5th Edition is officially underway! The Player's Handbooks are shipping out, many people already have them, and select few already have the Monster's Manual and / Dungeon Master's Guide. We've seen a bunch of sneak peeks up to this point but now we'll finally have a solid look at the full list of PHB Races, Classes, and Backgrounds.

So what do you want to play? What race, class, and background combination has you the most excited and why? Is it particularly amazing in your opinion for 5e or have you always just wanted to play one?

Lets hear em!

...I won't be getting my copy until at least Saturday. I was going to just order one online but estimated delivery date is 'three to five weeks' which is such BS.

That said I'm most looking forward to jumping about five chapters in and seeing what changes they have made to the underlying mechanics of the game rather then what new fluff is around. I want to see how long it takes to break something.

I think mine is showing up back in the states tomorrow. But I wont be sending it over here sadly, I'd rather it stay pristine for my return.

I'm definitely excited for both the rules and the fluffly changes to characters but I havent gotten to any rules yet that I've felt super strongly on one way or the other. I dont really do the edition-waring stuff, I think each has their pros and cons but so far I like the direction that most of the rules are headed for sure. Now that I've got my head wrapped around proffiencies and the way skills will work I think it will be a fairly straight forward system as far as a lot of checks and stuff are concerned.

I'm curious to see how both advantage and disadvantage will come into play, there were a few examples in the Acquisitions Inc games but I think I'd like to see what some DMs can throw me way.

I dont think this might be the edition where I finally stop being lazy and play a bard though =3

I want to play achaotic halfling bard with the sailor background who is conscious about his size and gets a little hotheaded when people doubt he can do something. Most likely started adventuring to raise money for his own ship and then I'd tie him into the plot as I'm able.

I am a long time fan of clerics. In 3rd edition, they were my favorite class. They had more attacks, better life, spells, resilience, team play, than most classes, never exceeding in anything, but being good at everything and having an incredible versatility.

I think the class lost some of its power at 4th edition. And I don't know if it is good enough at 5th edition, nothing stands out to me yet, despite I have reading some positive evaluations form testers.

So far, the idea that I like the most is a sailor who is in love with the sea, to the extent that he's surrendered to a representation of her and is now a warlock with either a pact with a Great Old One or an Archfey, depending on how I want to spin this, like an ancient cephalod god or a sea witch. Go the more melee route, with a pact weapon.

Also, a clan-less dwarf, maybe a barbarian. And a monk, I want to play a monk.

CE Tiefling Paladin with the Criminal background. Because I can.

I want to be a lawful neutral cleric-prosecutor with the divine right to hunt down criminals and execute them ex judicio.

You wont do it!

Sounds like my Inquisitor. I like it.

So while I joked about it above I have to say I actually really like Paladins this iteration. They've finally laid out pretty bare what exactly a Paladin's code consists of (a huge pain in previous edition for the whole 'what exactly can I do without falling?' thing) and the three orders they provide are all pretty cool - I particularly like the more nature-aligned greater good guys. About time they let you play non-LG paladins (in a way it still mattered).

I tinkered with a paladin in 4e, and she was kind of a stereotypical do-gooder, but I've always been too 'nervous' about playing one in either 3.5 or PF because not only did I not want to constantly worry about losing my stuff, but I didnt want to end up just being lawful stupid. I have to agree that on the initial read through of the 5e Player's Handbook that the Order of the Ancients caught my eye as something I'd like to try.

Possibly a half elf or a full elf, but I could see either a human or, to be honest, I think a halfling might be a fun one. It would be nice to play a paladin that's celebrating life in the broader sense rather than just issuing forth justice and being a symbol of the light. Instead of handing down the smiting of a god it could be more like a bard (kinda? maybe?) enjoying the art, music, and beauty of life and seeking to protect it. Standing behind a code of ideals about what you feel is right instead of the mandates of a god.

I mean, maybe you could do that before, but I've just been too turned off to paladins to mess with them much.

You can do a fairy knight.

You can be a fairy knight, but you can also 'Turn the Faithless' on any Fey you meet.... you know, in case you dont support fey marriage.

So I've finished the class/race/background/mechanics parts of the book and just have to digest the spell lists in detail. Hold onto your butts because this may the only time I ever say this about D&D ever;

I want to play a monk.

I know right? I hate monks but they just look so fun this time around! The flavour is still off-putting and they're even more weeaboo then they used to be but damnit all I want to play the Avatar! Curse you wizards! I gave you an inch by liking paladins and this is how you repay me?!

I actually haven't read the monk yet because, well, I tend to not like monks.

I've gone over the classes I'll likely play first a few times to sort of start getting things to stick and am now currently chugging through the later chapters about rules and equipment and such. But someone should definitely run a game so I can be a bard or a paladin...both classes I normally shy away from but am currently excited to explore.

Hmm. I might actually be willing to run something. Of course we have a couple of issues there. How many people have the PHB? I mean we could also use the Play Test basic rules for character creation and that would be fine and all (most of the rules are the same) but do we draw a line between one-or-the-other or use both?

Also character sheets. I know myth weaver just uploaded their alpha sheet but man that thing is ugly. Function though. I guess.

The Mythweaver sheet is indeed hideous.

I'm currently working on a better version of the official PDF that doesnt have all kinds of wonky text sizes. But at this point text characters are the easiest to read for me compared to my other options. Heh.

I liked monks in 4e, that was something I wanted to play. Someone mentioned rogues being mobile but monks were the real mobile class.

And I was definitely thinking with the new monks, you could easily play an Avatar game, restrict it to frenzy barbarians (totem barbarians aren't totally out of the question), warriors, rogues, rangers (refluff spells), and the elemental monks restricting them to one element. Probably add a few more ki abilities to round out the elements.

Just read the warlock class from start to finish finally.