D&D 5E (2014) The Illrigger: Why I hate this class and love what it could have been.

[Weiley31]

I like jacking the warlock invocations for it's three dead levels.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Pathfinder has Hellknights.

 

[Steampunkette]

Pathfinder has Hellknights.

Pathfinder also has Wizards and Sorcerers and Barbarians and Monks and...

Just 'cause Pathfinder has it doesn't mean D&D can't have it!

I like jacking the warlock invocations for it's three dead levels.

Also gives me some fun design space since in my version I'm modifying some of the invocations of a Warlock for use by the Knave.

 

[pukunui]

To me, “illrigger” sounds like a kind of pirate.

Also, @Steampunkette: it was the Greeks who coined the term “barbarian”, not the Romans.

 

[Steampunkette]

To me, “illrigger” sounds like a kind of pirate.

Also, @Steampunkette: it was the Greeks who coined the term “barbarian”, not the Romans.

Ahhh, damn. Thank you for the correction!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Pathfinder also has Wizards and Sorcerers and Barbarians and Monks and...

Just 'cause Pathfinder has it doesn't mean D&D can't have it!

True, but the pathfinder version is a different take. Do you plagiarise the Pathfinder version (with possible legal implications) or confuse everyone by using the same name for a different concept?

 

[Clint_L]

Pathfinder also has Wizards and Sorcerers and Barbarians and Monks and...

Just 'cause Pathfinder has it doesn't mean D&D can't have it!

It's one thing for Pathfinder to jack stuff from D&D. That's basically what Pathfinder is. It's another thing for the market leader to jack something as notable as an entire class from another brand.

I strongly disagree about Warlocks getting their patron at level 1. Narratively, I much prefer that they start out unsure of what kind of bargain they have struck and then are drawn deeper into it. In terms of game design, I think it gives the player time to get the feel for their character before having to decide on the big reveal. And I like that there is consistency across all the classes now.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There is an Alan Dean Foster novel called Icerigger. That’s only two letters different.

 

[Steampunkette]

True, but the pathfinder version is a different take. Do you plagiarise the Pathfinder version (with possible legal implications) or confuse everyone by using the same name for a different concept.

I mean... Pathfinder's Hell Knights are a specific narrative structure within Golarion rather than a full character class, for one thing. Even the implementation they had in the campaign setting was as a Prestige Class.

I'm not even suggesting using those, I'm suggesting that the Illrigger should've been Hellknight, no space or hyphenation. Would it cause some confusion? Possible. But I doubt it would confuse many people for a significant length of time.

Especially since someone playing a 5e Golarion game could immediately take the 5e Hellknight class and slap together an Order of the Chain/Gate/Nail/Whatever archetype to work with it.

It's one thing for Pathfinder to jack stuff from D&D. That's basically what Pathfinder is. It's another thing for the market leader to jack something as notable as an entire class from another brand.

Nor is it "Ripping Off" Pathfinder to have a Hellknight class 'cause Hellknights are also a cultural thing beyond Pathfinder. Like in DOOM.

I strongly disagree about Warlocks getting their patron at level 1. Narratively, I much prefer that they start out unsure of what kind of bargain they have struck and then are drawn deeper into it. In terms of game design, I think it gives the player time to get the feel for their character before having to decide on the big reveal. And I like that there is consistency across all the classes now.

Eh... I disagree just as strongly. While that is certainly a narrative you can go for, I don't think an occultist working in the stacks of a library reading about the Ogdru Jahad in some blasphemous ancient tome before performing a ritual to promise their soul to the Ogdru Jahad should be unintentionally making a pact with an Archfey and not know about it and then get disappointed with sparkling fairy wings instead of tentacles.

Similarly when you make a deal with a devil and sign a contract you generally know what you're doing 'cause you're the one who buried the box containing grave dirt, the bones of a black cat, and a drop of your own blood to summon the crossroads demon you're making the deal with.

There's a place for either kind of fantasy, for certain. I just think it's a narrative mistake to try and always frame it as "Mysterious Patron". Especially when the class identity is almost exclusively defined by their relationship to a patron for power.

They changed it for a mechanical benefit and slapped on a narrative justification for it... but I think it would've been better to go for making the patron a core identifier at level 1, and then the "Way you Serve" for higher level. But that would've made D&D24 incompatible with 5e Warlock Archetypes so they just decided to strip out a big chunk of the warlock's identity at level 1 and trade it for an invocation. And Tales of the Valiant did basically the same but gave them a pact boon instead of an invocation and then went a step further by taking away their level 1 pact magic in favor of further "Rebalancing" them into bog-standard half casters at level 2.

Just bugs me. Still. Not the thrust of the thread.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

the only change i don't like here is "knave". it sounds like an alternative rogue. ironically, i think "varlet" sounds better.