D&D 5E (2014) [+]What Characters Are You Excited to Build?

[payn]

Been a few years since I played 5E, but the Vecna module looks intriguing. I wouldnt mind trying a Monk out.

 

[Kurotowa]

I want to play a Bladelock. I've already played a Bladelock once in 5e, in my first and still longest campaign with the edition. But the PHB'24 promises to fix so many of my complaints from back then, I can't help but want to give it a try. I don't have to be a Hexblade! I can pick up Chain Pact at the same time! It looks glorious.

Similiarly, I want a play a Monk. That's another class where my prior experience makes the improvements stand out really clearly, although that campaign was much more short lived. I've already roughed out an idea for a Bugbear Shadow Monk who really leans into the "creature lurking under the bed" boogeyman theme.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I want to play a Bladelock. I've already played a Bladelock once in 5e, in my first and still longest campaign with the edition. But the PHB'24 promises to fix so many of my complaints from back then, I can't help but want to give it a try. I don't have to be a Hexblade! I can pick up Chain Pact at the same time! It looks glorious.

Similiarly, I want a play a Monk. That's another class where my prior experience makes the improvements stand out really clearly, although that campaign was much more short lived. I've already roughed out an idea for a Bugbear Shadow Monk who really leans into the "creature lurking under the bed" boogeyman theme.

Oh man I forgot how rad the UA shadow monk is! Yessss

With monks being good grapplers now, too, the bugbear shadow monk is just an absolute killer.

And you can fit in a backpack!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As much as I can be excited for anything in 5e, I am excited for the Warlock invocation changes. I had long liked the thought of a Celestial Tomelock, but lamented the loss of Hexblade that being Celestial would require. With 5.5e, I would be able to play a Celestial Bladelock at level 1 and pick up Tome shortly thereafter, so there would be no need to choose. As long as the Tomelock can still learn further new rituals (the invocation text is somewhat vague on that front) it would make for a supremely versatile, effective support character that doesn't hit the insane power levels of other full casters. The character would be useful in essentially any group (nobody minds some extra healing and solid damage), and being nearly 100% SAD means fears would actually be on the table rather than a distant, unlikely dream, particularly with Lessons of the First Ones in play.

Healing, ranged damage, 2x Extra Attack at 11, rituals, temp HP. The baseline of invocations is 4 (two pacts, Agonizing Blast, Thirsting Blade), with at most another two "needed" for Blade stuff (Eldritch Smite and Lifedrinker, and honestly I dunno if you need either), so there's room for other fun goodies, like Pact of the Chain (I just love pseudodragons too much), Gift of the Protectors, Ascendant Step, the aforementioned Lessons of the First Ones, all sorts of stuff.

And beyond that, I really do love the story potential of a Celestial patron. It's a refreshing twist on the very old Faustian bargain concept, and implies interesting things about both the character and the patron.

 

[Rocker26a]

And I could do a whole post about the Ranger!

I'd invite you to do so, I still think it sucks and is lame (despite still somehow being among the least worst iterations of the class)!

I hate the fact that it turned Conjure Barrage + Volley into class features! Like even if those spells were a part of the fantasy of Ranger for me, I'd still think that was a cop-out! It irks me that we're in the paddling pool of "oh have hunter's mark for free as your primary class feature (but it doesn't get any better until 20th level)"!

Bah.

 

[Kurotowa]

I should also give honorable mention to one that's at the top of my B-list and that I think people are sleeping on: Arcane Trickster Rogue.

Mainly, they're no longer limited to Enchantment and Illusion spells. Sure, two of the three starting spells have to be from those schools. But at least in UA6, none of your future picks had to be, and nothing stopped you from exchanging those spells out. So an Arcane Trickster could pick up infinitely more useful spells that didn't rely on their low caster stat. A Rogue with Jump, Sleep, and Rope Trick? Sounds good to me.

Also, Mage Hand Legerdemain is less restricted in what it can do. And there's so many handy things you can do with a hand, like sweeping away a weapon you forced them to drop with Cunning Strike: Disarm. But then you can't Cunning Action: Disengage out of melee, you say? Isn't it nice that whips are now Rogue weapons, giving them a Reach Finesse option. Or grab Booming Blade as a cantrip, get in close, and use Cunning Strike: Withdraw to leave your Mage Hand free to act.

Yes, overall the UA6 Rogue is a bit less stunning than, say, the UA8 Monk. But it's still improved all around, and may see yet more improvements before the final release. I think Rogue has potential, and maybe Arcane Trickster most of all.

 

[Zardnaar]

No idea what the changes are or will see print.

I like the existing open hand monk more than most and they rock in BG3 so it wins by default.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd invite you to do so, I still think it sucks and is lame (despite still somehow being among the least worst iterations of the class)!

I hate the fact that it turned Conjure Barrage + Volley into class features! Like even if those spells were a part of the fantasy of Ranger for me, I'd still think that was a cop-out! It irks me that we're in the paddling pool of "oh have hunter's mark for free as your primary class feature (but it doesn't get any better until 20th level)"!

Bah.

A couple things here. First, the reason those spells were class features was that they wanted them to be exclusive to the Ranger, and were still using arcane/nature/divine spell lists. Second and more importantly, that has already changed.

The Ranger will look mostly like UA 6, but with its own spell list, and no spells as class features.

Oh and also with what we saw with smite spells, it’s unlikely Ranger will have the concentration issues it currently has.

 

[Rocker26a]

A couple things here. First, the reason those spells were class features was that they wanted them to be exclusive to the Ranger, and were still using arcane/nature/divine spell lists. Second and more importantly, that has already changed.

I might be blind, but I can't seem to see a more recent update that changes that. I will take your word for it though.
But even still, it shouldn't have made it to playtest at all in my opinion. If they wanted those spells to be exclusive to Ranger, then they should. Do that. Not make them exclusive, and then also forced. Like, why? If they've been changed out since, that suggests to me that they were just placeholder features.

The Ranger will look mostly like UA 6, but with its own spell list, and no spells as class features.

I think the playtest 6 version of Ranger mostly ranges ha from fine but boring, to actively irritating (but that's mainly the forced spells, if they're gone then we'll leave that).
Are you counting Favoured Enemy in the "no spells as class features" bit? Or is that still the same? I'm lowkey tired of Hunter's Mark, I think they should just cut their losses with it. But then also, it's basically the only thing of interest you get in the early levels in terms of base class features. They also give you one Expertise and tried desperately to make Favoured Terrain a thing again without being outright awful. Roving is nice, but I think 6th level is kind of late for a movement buff like that. They could've made it 1st level and I wouldn't have blinked.

Oh and also with what we saw with smite spells, it’s unlikely Ranger will have the concentration issues it currently has.

That's positive at least, if it pans out.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Ever since AD&D, I always want to play a monk. Like Zardnaar, I have no idea of the changes, but guarantee I'll want to play a monk