Imaro
Legend
As someone who used to buy Dragon magazine on a fairly regular basis...I am not very impressed with the online articles so far. Here are some comments I made on the 4e forum, but I guess they fit better here...
I like the Deathknight articles in Dragon 290 & 291 way better than this one. Though I did notice the origin stories are very similar to the one's from the Deathknights of Greyhawk.
My biggest gripe is the whole, one must seek out the ritual to become a Deathknight business. I like the whole tempted or tricked in a moment of weakness theme that Deathknights had going in 3e. IMHO this change pushes them stylistically more towards a liche(actively seeking out the power of undeath) paradigm and makes them definite "bad guys".
In my mind what made Deathknights cooler than liches was the fact that they could be more sympathetic, even to the PC's. This is one of the reasons Soth is such an enduring character. The new direction seems to paint them as evil people who know what they are doing and just want more power.
I will also note that this take on the Deathknight(in Dragon 290 & 291) had nothing resembling the liche's phylactery as necessary to become a Deathknight. This seems pointless, and I like the insinuation in 290 & 291 that the Deathknight's soul is trapped in his body better than the soul weapon angle. Issues 290 & 291 also retained the "classical" appearance (chared skeleton w/prinpick eyes) that neither 3e or 4e are going with and clearly stated that Orcus, Kyuss, Nerull or Demogorgon could all create Deathknights.
I like the Deathknight articles in Dragon 290 & 291 way better than this one. Though I did notice the origin stories are very similar to the one's from the Deathknights of Greyhawk.
My biggest gripe is the whole, one must seek out the ritual to become a Deathknight business. I like the whole tempted or tricked in a moment of weakness theme that Deathknights had going in 3e. IMHO this change pushes them stylistically more towards a liche(actively seeking out the power of undeath) paradigm and makes them definite "bad guys".
In my mind what made Deathknights cooler than liches was the fact that they could be more sympathetic, even to the PC's. This is one of the reasons Soth is such an enduring character. The new direction seems to paint them as evil people who know what they are doing and just want more power.
I will also note that this take on the Deathknight(in Dragon 290 & 291) had nothing resembling the liche's phylactery as necessary to become a Deathknight. This seems pointless, and I like the insinuation in 290 & 291 that the Deathknight's soul is trapped in his body better than the soul weapon angle. Issues 290 & 291 also retained the "classical" appearance (chared skeleton w/prinpick eyes) that neither 3e or 4e are going with and clearly stated that Orcus, Kyuss, Nerull or Demogorgon could all create Deathknights.
