Template talk:Arcane spellcasters

I can find no evidence of a class called "Binder". All references to this word point to Oghma or occasionally to the craft professions of "Printers and Binders". None of these indicate any sort of arcane magical, or shadow magical ability. Please correct me (with a source) if I'm wrong. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 15:15, January 17, 2015 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I spoke too soon. Apparently the Binder class is similar to a Warlock, so I'm just going to remove the redirect to Oghma. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 15:23, January 17, 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't the Binder one of the three classes seen in the 3.5 Tome of Magic? --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 18:06, January 17, 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. They summon and bind weird spirits for magical power. They're definitely arcane spellcasters. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:35, January 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * Just looked it up in my ToM; indeed, binders are a type of arcane magic-user who binds extra-dimensional entities called vestiges and draws powers from them. Since one of the vestiges is Karsus, they have implicit connection to FR canon.
 * --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 03:06, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both! :) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 05:24, January 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * Plus, the vestige Amon is Amaunator. Some FR-specific vestiges were created for the class as well, in web material.
 * It seems that the 3e Binder was recreated as a Warlock variant in 4e. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:57, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

New Additions & Minor Reorganization
The Binder predates the 4e Warlock, so it should not be "under" the Warlock's category.

The Sha'ir stands alone as a character class, with magic so distinct as to stand alone from the Wizard. Ditto for the Witch (both the NPC class and the Rashemen variety).

The Spellsinger and Shadow Walker are two arcane spellcaster classes (full-on classes, not kits) from 2e's Wizards and Rogues of the Realms (1995).

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 00:16, January 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * The more I look into it, the more I'm finding that our class/subclass/prestige class/paragon path/epic destiny organization is a bit muddled. I've started to sort through it to the best of my ability, and what I've done so far seems like the tip of the iceberg. Kits are not really classes, so I'm not going to bother with them, at least for now. I'm going to break down and buy the 5th edition core rulebooks just so I ward off the inevitability of getting something wrong and having to redo it. It's already happened and it will happen again, but hopefully no major problems pop up. (yeah, right) &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:06, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

The problem is simply based on the differences between editions; despite the attempt to keep the main wiki "rules free", the simple fact is that with each edition some things in such a drastic way that the articles become confusing.

The most egregious examples I can think of are the gods (er... exarchs... whatever...) and the elf/fey issue.

By the same token, what was a "class" in 1e may have become a "kit" in 2e and then a prestige class in 3e. The simplest way to deal with it is to simply make a category for arcane base classes for each edition, a category for 2e kits, a category for 3e prestige classes, and categories for whatever they are called in 4e or 5e.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 01:28, January 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * That's the core of what I'm doing, then there's the hierarchy to deal with. The Class table template generates categories with (1e), (2e), etc. in the name, so a large part of this effort is to make use of the template everywhere it needs to be, and then create/organize the generated categories. If you see any glaring errors, please let me know. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:42, January 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * On the issue with arcane spellcasters in 5e in PH5e (p.205): "the spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding - leared or intuitive - of the workings of the weave... Eldrich knights and Arcane tricksters also use arcane magic." "The spells of clerics, druids, paladins and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters´ access to the weave is mediated by divine power - gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladins oath.". That's what i found with a quick look the index. When i get home i can look at the 5e DM's guide, there are no classes in that one bug it might be something more there.  Terrorblades 's Far Realm logs dated  12:43, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the wiki articles should be written primarily with pre-4e terminology, since that is the foundation of the setting, from Ed Greenwood's notes to its status as "default setting" in 2e to its voluminous library of 3e books... not to mention all the novels up to that date.

This means that the terms "exarch" should be used as additions to the traditional term of "demigod / demipower" and elves remain elves, not fey-this or fey-that.

Why? Because if the article says "so-and-so is an exarch of this-or-that", A) those playing/accustomed to earlier editions will be confused, and B) this might not hold true when the now-hypothetical 6th Edition rolls around and the term exarch is eliminated.

Same applies here. Furthermore, in some cases articles can integrate multiple terms from various editions. As example, a Corsair (Pirate) article explains what it is, what it does and how it differs from region to region, with the following categories: 1e NPC Classes, 2e Core Classes, Al-Qadim core classes, 2e Kits, 3e Prestige Classes, Character Class Templates... and so on.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 15:30, January 19, 2015 (UTC)