D&D 5E Basic Ranger?

[Wrathamon]

they just need to add the guide background or another wilderness type background to the basic rules and you have your ranger by using that with fighter or rogue.

 

[GameDoc]

they just need to add the guide background or another wilderness type background to the basic rules and you have your ranger by using that with fighter or rogue.

The outlander background may work for this.

 

[GameDoc]

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

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

That's intersting given our discussion here of using a fighter in the basic game to stand in for ranger. That's what they did in the starter set - making pregens that could made from the basic rules alone. Of note, the miniatures released to coincide with the debut of 5e correspond to the starter set pregens with an archer fighter. And the characters in the web comic are based on those miniatures. And the article linked above references the web comic implying that the arched character is a ranger, not a fighter.

 

[halfling rogue]

That's intersting given our discussion here of using a fighter in the basic game to stand in for ranger. That's what they did in the starter set - making pregens that could made from the basic rules alone. Of note, the miniatures released to coincide with the debut of 5e correspond to the starter set pregens with an archer fighter. And the characters in the web comic are based on those miniatures. And the article linked above references the web comic implying that the arched character is a ranger, not a fighter.

Nice catch.

I know that the archer style fighter can be used as a ranger-type character, but again I'm looking at how WotC is looking at it. The fact that the starter set included a rangery fighter in the first place indicates their understanding that the Ranger is a desirable character. For one, I'm glad the fighter can be geared in such a way, but it also makes me wonder if they chose that route early on because they were still working on the Ranger for the PHB. The Fab Four being already finished and ready to go for Basic.

But after thinking about it, I can see a reason why they might emphasize the Ranger as they've been doing, and yet still not include the Ranger in Basic. If the Basic Rules are seen (from their perspective) as the main 'hook', then it makes sense to plug the Ranger as a key class, Basic is the hook, the Ranger being the pull (not THE pull, but A pull). While I think we (or, I) want Basic to be the essential D&D, I think they might view it more as it is enough to capture essential D&D (because: Archer Fighter + Custom Background are Basic). If they say that the Ranger is a key class, a classic class and then not include it in the Basic Rules, then it must be a hook, a 'come hither'.

If that's their MO then I don't think we'll see a Basic Ranger. It would be pretty flippin sweet if they did though.

 

[zicar]

If they are going to add any class to the basic 4 it should be the bard. 4 basic roles are covered plus a class that can kind of do all 4.

 

[Joe Liker]

But after thinking about it, I can see a reason why they might emphasize the Ranger as they've been doing, and yet still not include the Ranger in Basic. If the Basic Rules are seen (from their perspective) as the main 'hook', then it makes sense to plug the Ranger as a key class, Basic is the hook, the Ranger being the pull (not THE pull, but A pull). While I think we (or, I) want Basic to be the essential D&D, I think they might view it more as it is enough to capture essential D&D (because: Archer Fighter + Custom Background are Basic). If they say that the Ranger is a key class, a classic class and then not include it in the Basic Rules, then it must be a hook, a 'come hither'.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is exactly how they are thinking about it.

 

[Wrathamon]

If they are going to add any class to the basic 4 it should be the bard. 4 basic roles are covered plus a class that can kind of do all 4.

I agree I dont want to pay for the bard.

Outlander would be great to add to the Basic Rules backgrounds.

 

[halfling rogue]

No Basic Ranger confirmed.

Someone asked about it on twitter, Mearls response:

"thought about it. it is the most popular class beyond the core four, but we ultimately decided to keep Basic as lean as possible"

So looks like no Ranger or any other Basic Classes.

 

[Plane Sailing]

That was an interesting read. Thanks.

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).

 

[Plane Sailing]

Someone asked about it on twitter, Mearls response:

"thought about it. it is the most popular class beyond the core four, but we ultimately decided to keep Basic as lean as possible"

Shame they made the class so uninspiring in 5e then

grumble, mutter, get off my lawn! etc