while. Still, two or three years from now? I think it's a real possibility.

[Castilliano]

Yeah, I wouldn't want a full-caster Binder, only casting from that day's entities. And I'd want a much larger cast of Golarion-themed historical entities. Unfortunately balancing such a multi-talented monstrosity seems nigh impossible if the choice of entity matters as much as in an original Binder. Each entity would be like a mini-class to playtest, and in combos with the others, and factoring in the meta of such utility and whatever core utility/switching power the class offered. It resembles being able to choose & rebuild one's Eidelon from scratch every day.

It shares some of the hurdles of the Factotum (a class I'd longed to get the chance to play). Being able to adjust one's PC to tackle any obstacle either makes you too good or watered down so actual specialists get the limelight they've earned. And "being able to backup anywhere" might be a hard sell in PF2 where it's pretty easy for PCs to develop breadth already to play several backup roles.

[Ryuujin-sama]

Yeah I kind of hoped for something a little closer to Binder, and yeah I would have preferred no casting except for what a specific Apparition might grant. And yeah it would be a lot more work to balance Apparitions that were more like the Binder's Vestiges.

[Staffan Johansson]

The Binder was a really cool concept, but I could never see a way to make it work in practice because of other 3e aspects that are also present in PF2: dependence on equipment and on ability scores. So you might be able to bind vestiges that give you proficiency in swords and in heavy armor, but that doesn't help you much if you've got Strength 12 and no magical swords or plate.

The Animist evades that problem by making sure that regardless of what kind of apparition they bind, it's one that expands their casting repertoire.

[keftiu]

Is anything topping you from flavoring your Apparitions this way?

As for another class with a similar structure, I do hold out some vain hope for a more martial Harrower.

[PossibleCabbage]

I *really* dislike the term "binder" since it suggests that your spirit is a servant or is otherwise subordinate rather than a peer.

[John R.]

I'm with PossibleCabbage.

To me, a Binder sounds like a class that enforces servitude, particularly of normally oppositional entities (fiends and aberrations), a lot like a Summoner without the buddy dynamic.

I know the 3.5 Binder wasn't quite that but it did have a bit of the implication of forcing the target spirits to empower the character.

[Aristophanes]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I *really* dislike the term "binder" since it suggests that your spirit is a servant or is otherwise subordinate rather than a peer.

Nah. The Vestiges basically had no connection to any reality, and so were eager to bind with the host. It gave them a taste of existence, agency, and, if the Binder made a poor pact, power.

Imagine your entire existence was in a room with no sensual stimulation, but more so.

[Sanityfaerie]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I *really* dislike the term "binder" since it suggests that your spirit is a servant or is otherwise subordinate rather than a peer.

I agree that it would be a bad name for the Animist for this reason - chock full of unfortunate implications. That said, there's nothing wrong with the idea of getting a different class later, with different mechanics, that was based around binding things, with perhaps a less straightforwardly friendly dynamic than the animist gets.

Admittedly, I probably still wouldn't call it "Binder". It's extra legal risk (however little) with effectively zero payoff. There's no win there.

[Natan Linggod 327]

I have been wanting a Binder type class for years. It was my favourite non standard class back in the day. So unique in mechanics and flavour.

I think I would like the Animist more if it was not a full caster.

I feel it would be more interesting if it progressed like a Summoner or Magus , with it's main class functionality coming from the Apparitions granted abilities rather than just a changing list of spells.

A bit like how the Shaman spirits from 1ed worked.

[The Raven Black]

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

I have been wanting a Binder type class for years. It was my favourite non standard class back in the day. So unique in mechanics and flavour.

I think I would like the Animist more if it was not a full caster.

I feel it would be more interesting if it progressed like a Summoner or Magus , with it's main class functionality coming from the Apparitions granted abilities rather than just a changing list of spells.

A bit like how the Shaman spirits from 1ed worked.

I fear the Animist needs to be a full caster because the Cleric is a full caster.

[Sanityfaerie]

I think the Animist is a pretty cool idea as a full caster.

I don't think it eats all of the available design space for "person empowered by multiple intangible entities", though. It's just the full-caster version of that concept.

[PlanetOfRoses]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I *really* dislike the term "binder" since it suggests that your spirit is a servant or is otherwise subordinate rather than a peer.

I agree that it would be a bad name for the Animist for this reason - chock full of unfortunate implications. That said, there's nothing wrong with the idea of getting a different class later, with different mechanics, that was based around binding things, with perhaps a less straightforwardly friendly dynamic than the animist gets.

Admittedly, I probably still wouldn't call it "Binder". It's extra legal risk (however little) with effectively zero payoff. There's no win there.

It is a pretty awesome idea for a villain though. Especially if you introduce them as an antithesis to an Animist PC which just sounds like a really fun idea.

[Staffan Johansson]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

I think the Animist is a pretty cool idea as a full caster.

I don't think it eats all of the available design space for "person empowered by multiple intangible entities", though. It's just the full-caster version of that concept.

A binder-type character could also very well be the occult version of that class. Though if you were planning on doing one of those, you should probably hold back a bit on the creepier apparitions for the animist and leave those for the not-binder.

[Staffan Johansson]

PlanetOfRoses wrote:

It is a pretty awesome idea for a villain though. Especially if you introduce them as an antithesis to an Animist PC which just sounds like a really fun idea.

That reminds me of playing WOW: Wrath of the Lich King.

For those who don't know, World of Warcraft has a shaman class that's flavored as getting many of their abilities by communing with various elemental spirits that give them power. In earlier versions, they had a bunch of class-specific quests to seek out various spirits in order to ask for their beneficence (IIRC, at levels 10, 20, 30, and 40, where they had to ask an elemental for the ability to make totems of that element, with totems essentially being summoned things that provide some benefit or do something). Anyhow, benign co-existence with the spirit world was a Big Thing for WoW shamans.

And then Wrath of the Lich King came along. Where we first met the Taunka, a variant of the Tauren (basically minotaurs with strong native american vibes). These Taunka also had shamans. However, these dudes lived in the harsh and frozen north. They had no time for this bargaining and stuff: they used various methods to force the elements to do their bidding. This would become a bigger issue in later expansions.