Community

The thread title says it all: will a player have fun with a binder character?

First of all, I should preface this question will a little info. I'm currently running a mini campaign for a group of hard core D&D players who are not really into 4e. Some of them are trying it for the first time, while others played it on release, disliked it, but want to give it a second chance. As a whole, this group is very RP heavy and in fact we often go several sessions without any combat at all. When combat occurs, they do like to have fun and play it to the max, but these guys are as far from char-op as you can get.

This week I killed off one of the PC's and the player is rolling up a new character (yes, they wanted rolled ability scores... as per the optional rules in PHB1) and has decided he really likes the flavor and RP potential of the Binder.

So... he's heard the Binder is miserable in combat, but he's wondering if that's just a char-op point of view and would the class be any fun to play in a group that couldn't care less about min/max. Let's assume 75% of our table time is RP/exploration and 25% combat.

If anyone has actually played a binder, I would appreciate your input. Thanks.

I plan to try one.  The main reason for that is, I'm considered the party munchkin because I tend to take combat oriented options while other people take...what I consider less optimal feats and choices.  My thought is, if I play a binder, I can min-max it to my little heart's content and I am not going to outshine other people.

They look like decent skill monkeys too.

ive played a straight binder a few times and had fun, but my fave is a hybrid fey binder/paladin bc you can do some 'catch 22' type hijinks. theyre not my fave or anything but if you get creative with them, you can certainly build some serviceable pcs. i like the fluff on them too.

Oct 3, 2012 -- 2:22PM, mexrage wrote:

Oct 3, 2012 -- 12:54PM, crzyhawk wrote:

I plan to try one.  The main reason for that is, I'm considered the party munchkin because I tend to take combat oriented options while other people take...what I consider less optimal feats and choices.  My thought is, if I play a binder, I can min-max it to my little heart's content and I am not going to outshine other people.

They look like decent skill monkeys too.

I am actually the oposite, i am the kind of player that prefer classes that need less optimization to be "competitive", because that way, i can spend all those feats on cool/fun stuff that make my character concept shines even more.

Hitting more often and doing more damage are fun to me.  I don't need to take feats to give my character variety and flavor.

Oct 10, 2012 -- 6:46AM, arkthepieking wrote:

The thing you have to remember about the Binder is you have to ask yourself, "Why am I not playing a Warlock?". .

i would say that the major reason is bc the binders have at-wills that cannot be selected by the warlock. in my case the at-wills were crucial for what i wanted to be able to do, otherwise i would have indeed gone straight warlock.