D&D 5E Basic Ranger?

[halfling rogue]

First, this isn't a complaint, just a question; a gazing into the crystal ball, if you will. I love pretty much everything about Basic D&D. The fact that it is free only augments my praise for it. But I do wonder if Basic as we know it now will get upgraded beyond the DMG. Aside from the DMG update, I think it's safe to assume the Basic document will be the vehicle for errata.

But I do wonder if it will, at some point, extend the Fab Four (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue) and add the Ranger. I only say this because that's the direction it looks like they are going. With the Ranger, that is. It looks like (at least from their website) WotC considers the basic classes to include the Ranger. I see it in their introduction to D&D through the character classes, and most recently with the new article chronicling the evolution of their classic classes, which the Ranger is included.

Personally, I would love to see the Ranger go Basic and I'm hoping it does. What say you? Think it could happen? Think it should happen?

 

[Astrosicebear]

Initially they have to get people to buy the PHB. I would imagine once the DMG is released, theyve made their initial sales figures off the core base, and now need to attract new players. At that point theyve also gone full monte, so they dont have to hold their hand back anymore.

I can easily forsee them releasing classes into basic over time.

 

[TerraDave]

Well, arguably, the ranger already seems pretty basic.

But yes, they have hinted at it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why the ranger and not the druid, barbarian, or monk?

I think the primary four work fine for basic, and you could make a ranger like fighter with backgrounds fairly easily.

 

[halfling rogue]

Why the ranger and not the druid, barbarian, or monk?

I think the primary four work fine for basic, and you could make a ranger like fighter with backgrounds fairly easily.

I only mention the Ranger because lately WotC has been including the Ranger with the Fab Four.

 

[GameDoc]

Where are you guys seeing the Ranger presented as part of the basic group?

I think it would be great if the Ranger gets added to basic. I would hope that the build they include is the Hunter one for simplicty's sake. The Ranger fills a pretty common fantasy archetype. You can approximate it with an archery fighter but you don't get the spiritual, mystic connection to nature element, at least not mechanically (you can roleplay it). By default a ranger can focus on archery and let the fighter focus on melee, but it's still possible for them to switch roles or even share the same one if that's what the players want.

 

[halfling rogue]

Where are you guys seeing the Ranger presented as part of the basic group?

I think it would be great if the Ranger gets added to basic. I would hope that the build they include is the Hunter one for simplicty's sake. The Ranger fills a pretty common fantasy archetype. You can approximate it with an archery fighter but you don't get the spiritual, mystic connection to nature element, at least not mechanically (you can roleplay it). By default a ranger can focus on archery and let the fighter focus on melee, but it's still possible for them to switch roles or even share the same one if that's what the players want.

I'm seeing it on their website. In the introduction to D&D they present 5 classes (basic 4 and ranger), and in one of the most recent articles centered around classic classes they include the Ranger again. Just seems like it would make sense to go ahead and include the Ranger in the Basic Rules. If I was a newbie going to their site and saw the intro to the classes and then downloaded the Basic Rules, I would be wondering where the Ranger was. Like I said, just gazing into a crystal ball. They may never do it and that's not a big deal, but it would be pretty cool if they gave us the Ranger with the final DMG release.

 

[aramis erak]

Where are you guys seeing the Ranger presented as part of the basic group?

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/handful-class-ic-histories

Discussing the history of the "key classes"...

 

[KarinsDad]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/handful-class-ic-histories

Discussing the history of the "key classes"...

That was an interesting read. Thanks.

 

[Joe Liker]

I think it would be a mistake. The basic four are all you need for a balanced party, and those four classes cover the broad strokes of any of the more popular characters in fantasy literature.

For example, if you want to play a ranger, you can make do with an Archery or Two-Weapon fighter and a nature-themed background. You won't get all the class features of a "real" ranger, but it does allow you to play the role.

Players who want fancier versions of their favorite character archetypes should have to buy the book.