Talk:Soulbinder (3.5e Prestige Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Image and Feedback[edit]

ummm... can someone help me fit the image right, and feedback if you want to would be cool. --Summerscythe 22:48, 5 July 2008 (MDT)

I got the image for you, all you had to do was add it to the top template and specify the size. And, two things of advice, this still needs an example NPC, and the class features should not be bulleted. --Green Dragon 11:42, 6 July 2008 (MDT)
Thank you kind sir, um... what should they be instead of bullets than? and I'm working on a sample NPC as we speak. Summerscythe 11:51, 6 July 2008 (MDT)
They should be italics (as is standard by WotC). I have changed the first one. --Green Dragon 12:28, 6 July 2008 (MDT)
Thanks again, i'll do the rest when im done with my NPC. --Summerscythe 12:30, 6 July 2008 (MDT)
Once you have an example NPC present please feel free to remove Template:Prestige Class Description Needed. And once you have removed the bullets from the class features, linked to the class features from the table, added links to the SRD throughout, added a space before the Su's, Ex's, etc, added a space before the abilities in "Soul Blend", and removed extra blank lines, feel free to remove Template:Prestige Class Wikify. --Green Dragon 12:48, 6 July 2008 (MDT)
The example NPC should be on it's own page and be an inclusion here. For example please refer to the Spider Rider. --Green Dragon 14:47, 6 July 2008 (MDT)
I've been working on it all day, i think i got most of it out of the way, anything i missed? --Summerscythe 20:16, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the power seemed balanced and neither overpower or underpower the class, or in comparision to other class of the same type. --Lord Dhazriel 20:29, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the class is well explained and the words are well chosen. --Lord Dhazriel 20:29, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the class seem very well formated (except for the easily fixed little box, I trust the correction will be swift). --Lord Dhazriel 20:29, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because I really like the flavour, it original and the concept is new and young. I really like how the soul binder was built. --Lord Dhazriel 20:29, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Overall: Bravo! --Lord Dhazriel 20:29, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Featured Article[edit]

No mark.svg.png — This article did not become a featured article. --Green Dragon 14:22, 12 March 2009 (MDT)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

Support — I nominate this article for it good taste and great concept, now let start the discussion.--Lord Dhazriel 20:34, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Support — I support this article because it is well balanced and has a unique role in the campaign. It is also aloud to be made to role-play as a unique character, the class characters aren't all the same. --Sabre070 23:17, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Comment — The example NPC needs to be on it's own separate page, something like Rafael Moncrieff (DnD NPC), and be an inclusion onto this page. For an example please refer to the Spider Rider. --Green Dragon 17:08, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

Good work, looks good. Thanks for doing that. --Green Dragon 17:57, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

Comment — More links to the SRD need to be present. --Green Dragon 17:10, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

I believe this has been met, please let me know.Summerscythe 10:53, 17 July 2008 (MDT)
One thing I just noticed. All the links need to not redirect. This means that instead of Dex the link should be piped to the actual page but still read as Dex. Also, all the class skills' abilities are not linked too. Finally, I feel that a few more links could be added throughout. --Green Dragon 18:08, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

Comment — This needs to strictly adhere to the When to Italicize and Capitalize (DnD Guideline) rules. --Green Dragon 17:13, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

I believe this has been met, please let me know.Summerscythe 10:53, 17 July 2008 (MDT)

Support — I support this article because I think it's damn cool.-Risek 17:29, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

Comment — No HTML formatting should be used, it should all be wiki-syntax. For exmaple <i> and </i> should be '' on each side. --Green Dragon 18:02, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

I believe this has been met, please let me know. Summerscythe 10:53, 17 July 2008 (MDT)
Looks good, thanks for doing that. --Green Dragon 18:06, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

Support — I support this article because of its original idea and in depth description. --Palantini 20:41, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

Support — Yes, I'd like to say that a lot of friendly wiki community support went into making this class good, and showing it off would be a benefit to the site. Also, I likes it. --Ganteka 21:22, 14 July 2008 (MDT)

Support — very interesting awesome and useful class. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blarbinator (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Support — This is a very intresting and good class. I think this should really really be a featured article. It seems complete even though it isn't. :) --Jack Bread 22:00, 26 July 2008 (MDT)

Comment — Flavorful class, but extremely underwhelming. I'd be happy to add my support when the class became more viable for actual play. Surgo 00:17, 13 September 2008 (MDT)

Support — The class is easy to understand, a reader can get an idea of how to roleplay a Soulbinder, and the stats are not overpowered nor do they attempt to game the system mechanics to make it more powerful (a huge flaw that most homebrewers have). The picture is a bit cartoony but it gets the idea across.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   08:05, 9 January 2009 (MST)

Comment — It appears as if this one may have enough support to become the FA.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   09:18, 14 January 2009 (MST)

Comment — I think this is a little A few questions/suggestions.

  1. Does Armor Bound also suppress all other magical properties?
  2. Why is the blue option on Weapon Bound so much better then the other ones?
  3. I do not think that all souls in D&D can be described as fitting into four distinct categories. Personally I would just remove Soul Sight (same with Oversoul Sight) to change this class to be fully inward focused and not also focused on outside observation, and observation of other people (it just doesn't seem to fit this class).
  4. What is your reasoning behind Soul Shift? I think defining the character into a certain soul was a good move; adding roleplaying flavor and more of a personality.
  5. Why does Weapon Bound increase every few levels when Armor Bound and Soul Essence do not?

Altogether this class seems to just grant a nice weapon, then then nice armor later, and finally nice character abilities; all with the ability to grant a friend the same. These bonus' are doubled at 10th level when one can choose not only one of the above option, but two. I just wish their was more spazz here; something to make people go "Oh, nice! Oh wow!". The issue is all these abilities are replaceable with money (save Dual Soul, Soul Blend, and Soul Shift).

I would steeply increase the problems with adding ones soul into an item (to tone it down a lot), or just remove them all together. They can be replaced with money after all. Next I would add some abilities which make people go "Wow!". Maybe something where you can use your soul as a weapon itself — attacking the soul of an opponent. Maybe something where the body becomes pointless and you can inhabit any body (but since your soul is powerful and the material body is not you would not gain any of the hosts racial traits though). For example you could kill a minotaur and then inhabit it's body - looking like the minotour but not having it's racial traits. This could be very helpful with roleplaying, and I am sure people could find it very useful in combat as well. Finally reaching a point where no body is necessary and you reach a point of just being floating energy of your personality type (red, blue, etcetera). Or maybe an ability where your soul can try to dominate another soul and gain control of it's host; controling the body and making it do what you want as long as they cannot re-gain control. Just a few ideas - I am sure their are a lot more. --Green Dragon 13:17, 6 March 2009 (MST)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it seems balanced with the other classes. --Sabre070 23:13, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the class has all descriptions of the stats and the abilities. --Sabre070 23:13, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it follows the guidelines of the template and has links and is sectioned well. --Sabre070 23:13, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because this has a large amount of role-playing information and has details of how and where they would be seen. --Sabre070 23:13, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it seems to balanced well assuming it is a benchmark class. It definitely overpowers many published PrCs, but it is also less powerful than several. In the end, it is a combat class that loses BAB and gains some vulnerabilities in order to have some elemental defenses or attacks (both at the end). --Aarnott 12:48, 28 July 2008 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because certain words are informal ('til for example) and "shock resistance" does not seem to be the right term.

Also, a grammar run through should be done. As I read this now, I noticed and corrected an incorrect use of "their" (it appears as "there").

Reword the line "he gains the opposite effecting alignment magical ability". It doesn't make sense.

The line "Someone with an extreme alignment gets both alignment effecting abilities, Example: A chaotic good soulbinder's weapon gets both the holy and the anarchic abilities." is also poorly worded.

How long does binding into items last? Can the items already have magic properties? --Aarnott 12:48, 28 July 2008 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it seems to be formatted according to the preload correctly. --Aarnott 12:48, 28 July 2008 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it fits a unique role as a PrC that can fit into any existing D&D world quite easily. --Aarnott 12:48, 28 July 2008 (MDT)

Non-formatted Rating[edit]

Okay, your first level of this class is taken at level 8. That level you get some energy resistance. Whatever. That's pretty much a flavor ability at that point, and remains that way for almost all of the game. Not impressive so far.

Next level is level 9. Your class feature is to get a +2 weapon. Are you fucking kidding me? I thought we learned from the Soulknife that 'get an item as a class feature' was stupid and useless. Your class feature is seriously to get a weapon that's weaker than the one you should already have.

Level 10. You can see people in a 60' cone of yourself. Are you serious? How is this ability going to help you fight a Couatl, Nine-Headed Cryohydra, Formian Myrmarch, Guardian Naga, or Fire Giant (a sampling of CR 10 monsters)?

Level 11. X to AC is actually not a bad ability (provided you're a threat in combat yourself -- which you aren't), but why put the weakness on it? There's no need for that.

Level 12. Your detect magic goes out to a 120' cone, as per arcane sight. I'm not sure how this ability is going to help you fight a Leonal, Kraken, Roper, or Kolyarut (a sampling of CR 12 monsters). Probably because it won't.

Okay, I can't keep going. The first 5 levels of this class suck, and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better. I suggest you look at what monsters you have to fight at these levels and think to yourself: okay, what can my class do against them? If the answer is "nothing" (which it is here) you need to go back and rethink your class.

Surgo 00:08, 13 September 2008 (MDT)

I'm currently beta testing the class, Esphia is more then powerful enough to take down most of these monsters. The abilities are nice and useful even if it not a Ur Priest or Planar Shepherd I think that the class feature are useful.--Lord Dhazriel 02:15, 13 September 2008 (MDT)
Is it Esphia taking down the class him/herself, or is it the Soulbinder running around and dinking it while the rest of the party does the heavy lifting? The real question isn't whether the party can take down the monsters, it's whether or not the Soulbound can go 50/50 with them (which is what CR means). Surgo 09:29, 13 September 2008 (MDT)
Also Surgo, CR is what a party of 4 characters of that level take to fight a monster and use up 20% of their resources on. Summerscythe 13:25, 13 September 2008 (MDT)
I'm aware of this. However, it is also used as a separate, but equally correct, metric. A monster or character goes 50/50 with itself, and other monsters of CR X. A player character has a CR equal to their level; thus, they are supposed to go 50/50 with monsters of CR equal to their level. In actuality they can totally bone some monsters and some monsters totally bone them, so the 50/50 is really the overall win/loss ratio with the list of CR X monsters. If you don't believe me, the DMG actually supports this metric; albeit indirectly: see the part for parties that are larger than or smaller than 4 people. Surgo 13:32, 13 September 2008 (MDT)
(Level 13) You are now immune to a type of energy damage, as well as either gaining a new movement type or doubling speed. (Level 14) You are now immune to death effects. This means, with a little finangling, you are now immune to the effects of mage's disjunction when it is used on any soul-bound thing. (Level 15) Yeah, a +2 bonus to one modifier isn't that great. This should've been in the first five levels. (Level 16) You can change what types of damage you are immune to, and what form of movement you want as a bonus. This seems perfect for when you know what type of damage most of the creatures in a dungeon dole out. (Level 17) You can now combine the Red soul and the Blue soul, and swim in lava. See level 16 for other uses.
I think that the bonus to weapons and armor should be somewhere along the lines of +(Soulbinder levels)/2. The bonus to a partner's abilities should be somewhere in the first five levels as well. The partner should get the special abilities of the soul at higher levels as well. I have some other ideas on it but rather than just gab about them, I'm just going to create a variant class.

Another Soul: Wild[edit]

Wild soul. For people who change their mind to adapt to their situation or something. A way to mix and match different soul colors between levels. This would remove the 'Soul Shift' ability but could add 'soul focus'. You could even make that a template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sabre070 (talkcontribs) 10:42, 30 January 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!

Whats Left?[edit]

I'm just curious on whats left to do before this article is ok for FA, i beleive everything is formatted correctly, and besides surgo's really bad review it has received positive support. so I was wonderiung what is missing? Summerscythe

Well, all the times you mention other class abilities throughout the article, you can link to them. So, if you mention Soul Essence under a different ability (you don't need links to the ability under the description of the ability), you can use the handy [[#Soul Essence|Soul Essence]] thing, which will link it to Soul Essence, since Soul Essence is already coded with {{#anc:Soul Essence}}. In addition, remove as many redirect page links as you can. Like, your [[Su]] links should be [[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Supernatural|Su]]. --Ganteka 12:57, 11 February 2009 (MST)
Thanks to Lord Drahziel and myself i think we did all that, im pretty sure the article is ready now.Summerscythe 15:09, 16 February 2009 (MST)
I ended the nomination since the issues brought up in the nomination are going to be fixed by a variant soulbinder class. --Green Dragon 14:34, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because amazingly well balanced especially for how interesting and unique the class is. --Forerunner 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is easy to tell what the class features do. They are all clear and concise. --Forerunner 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it follows the formating guidelines. --Forerunner 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is extreamly well thought out. It is very unique and original. Definitely a fun class to play! --Forerunner 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is a solid Tier 3 class with good energy immunities in later levels, two good saves. --213.148.128.70 08:15, 7 September 2012 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is easy to understand --213.148.128.70 08:15, 7 September 2012 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it really looks nice. Well done! --213.148.128.70 08:15, 7 September 2012 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it really harmonizes well in flavour with classes such as the Binder --213.148.128.70 08:15, 7 September 2012 (MDT)

Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors