D&D Beyond Adds Illrigger Class from MCDM

D&D Beyond has added the Illrigger class from MCDM, marking only the second time that the service has added a third party class made for D&D 5th edition. This week, D&D Beyond launched support for the Illrigger, an elite servant of hell with a versatile number of combat options. MCDM originally released the Illrigger class back in 2021 and revised the class in 2023. Both were made for 5th Edition rules and do not incorporate rules from the 2024 Core Rulebook updates.

The illrigger is a primarily martial class that can place seals on their enemy and burn them to deal additional damage. As agents of hell, illriggers are generally evil-aligned characters, but players aren't limited to a specific alignment. The illrigger ruleset on D&D Beyond comes with 5 different subclasses, as well as 8 new spells, and 2 new magic items.

Other than the illrigger, D&D Beyond also supports the Blood Hunter, a 5E class originally designed by Matt Mercer and used in Critical Role. While the Blood Hunter was released for free, the illrigger costs $14.99 on D&D Beyond.

 

[TravDoc42]

Is it a copyright/trademark/whatever issue, maybe? Because yeah, "demon knight" is right there. "Illrigger" sounds like something a 13 year old would come up with.

Or even "hellknight"?

 

[mamba]

Is it a copyright/trademark/whatever issue, maybe? Because yeah, "demon knight" is right there. "Illrigger" sounds like something a 13 year old would come up with.

I believe there was some 3e class by that name it is modeled after, whether keeping that name was the right move is up to you

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I believe there was some 3e class by that name it is modeled after, whether keeping that name was the right move is up to you

There was an old Dragon magazine article under the AD&D era that was something like a paladin for every alignment, back when Paladins were locked as LG aligned. Illrigger was the LE paladin proposed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There was an old Dragon magazine article under the AD&D era that was something like a paladin for every alignment, back when Paladins were locked as LG aligned. Illrigger was the LE paladin proposed.

Correct, but like, that's no excuse for bringing it back!

Here's the full list, all the names are dire:

Class of	Hit dice	Maximum	Spell	Class
character (alignment)	type	hit dice	ability	level limit
Myrikhan (NG)	d6 + 3	9	yes (6)	none
Garath (CG)	d8	9	yes (8)	none
Lyan (LN)	d12	15	yes (3)	none
Paramander (N)	d8 + 1	9	yes (8)	none
Fantra (CN)	d10	10	yes (1)	none
Illrigger (LE)	d10	11	yes (5)	none
Arrikhan (NE)	d8 + 1	9	yes (7)	none

They should all have stayed in Dragon 106. None of those are appropriate names of for a class. For a character, maybe.

 

[mamba]

Correct, but like, that's no excuse for bringing it back!

the other names aren't any better

 

[Ruin Explorer]

the other names aren't any better

100% agree, they're totally awful. I have no idea what dear Christopher Wood (the author) was smoking but he needed to stop smoking it urgently.

Can you imagine how fail Paladins as a class would have been if they'd been called "Garaths"? Or "Fantras"? or just really any of those names! Even Lyan sounds like an off-brand attempt at Lion.

 

[Zaukrie]

Is it a copyright/trademark/whatever issue, maybe? Because yeah, "demon knight" is right there. "Illrigger" sounds like something a 13 year old would come up with.

Ninjad.

This is more than I want to pay for one class, but I'm thrilled this kind of content is available.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think this is a real issue.

As a DM, you likely have 3-7 characters in the group. Of those, maybe half are usually going to be playing significantly complicated/tricky classes (by D&D 5E standards, so not very complicated by more objective standards). The Illrigger doesn't add to that load, it's probably replacing one of the other complicated/tricky classes.

Is it worse than having a Warlock with a funky setup or, I dunno, pretty much any Paladin, or god help us, a Bard?

No. Not really

When I mean It's got its own little mini spells and a invocation system. I mean that it actually doesn't use the same skills in and vacations as the Warlock which is shared in the system.

The The first version of the elrigger came with a lot of totally new stuff that was specifically for it. I don't know how the revised one looks. But if it's like the original then it is an entirely new subsystem to worry about.

And that is the problem is not about it being complicated it's that now you have another subsystem and not even a simple subsystem like the runes in the runeknight or the maneuvers in a battle master (which were just subclass subsystems and thus less mechanical load)

The Warlock is still mostly casting spells that you as the DM already understood and know how they interact with other stuff. And many invocations are just spells too. And the main gimmick Eldritch Blast is also a spell So you are mostly just running a wacky wizard.

But the illrigger in order to justify itself in the original MCDM book and now the $15 addition to D&DB has a bunch of unique stuff (TBF I haven't read the revised illriger just the old busted one) that you can't find anywhere which to justify the price.

I mean the players (I am guessing) who would want to play, able to run, and willing to track an illrigger are likely the type of player who would make you really want to dive delve into the illrigger's information as a DM.

Again, this is a bit silly. Warlocks are soft-coded as evil. Rogues are arguably soft-coded as evil, especially with certain subclasses. Shadow Monks are soft-coded as evil. Many things in D&D are "soft-coded" as stuff - doesn't mean you have to act on it. You haven't explained why anyone would feel the need to "incorporate recurring nonviolent evil dealing" in your story? What is an example of what you mean?

Fluffwise it's not huge because Warlocks have Patron baggage. But it still is baggage that some DMs might not want to deal with.

Not as much as the mechanics by a long shot.

 

[Morrus]

For whatever reason (I wasn't familiar with the term before MCDM used it) I get 'Oilrigger' from it, and that's what I see before I mentally adjust. I'd heard it mentioned before but had no idea what it was until I read this thread. But clearly from that old Dragon article the word predates that, and I'm just not well-read enough!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The The first version of the elrigger came with a lot of totally new stuff that was specifically for it. I don't know how the revised one looks. But if it's like the original then it is an entirely new subsystem to worry about.

I just don't see it, sorry. You're never dealing with all twelve classes at once in 5E, and the Illrigger, even the "busted" one wasn't that complicated or challenging to deal with. Again, the Artificer is a good comparison - Illriggers are, imho, less different from other D&D classes, and not as badly balanced either (at least the Revised one isn't), I'd say there were kind of mid-range balance-wise, and they have a lot of stuff which prevents them being optimized to the degree that some classes can be.