Some buffs that it needed, but mostly it was just a great package to build around. A big issue in 3E is classes that are all in on only one pillar, and the PF1 ranger gets goodies in every bucket. Its my favorite class next to bard and witch from that era.
Oh I am very consistently crazy on this topic. 3.5 has the ranger, the bard, and not much else that I like.
Which sucks because those are my favorite iterations of official dnd ranger and bard...
Like, translate the 3.5 Bard into 5e, make songs a bonus action to activate, tweak as needed, pluck some goodies from 4e and 5e for spice and to round things out, and you'd have what I wanted the 5e Bard to be.
The Ranger might need a bit more work than that, but not much. Replace favored enemy with 4e hunter's quarry + tracking stuff. Spellcasting at level 1 obv.
Ranger doesn't have an identity problem.
Sure it does. It has the problem that wotc sucks are executing on it's identity while making an effective class. Like I said.
The problem is D&D's mechanics.
Which is what I said. In the OP.
In every edition, Ranger is a switch hitter: Melee and Ranged and sometimes Spell and Sometimes Beast.
Every edition. And this is usually bad out the core. MAD and Multiple Feat Dependency.
Nope. This is almost never the problem. The problem is simply that they don't even try to make the versatile elements of the ranger work on a unified framework, they don't actually deliver on the class being a switch hitter (if you have to choose between specialising on twf and archery, you aren't a switch, you're an archer or a twfer), and they don't integrate spell and beast and weapon fighting.
Choosing melee feats/powers/invocations/knacks/perks/talents doesn't help your ranged feats/powers/invocations/knacks/perks/talents or your pet feats/powers/invocations/knacks/perks/talents.
So the best rangers and what become the ranger identity in D&D: Great at one style Good at another.
You take the strong general stuff: 4E's Twin Strike or 5.5E GWM feat
You take a melee spell, a beast spell, and a ranged spell.
Embrace the MAD. Be the archer with good melee. The beastmaster with a strong bow.
So, where we agree is that spells can help execute identity. I just don't think they can
establish it, but they can certainly enhance and help integrate the various elements of it into a cohesive whole.
Establish being a versatile weapon user, and make sure that the spell list supports that and that you can use spells to lean into whatever fighting style you are using.
Establish being able to befriend and fight alongside a beast or a bestial spirit being, and then make sure that the spell list backs that up and allows you to lean into it when you need to by spending spell power.
So, instead of choosing between fighting styles like other classes, make the ranger the class that can change their fighting style when they rest.
Give them the simplest form of a pet as an option by giving them a class feature that lets them calm beasts and understand them, and the find familiar spell, and then let there be a fighting style that leans into having a pet fighting with you, and a subclass that leans harder into the pet, and spells that can boost an ally, etc..
And to make sure the ranger can always lean into the tactics they are using that day, let them prepare spells like a druid, rather than how they do now.
And as for skills, I say ditch expertise entirely and replace it with the ability to choose a handful of skills to add your wisdom mod to, and you can change which skills get the benefit during a long rest.
In what world is a bushcrafting purposeful wanderer who has to be able to be effective no matter the situation or terrain or enemy because the wild can throw
anything at you in dnd going to be a siloed specialist in like 1 to 3 skills? What? With like 4 known spells they can't change when the situation changes? Really?? How the hell is that a Ranger?
No. Versatility and flexibility is what the ranger needs, no specialization.
