D&D 5E Basic Ranger?

[KarinsDad]

It would be nice if it had been a little bit more factually accurate on the Ranger though!

"...good with ranged weapons where the fighter is a melee expert. "

Can't see that before 3e at all.

" The ability to cast spells only appeared with AD&D (1977-1979)."

Completely wrong - the Strategic Review version of the class cast magic user and cleric spells (and wasn't limited to 2 levels of MU spells and 3 levels of druid spells like the AD&D version)

"D&D 3e (2000) was the first edition to give rangers animal companions. "

No, the Strategic Review Ranger got a whole series of companions when he reached name level (random rolls on a table, you could end up with a silver dragon, many woodland creatures and even hobbits).

Stop confusing us with the facts!!!!!

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Shame they made the class so uninspiring in 5e then

grumble, mutter, get off my lawn! etc

I was pretty underwhelmed with the presentation and set-up of the class just from reading it in the PHB, but I haven't actually seen it in action. It might be a case of it playing better than it reads given that a lot of the things that the class does in combat and exploration is heavily tied into the spellcasting and subclass features which is maybe why it didn't make the cut for Basic despite its obvious popularity in the past. I don't know anyone who has actually played it, but I think that part of the reason is that it doesn't look that great on paper compared to the way the other classes are set up where you get some very obvious "wow" stuff every two or three levels in the main class feature list or are full casters and all that comes with that.