Epic Binder?

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
All I want is the official rules for Epic Binders... it was mentioned in the December and Beyond preview as being part of #361, and I've seen hide nor hair (nor scent nor fleeting glimpse) since...
Truth does not require Fiction for balance.
Yeah, we're waiting on a number of things from that preview, yet.
Well, looks like you got your wish.

So maybe they are slowly getting it together?

Also, it looks like one of the vestiges is a direct reference to the biblical plagues visited on the Egyptians by Moses.

Interesting to say the least.
I'm not seeing any binding DCs- does their epic potency mean you've got no hope of overmastering their influence? That's cool and all, but I'd like to see it stated explicitly.

I really like the vestiges and feats, though.
I'm not seeing any binding DCs- does their epic potency mean you've got no hope of overmastering their influence? That's cool and all, but I'd like to see it stated explicitly.

I really like the vestiges and feats, though.

I agree, that is cool...

Each epic vestige is its own feat, wich means you can't ignore the pre-requisites either.
Truth does not require Fiction for balance.
The epic vestiges found below are even more powerful than their nonepic counterparts, since they represent the fractured remnant of a dead god that sacrificed itself for its people, the essence of a continent that an alien creature consumed, the collective souls of the slain firstborn of an empire, or the displaced soul of an alien harbinger of apocalypse.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was a cute little movie, but I do not really see why it should be added to D&D.

All these soul collectors just sound like twisted liches or something.

I understand they are trying to add new things and such, but can we get something new rather than copied form other mediums of fantasy entertainment?

Someone mentioned ring being containers for trapped souls and that be the reason low levels could not use rings, in another thread. This looks like it agree with that idea. I am not really in favor of such a thing being part of D&D.
Well, also that egyptian-like vestige reminds me certain biblical passage... I think almost everything had been invented or at least sounds familiar. Maybe its just my imagination.

After all, I liked the article, most non-core classes looks like they were forgotten, just apeared in a supplement and then banished. They might need some expantion rules.

Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle are incredible books, I hope it could be something similar to maneuvers and vestiges in the new edition.
Oh I totally agree with you, Eytan is a great designer. What he did in the MIC was awesome and I am stocked to hear that he is working on the Tome of Treasures too.

But then I am also might be bius since I have gamed with him in the past.
-snip-

[sarcasm] Yeah, it bears a vague similarity to a certain crappy movie, so it must be a copy of it!

Never mind the hundreds of authors who have come up with similar concepts without even hearing of the others, not to mention the fact that it the similarities beyond are minimal.:rolleye2: [/sarcasm]

Look up "convergent development" sometime. You might learn something.
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was a cute little movie, but I do not really see why it should be added to D&D.

All these soul collectors just sound like twisted liches or something.

I understand they are trying to add new things and such, but can we get something new rather than copied form other mediums of fantasy entertainment?

Someone mentioned ring being containers for trapped souls and that be the reason low levels could not use rings, in another thread. This looks like it agree with that idea. I am not really in favor of such a thing being part of D&D.

Dear god... where to begin?

At the risk of starting a flame war...

1: You saw the thing about a continent being devoured, and thought that was derivative, but failed to notice the whole "death of the firstborn" thing? As in "Pharaoh let my people go!" Charlton Heston? Nothing? Bueler?

But by all means, lets keep D&D "pure" -- no more vorpal swords (those are from Lewis Carol) or Trolls (those are from Germanic Folklore), Halflings (hobbits), dwarves (germanic folklore), elves (Gaelic faerie ales, for the most part), not to mention Bahamut, Tiamat, Meilikki, Minotaurs, Medusas, Rangers, Paladins, golems, et cetera, et cetera....

You would be VERY hard pressed to come up with 10 things in the D&D classical fantasy setting that were not derived from, influenced by, or an homage to other sources.... Which is why we LOVE it.

2: What are you on about with twisted liches and soul collectors? Binders are not soul collectors, they are people who grant entities that exist outside of time, space, and causality a glimpse of the reality that they long for in return for a fraction of their power. It strikes me that you may not know a whole lot about the non-epic aspect of Binders... so perhaps, and I don't mean this in ANY way as a castigation, but just perhaps you should learn a little more about Binders before you start discounting them?

3: The only reason I have any idea what you are talking about with regard to rings is because I've been hovering around the periphery of the 4e boards... the idea of magic rings, and the danger and power inherent in them is NOT, contrary to popular belief, derived from that story about the hobbits and the One Ring... the idea of Magic Rings is something that has been in the collective unconscious for ... well, pretty much forever. I personally think that using that as a game mechanic to keep the capacity for using more than one ring as a high-level thing is not only flavorful, but mechanically adept, and more in keeping with the mythical roots of this genre... but has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread.
Truth does not require Fiction for balance.
But by all means, lets keep D&D "pure" -- no more vorpal swords (those are from Lewis Carol) or Trolls (those are from Germanic Folklore), Halflings (hobbits), dwarves (germanic folklore), elves (Gaelic faerie ales, for the most part), not to mention Bahamut, Tiamat, Meilikki, Minotaurs, Medusas, Rangers, Paladins, golems, et cetera, et cetera....

You forgot about The Dragon Turtle aka Gamera! I mean D&D is a huge pastiche of mythos.
I just don't like the pieces of souls bit. If I wanted to do a strict comparison to call it a rip off I could have easily mentioned Harry Potter and Horcruxi, where pieces of souls were trapped in objects like the Ring of Slytherin, etc. It just seems to try to define more into cosmology that makes it even more strict than being so open to make your own.

Some people may prefer a game where souls are not torn asunder but complete while in transition from one place to another.

Souls trapping has been a part of the game for a while, but soul pieces....not something I would be very fond of.
I just don't like the pieces of souls bit. If I wanted to do a strict comparison to call it a rip off I could have easily mentioned Harry Potter and Horcruxi

Odd, I always viewed those as a phylactery ripoff. . . .
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

Odd, I always viewed those as a phylactery ripoff. . . .

The question rests in where did those who may come newly to D&D to have seen the soul pieces first, and what may draw them to an aspect of D&D?

With soul pieces how to you reincarnate, or ressurrect someone unless you have al the pieces?

Do normal people never fall prey to these binders?

What happens when a binder takes a part of a soul from a PC? Do they cease to be able to function as a PC, transform into some type of abberation?

Does it mean that each of the new teirs will have its own version of classes? At level 11 you choose yet another class, and at level 21 still another.

What if you don't want these new classes but want a normal old fighter or wizard. Will you somehow be underpowered with the invention of these other level classes if you do not take them, making you feel as though you must take them, or they must be denied to all players unless all agree to take them?

Will these be a part of the core products that will make it seem to make it the way the game was intended to play and every changing classes are the norm, and those who do not wish to constantly adapt to a new class jsut because they moved into a new "teir" are no longer suited to play the game as PCs and maybe even players?

There are many implications to these "epic binders" that are of yet unanswered without the rest of the game at hand to judge them and what part they have to play in the whole of the game.

It may all be a new thiing solely for Dragon, and not something having to do with the core of D&D, but everything including the former magazines is now core even if you are not a subscriber and get the material. So not being in the first few books means that being core it would still somehow need to balance with unaugmented classes that do not take some form of prestige class or class "kits", or whatever name they may now hold with the new edition.
The question rests in where did those who may come newly to D&D to have seen the soul pieces first, and what may draw them to an aspect of D&D?

With soul pieces how to you reincarnate, or ressurrect someone unless you have al the pieces?

Do normal people never fall prey to these binders?

What happens when a binder takes a part of a soul from a PC? Do they cease to be able to function as a PC, transform into some type of abberation?

Does it mean that each of the new teirs will have its own version of classes? At level 11 you choose yet another class, and at level 21 still another.

What if you don't want these new classes but want a normal old fighter or wizard. Will you somehow be underpowered with the invention of these other level classes if you do not take them, making you feel as though you must take them, or they must be denied to all players unless all agree to take them?

Will these be a part of the core products that will make it seem to make it the way the game was intended to play and every changing classes are the norm, and those who do not wish to constantly adapt to a new class jsut because they moved into a new "teir" are no longer suited to play the game as PCs and maybe even players?

There are many implications to these "epic binders" that are of yet unanswered without the rest of the game at hand to judge them and what part they have to play in the whole of the game.

It may all be a new thiing solely for Dragon, and not something having to do with the core of D&D, but everything including the former magazines is now core even if you are not a subscriber and get the material. So not being in the first few books means that being core it would still somehow need to balance with unaugmented classes that do not take some form of prestige class or class "kits", or whatever name they may now hold with the new edition.

The Binder as a class first appeared in the Tome of Magic sourcebook. Rules governing the Binders can be found there, including what makes an aspect powerful enough to allow it to be bound. As such, there are no rules beyond what is listed there that allow for any of the variations you mention above. That is to say, if any of your items listed become an issue in your game, then blame your DM, 'cause it is not the fault of the designers.

As far as power creep is concerned - well it is true it happens to some degree with every extra sourcebook that comes out. But Binders are NOT an example of this, by far.

Finally, this is about the Epic Binders article that appeared in Dragon magazine. You may get a better response on the details of the class in the 3.5 magic thread.
The Binder as a class first appeared in the Tome of Magic sourcebook. Rules governing the Binders can be found there, including what makes an aspect powerful enough to allow it to be bound. As such, there are no rules beyond what is listed there that allow for any of the variations you mention above. That is to say, if any of your items listed become an issue in your game, then blame your DM, 'cause it is not the fault of the designers.

As far as power creep is concerned - well it is true it happens to some degree with every extra sourcebook that comes out. But Binders are NOT an example of this, by far.

Finally, this is about the Epic Binders article that appeared in Dragon magazine. You may get a better response on the details of the class in the 3.5 magic thread.

I am really not interested in 3rd edition. I am interested in learning about the new edition. I don't see why I would need an obsolete book or information from it to possibly play the new ediiton. Will the new edition require purchase of the old editions books to play certain parts of it?

All I know of these binders to bring about the questions I presented are from the article on Epic Binders.
I am really not interested in 3rd edition. I am interested in learning about the new edition. I don't see why I would need an obsolete book or information from it to possibly play the new ediiton. Will the new edition require purchase of the old editions books to play certain parts of it?

Well then your answer is even simpler. There are, as of right now, no Binders of any sort in 4th edition. I'd lay even odds that there never will be. And even if there is it will look completely different. There isn't even Epic play, as referenced in this article in 4th ed. I lay even money that they never will be. So this article has zero information for you. It is completely a backwards facing article.

All I know of these binders to bring about the questions I presented are from the article on Epic Binders.

And it shows!

.
I was under the impression that the abilities of the binder were being put into the new 4th edition Warlock.

Is that correct ???
I was under the impression that the abilities of the binder were being put into the new 4th edition Warlock.

Is that correct ???

Sorta, but not really. Mechanically, they are completely different. Fluff wise there are some similarities, and the warlock obviously was inspired in part by the binder, but it drew heavily on other 3.5 fluff and abilities as well. I beleive the phrase is killed the binder and took his stuff. But there is a stack of corpses of old classes and feats piled up behind the 4th ed Warlock......

All that being said, if you are looking for info on 4th ed then this is one of the least (if not the least) useful article published on-line so far. (Not that you were SouthernTiger, but I didn't want any confusion to creep back in here.)
So are there other recent articles not related to the new editon but older ones?
Sign In to post comments