Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="halfling rogue" data-source="post: 6397380" data-attributes="member: 6779182">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.</blockquote>