Flamestrike
Legend
There are three problems with DnD's ranger.
1) Its a worse Fighter than the Fighter in the 'combat pillar', balanced out by a ton of 'exploration pillar' abilities that rarely (if ever) get used. Hunting, foraging and getting lost are rarely things that most groups worry about. Nature sense is pointless. Even favored enemy does nothing in the combat pillar.
2) Spell-casting is built into the base class. More for sacred cow reasons than anything else I can understand.
3) Mechanically, there is no reason to stick with Ranger past 5th level. Taking 4 levels of Battlemaster Fighter and 11 levels of Scout Rogue and you're a better 'Ranger' than the Ranger in everything barring Spellcasting (which sucks on a Ranger). Same number of ASI/ Feats as the 'pure' ranger, Expertise in 6 skills (including Stealth, Survival, Perception, Nature and two more of your choice - Athletics and Acrobatics look likely), Reliable talent as your capstone, +6d6 sneak attack, Skirmish, Cunning action, uncanny dodge, evasion, bonus to movement speed, action surge, 2 x fighting styles, and Superiority dice.
If casting really bothered you, you could take 3 levels of Battlemaster, 3 levels of Rogue and 9 of Druid to be a better caster, and fighter and skill monkey than your 'book' ranger.
Id like to see Ranger as a Fighter subclass (ironically as it was back in AD&D) or alternatively a Spell-less Ranger being the default class, with a Spell-casting Ranger being an Archetype option (the Warden?).
1) Its a worse Fighter than the Fighter in the 'combat pillar', balanced out by a ton of 'exploration pillar' abilities that rarely (if ever) get used. Hunting, foraging and getting lost are rarely things that most groups worry about. Nature sense is pointless. Even favored enemy does nothing in the combat pillar.
2) Spell-casting is built into the base class. More for sacred cow reasons than anything else I can understand.
3) Mechanically, there is no reason to stick with Ranger past 5th level. Taking 4 levels of Battlemaster Fighter and 11 levels of Scout Rogue and you're a better 'Ranger' than the Ranger in everything barring Spellcasting (which sucks on a Ranger). Same number of ASI/ Feats as the 'pure' ranger, Expertise in 6 skills (including Stealth, Survival, Perception, Nature and two more of your choice - Athletics and Acrobatics look likely), Reliable talent as your capstone, +6d6 sneak attack, Skirmish, Cunning action, uncanny dodge, evasion, bonus to movement speed, action surge, 2 x fighting styles, and Superiority dice.
If casting really bothered you, you could take 3 levels of Battlemaster, 3 levels of Rogue and 9 of Druid to be a better caster, and fighter and skill monkey than your 'book' ranger.
Id like to see Ranger as a Fighter subclass (ironically as it was back in AD&D) or alternatively a Spell-less Ranger being the default class, with a Spell-casting Ranger being an Archetype option (the Warden?).