The concentration part of it, mainly.It scales damage with level and doesn’t cost bonus action (so can be used alongside two weapon fighting). What’s not to love!
BG3's take on Favored Enemy actually makes that feature much less dependent on how many enemies of a given type you're going to meet.The video game creators also have the distinct advantage of knowing how many of every enemy a Ranger could meet.
And Barbarian! The other wilderness fighterey guy that also has to worry about colonialism problems.Essentially WOTC doesn't know how to balance TSR's Fighter and Ranger without angering people. THEN you have the Druid, Bard, and Rogue sneaking in the conversation.
"Always" here being relative: in 1e Rangers didn't tend to do archery or two-weapon fighting very well* and animal companions didn't exist as a thing.Or neither archer nor two-weapon, beastmaster is optional, you can go all-in on casting or be a non caster...
I mean, rangers have always had archery, two-weapon fighting and animal companions.
Its hasn't been "dumb" for all the editions where people wanted to play a character that specialized in a certain foe or type of foes.Favored enemy should be deleted from writers minds, permanently.
It was a dumb idea few editions ago, and it is dumb now.
an extra tool proficiency in addition to language would be more useful than favored enemy.
Sad thing is that extra language is best part of favored enemy.
At least you can RP a smart guy that knows how to speak in many cultures.