D&D 5E The Illrigger: Why I hate this class and love what it could have been.

[Steampunkette]

That requires banning multiclassing.

First of all, Paul is right:

Taking multiclassing into account players don’t necessarily get their subclass at level 3 either.

Second of all: You can make the level 1 feature of most archetypes into a Ribbon.

Warlocks in 2014 were balanced around getting their patron at level 1. Which is why it was a mostly ribbon feature (Temp HP on a killing blow, telepathy, point blank charm/fear) with a secondary ribbonette (Expanded spell list).

Just give the Fighter a level 1 Ribbon feature for the Eldritch Knight. Maybe a Cantrip and the Arcana skill proficiency. Then do that for all the other level 3 subclass characters.

Tadaaaaah. Problem solved.

 

[Minigiant]

Taking multiclassing into account players don’t necessarily get their subclass at level 3 either.

Second of all: You can make the level 1 feature of most archetypes into a Ribbon

That works to.

You could have every class have Level 1 and Level 3 subclass features.

DMs could choose if you get subclass at level 1 or 3.

But we all know what would happen

 

[mamba]

And I despise this consistency, Make every subclass level 1.

because that would be less consistent?

 

[Shardstone]

I like the Illrigger, but these comments are fair when it comes to name and flavor. But I don't think classes should all be broad flavor anymore. THe beauty of 3PP is that we get to make more narrow concepts that people may want. Illrigger is certainly one of those.

I don't think the comments about seals etc really hold a lot of water in terms of this class, but I would love another class that plays with seals to the maximum.

 

[Remathilis]

1) The Name
2) Narrow Concept

1.) Oh, I absolutely agree the name is kinda laughable. Calling it a "Hellknight" would have been scores better. Or Blackguard. Illrigger looks bad on paper. It sounds bad off the tongue. It absolutely cannot be said if you've imbibed any potent potables. That said, Knave to me speaks closer to Rogue or Scoundrel rather than Warrior of Hell.

2.) To be honest, the notion of an "Evil McEvilson" is already a kinda niche idea, but that said I don't think a 3pp needs to be all that broad a concept. In fact, classes lose their edge the more they try to absorb too many archetypes. The Mystic (WotC's 5e psionic class) had that problem in that it tried to include every psionic class that existed in 3e and 4e (and a few that weren't like Wu Jen) into one class and suffered a tremendous lack of focus. It was a caster. It was a martial. It was an expert. It was a floor wax and a dessert topping. I'd rather classes designed to go outside the traditional niche be more focused on the concept rather than try to cram as many ideas as possible.

I like the illrigger as a concept, but I don't see where I'd ever use it. I don't tend to run evil campaigns and for me, warlock and blood hunter already have the "anti-hero" concept down pat.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Given how many tables have a “no evil PCs” rule, I don’t think trying to sell an EvilMacEvilface class is good business!

I propose making the Angel Summoner class. Make a fortune, good and overpowered.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If I finally got over the fact that I thought Warlord stunk as that particular class's name... I can let the Illrigger go too.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Loreward. That’s a good class name.

 

[Shardstone]

As for the Illrigger itself, I can say that it sparks joy and interesting concepts in me. Playing a Hell Knight is something that just sounds visceral and fun to me. I love anti-heroes a lot, and the idea of someone who is evil finding redemption is a fun trope to play. I also like the angle where it's just pragmatic to use Hell power to slay evil; it gives me a kind of anti-villain-but-still-a-hero vibe that works well for an average D&D PC imo.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Neither "Knave" nor "Malefactor" should EVER be used for a class description. They are existing words that that have distinct and generalized meanings - divorced from any archetypal description. "Illrigger" at least will never cause ambiguity for example when an NPC complains about or curses out "That knave". Not to mention that Illrigger is an accurate description of what the class is actually about.

I for one despise the very concept of a class devoted to causing "strife, war, hardship, and deceit" just for their own sake. Because it is a completely unbelievable mindset. People do terrible things because they personally benefit*, because they want to destroy some particular group, or because they believe that those terrible things actually benefit society. The don't commit non-targeted atrocities just because Team Evil. The Evil Knight concept can be made functional - but only when tied to a realistic motivation.

* Personal enjoyment, such as from actual literal sadism would be a personal benefit