Revised Ranger meh

[Mad_Saulot]

Revised Ranger just seems so meh, completely underwhelming, rubbish even, in my games my players have character pools, they each have 3 or 4 characters each, and I have 8 players, they form a guild in game that has almost 30 semi-active characters, and not one of them is a Ranger.

I've been thinking of how to fix this situation I am considering altering it in a simple way,

First grant RR an ability score improvement every 3 levels rather than 4.

Second, Grant an additional attack every 5 levels,

Third, 'pull' the magic spells known and slots down by one level, this would mean level 1 rangers start with magic, and by level 20 they know 12 spells and can cast 1 6th level slot.

TBH even after these improvements the Ranger still feels meh.

Should I implement these improvements, if ye or ne then why, can anything be done to save the Ranger?

[stoutstien]

Giving rangers more stuff won't fix the problem they currently have. It didn't work for clerics in 3.x and it won't work now. Rangers suffer from a lack of clear concept more than anything else.

[JackPhoenix]

Are you sure that the issue is ranger's mechanics, and not that the players may just not be interested in playing any kind of ranger?

[Aett_Thorn]

Wouldn’t this just make Rangers all-around better than Fighters? And then you’d have to rebalance Fighters?

Rangers have a challenge in that some of their abilities are either not going to come up at all in the game, or their abilities totally negate the situation when it does come up, depending how much the DM does exploration. Same with their favored enemy - if they don’t come into play, then it’s an ability wasted.

Rangers need more ability to be active explorers, where they get advantage on rolls or some other bonus. Instead of just hand waving it away as successful.

In addition, IMO, they need to be able to do something with their spell slots other than spells, without stepping on other classes’ toes. Something like a foebreaker ability that weakens the enemy in some way and helps the team, instead of direct damage.

[Edea]

The main issues are:
The animal companion does not jive with 5e's streamlining paradigm, so in trying to force a square peg to fit a round hole the devs completely screwed it up (for one thing, IMO it should be part of the core chassis and not a subclass).
Two-weapon fighting is crap in 5e, and this was one of the Ranger's hallmark fighting styles.
Its low-level features are far, far too specific and campaign-dependent, and frankly feel like ribbon abilities.
Its high-level features don't synergize with the rest of the class, as it has the stats of a frontliner and therefore lacks a built-in way to fully capitalize on stealth.
For some insane reason Rangers do not prepare spells and are restricted to a spells known list, hampering the one thing going for them (a decent spell list).
But beyond that, it feels like it got shoved in there because it would "look weird" if there wasn't a Ranger class. As stoutstien said, we really don't know what the ranger's supposed to do that isn't already covered by another class; that needs to be sorted out, first.

[Nidgit]

Your first and second suggestions would seriously unbalance Rangers compared to other classes that aren't pure spellcasters. The third one is fine but does mess with 5e's internal consistency for half casters.

I agree with people who say that the Ranger lacks a core concept with consistent combat applications. For me, the best answer is to add various abilities to the Favored Enemy and Terrain features that add both utility and combat versatility based on the option taken. One of my personal favorites include additional ways to use reactions, including potentially additional reactions.

Another frequent fix is to allow Rangers to cast Hunter's Mark without using concentration. Doing so opens up a lot of the other concentration spells for actual use.

I've also seen suggestions to let Rangers burn spell slots to increase the number of attacks they can make in a turn, similar to Paladin or Samurai.

[Mad_Saulot]

I always held the ranger in my mind as the rural counterpart to the Rogue, but I was never able to really form a set of class feats that would attain that without just stealing rogue feats and reflavouring them.

[Tanarii]

How often does your game feature scouting and navigating/tracking in the wilderness? Rangers are better than anyone at that, since they are the only class that can track/navigate while keeping an eye out for danger (ie not automatically get surprised) while doing it. Plus they can move at full speed while stealthing if they act as a separate party (whatever distance you require them to be ahead for that).

[animewatcha]

In unearthed arcana, there was a ranger feature that let them use hunter's mark Wis times per long rest. No concentration required. Why not just give it to any ranger for free?

Also, would giving rangers access to Hex step on any toes any?

[Gtdead]

My changes to revised ranger would look like that. I'd give him a "superior dual wielding" ability that turns DW into a mini haste by providing an extra action per turn (in addition to the bonus attack). i think it would allow for more unique playstyles without it being too strong.

Also I think he gets vanish way too late. I'd give it at lvl 10 along with hide in plain sight which I think is the most pointless skill in the game, especially for someone that has pass without a trace, move feral senses to lvl 14 and make foe slayer a true capstone. Allow him to use it on every attack, not just once per turn. I'd even be down to rework it even more, for example once per short rest he can use his WIS modifier in addition to DEX/STR for both attack and damage.

These are from the top of my head, but I did some quick theorycrafting and it competes with rogue at max level (I tested gloomstalker vs AT). So rogue is the urban pick while ranger is the exploration pick.

The damn ranger is so weak compared to the classes he competes with for the same role. It's also the most bonus action heavy class in the game. His stronger abilities can't be stacked because they use BA. If for example swift quiver worked like haste does, he could almost rival the fighter for the duration. The way it works now is that he gains an extra CE. Too little too late, especially when it's both BA and Concentration, so he can't even generate advantage.

At low levels, ranger is like fighter, but trades exploration stuff for action surge, which is a fairly good tradeoff. This continues for a few levels, and then at lvl 11 it stops being a comparison. Fighter pulls ahead and with the extra ASI he can try to specialize in another aspect. Plus he can multiclass without losing much. Ranger is left with conjure animals which is a good spell, but it doesn't matter.. The damage output of 2 attacks per turn is pitiful for a martial and considering that Ranger 11 and Ranger 5/Druid 6 do the same damage, have access to the same spells and the second just has more slots.. what's the point?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The main issues are:
The animal companion does not jive with 5e's streamlining paradigm, so in trying to force a square peg to fit a round hole the devs completely screwed it up (for one thing, IMO it should be part of the core chassis and not a subclass).
Two-weapon fighting is crap in 5e, and this was one of the Ranger's hallmark fighting styles.
Its low-level features are far, far too specific and campaign-dependent, and frankly feel like ribbon abilities.
Its high-level features don't synergize with the rest of the class, as it has the stats of a frontliner and therefore lacks a built-in way to fully capitalize on stealth.
For some insane reason Rangers do not prepare spells and are restricted to a spells known list, hampering the one thing going for them (a decent spell list).
But beyond that, it feels like it got shoved in there because it would "look weird" if there wasn't a Ranger class. As stoutstien said, we really don't know what the ranger's supposed to do that isn't already covered by another class; that needs to be sorted out, first.

I agree with your conclusion and I'd add that the entire exploration pillar was given last priority in 5e. I am just DMing Rise of Tiamat, and the DM is basically encouraged to hand wave travel. The more recent products I've DMed, like OotA and GoS are better, but if RoT is a window into the early days of 5e then it's not surprising the Ranger appears to also be an afterthought.
To the OP, we've just let the Revised Ranger go with subclasses like Gloomstalker. I know some folks think this is overpowered, but in our experience I don't think it is; probably puts the class more in line with more average classes. Also, the Player and DM needs to give a crap about travel/ exploration or it doesn't matter how much you improve the mechanics.

[Tawmis]

The main issues are:[LIST]
As stoutstien said, we really don't know what the ranger's supposed to do that isn't already covered by another class; that needs to be sorted out, first.

Couldn't the same be said about Fighter vs Barbarian?
Both are straight up, let me hit and damage [Target_01].
Both will primarily (probably) focus on STR and CON, for damage and health.
Barb's might dip into DEX for that AC bonus of not wearing armor.
But essentially both are pretty much the same. Melee. Damage. Melee. Damage. Second Wind/Rage. Melee. Damage. etc.

I think the real problem lies with the Dungeon Master. Sure, a lot of adventures take place in a city. But most?
The days of "dungeon crawls" are - for the most part - long behind us (2nd Edition, oh how you loved those dungeon crawls)
A lot of adventures take place in the wilderness (forests, mountains, etc). This is where the DM should focus their attention on letting the Ranger shine.
But most DMs are like, "You travel eight hours into the forest. It's getting late. Do you want to rest?"

[Skylivedk]

Revised Ranger was really really good in our Tomb of Annihilation campaign. Primeval Awareness was a pain to the DM though so we limited its range and made it 90 degrees rather than 360.

The player went STRanger with PAM+Sentinel (I think) and focused on frontline and control.

[CTurbo]

I think the Revised Ranger in particular is a bit OP in the early levels, but yeah all Rangers are lacking in the mid-late levels. I do like how the RR version made the Beastmaster so much better. I've seen a couple of players play Revised Beastmaster and both were happy with the results. I think Hunter's Mark should have never been a spell, but a concentration free Ranger class feature even if it's just Wis mod times per day or short rest. The higher level features need to be better for sure especially the capstone.

But yeah I've seen a lot of Rangers played in person ESPECIALLY after the RR was released.

[elyktsorb]

Ranger is like the middle spot in a ven-diagram where Druid, Fighter, and Rogue are the 3 circles that make it up. But that's what ruins it because you could just be those other things and fluff most of what the ranger could be as a concept.

[Willie the Duck]

As others have alluded, the entire exploration/wilderness rules for 5e are anemic at best, and thus being good at them is unfulfilling (especially since the person who decides they want to play with a ranger, and most ranger abilities pretty much make that part of the game less interesting). Mind you, without a ranger and with a DM who enforces all the rules on travel speed, penalties on sight, navigation issues, and surprise while tracking, a full bore wilderness outing could be incredibly frustrating/dangerous even for a high level party. Problem is that they just wouldn't try those adventures (unless absolutely necessary, and then they would hire a ranger). It is not unlike part of the justification for monks and sorcerers in 3e -- they were really good if your DM routinely targeted spellbooks and equipment for removal, but that's so annoying it rarely happened and thus it isn't something around which to build a class.


It's also the most bonus action heavy class in the game. His stronger abilities can't be stacked because they use BA.

Bonus actions, concentration, and spell selection are the things the devs could have easily chosen differently which would give the ranger a leg up. Turning Hunter's Mark into a class ability instead of a spell; removing bonus action cost on moving it, and on 2wf; and using the paladin-like model of memorizing 1/2 level + casting stat mod # of spells from the whole class list are things I have tried. None have turned the ranger into an overpowered nightmare.

[Bobthewizard]

I think revised ranger is really good at levels 2-10, which is where I play most of my games. It is a little behind at level 1, but being able to pick all humanoids as your favored foe helps quite a bit.

At level 2, you get a fighting style, hunter's mark and goodberry.

At 3rd, gloomstalker or hunter give you an extra attack without using your bonus action. This is huge for the mid-game. Gloomstalker's first round advantage mixes really well with sharpshooter.

At high levels they fall behind in combat, but the spells help. They get some good spells that can really help out a party. Goodberry, Healing Spirit, Pass without Trace, Silence, Conjure Animals/Woodland Beings.

If I were to change the revised ranger, I would avoid messing with ASI's and spells since that gets complicated. I'd consider a 3rd attack at level 11, and I'd try to make two-weapon fighting viable. At level 1, I'd let them draw weapons as part of their attack. Then at level 5, I'd let them make their offhand attack as part of the attack action without using their bonus action. I also like the class variant ranger's concentration free hunter's mark, Wis modifier # of times per day.

[Morty]

For as long as I can remember, attempts to fix rangers (unofficial and official ones) have resembled throwing features at the wall and seeing what sticks. It hasn't worked yet and I don't suspect it ever will. 4E is an exception here, but its ranger isn't without flaws - it's essentially a generic skirmisher that's saddled with dual-wielding and wilderness exploration baggage.

That being said, I really have to wonder why people insist that rangers should be better at dual-wielding than other classes. That particular bit of tradition is so past its expiration date that even 5E managed to get rid of it.

[AttilatheYeon]

For as long as I can remember, attempts to fix rangers (unofficial and official ones) have resembled throwing features at the wall and seeing what sticks. It hasn't worked yet and I don't suspect it ever will. 4E is an exception here, but its ranger isn't without flaws - it's essentially a generic skirmisher that's saddled with dual-wielding and wilderness exploration baggage.

That being said, I really have to wonder why people insist that rangers should be better at dual-wielding than other classes. That particular bit of tradition is so past its expiration date that even 5E managed to get rid of it.

The 1e ranger was very different from what we have now. It was also problematically OP. Yeah, they never really got the ranger right.

[stoutstien]

Couldn't the same be said about Fighter vs Barbarian?
Both are straight up, let me hit and damage [Target_01].
Both will primarily (probably) focus on STR and CON, for damage and health.
Barb's might dip into DEX for that AC bonus of not wearing armor.
But essentially both are pretty much the same. Melee. Damage. Melee. Damage. Second Wind/Rage. Melee. Damage. etc.

I think the real problem lies with the Dungeon Master. Sure, a lot of adventures take place in a city. But most?
The days of "dungeon crawls" are - for the most part - long behind us (2nd Edition, oh how you loved those dungeon crawls)
A lot of adventures take place in the wilderness (forests, mountains, etc). This is where the DM should focus their attention on letting the Ranger shine.
But most DMs are like, "You travel eight hours into the forest. It's getting late. Do you want to rest?"

Strangely the fighter works because it is supposed to be generic. It's a blank canvas to build what you wish.
The barbarian IMO is a waste of space and would have been better as a subclass option but it does work for a risk/reward based martial. Oddly it's more challenging to play a barbarian than a lot of other classes because you have to pay attention to when to do what. It's like one of those logic puzzles with two trains traveling in different directions.
The ranger is the color by numbers on the back of little kids menu at a restaurant. They can be fun only if you color outside the lines.

[Keltest]

Personally, the ranger's core identity for me has always been their proclivity to cheat compared to a fighter. Ambushes, snares, terrain advantages, stealth, these are all the bread and butter of the ranger's fighting style. If you arent, at minimum, up in a tree you coated in oil of slipperiness with your longbow or something similar, youre doing it wrong.

[stoutstien]

Personally, the ranger's core identity for me has always been their proclivity to cheat compared to a fighter. Ambushes, snares, terrain advantages, stealth, these are all the bread and butter of the ranger's fighting style. If you arent, at minimum, up in a tree you coated in oil of slipperiness with your longbow or something similar, youre doing it wrong.

The problem is that the ranger isn't really better at any of this than anyone else. If anything the the thief has this in the bag. Just about any other class can emulate rangers while rangers have a hard time doing anything outside of ranger stuff. The monster slayer is the odd man out IF you play in higher levels.

[MoiMagnus]

Did anyone tried BG3's revised Ranger? (Here: https://baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife.com/Ranger)
It only changes the level 1 features.


When you create a Ranger, you must choose one of the following Favored Enemies, this allows the Ranger to gain certain Proficiency or learn a new Spell.


Bounty Hunter: Gain Proficiency in Investigation and learn the Thieves' Cant passive. Creatures you Restrain have a harder time escaping.
Keeper of the Veil: Gain Proficiency in Arcana, and can cast Protection from Evil and Good.
Mage Breaker: Gain Proficiency with Arcana and the True Strike** cantrip. Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for this Spell.
Ranger Knight: Gain Proficiency with History and Heavy Armour.
Sanctified Stalker: Gain Proficiency in Religion and the Sacred Flame Cantrip. Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for this Spell.

When you create a Ranger, you must choose one of the following types of Natural Explorer, this allows the Ranger to increase the amount of skills at his/her disposal.


Beast Tamer: You can cast Find Familiar as a ritual.
Urban Tracker: You gain Proficiency with the disguise kits and thieves' tools.
Wasteland Wanderer: Cold: Gain resistance to Cold damage, taking only half from it.
Wasteland Wanderer: Fire: Gain resistance to Fire, only taking half damage from it.
Wasteland Wanderer: Poison: Gain resistance to Poison and take only half damage from it.




** The true strike cantrip has been buffed. I don't have the game personally so I can't check, but from the wiki it seems you can maintain concentration to keep the bonus for more than one attack, maybe more than one round.

[Keltest]

The problem is that the ranger isn't really better at any of this than anyone else. If anything the the thief has this in the bag. Just about any other class can emulate rangers while rangers have a hard time doing anything outside of ranger stuff. The monster slayer is the odd man out IF you play in higher levels.

I disagree. The thief can get in the tree, sure, but what are they going to do once theyre up there then? The ranger is a warrior, and the revised ranger, at least, gets appropriate abilities for it, on top of their spell selection to help them out further. Putting it bluntly, the thief is a thief, while the ranger is an ambush predator. The thief can surprise people just as well, but then they dont have the same followup for it.

[Aett_Thorn]

Personally, the ranger's core identity for me has always been their proclivity to cheat compared to a fighter. Ambushes, snares, terrain advantages, stealth, these are all the bread and butter of the ranger's fighting style. If you arent, at minimum, up in a tree you coated in oil of slipperiness with your longbow or something similar, youre doing it wrong.

The more I think about the Ranger, the more I think that they really needed an invocation-like system instead of spellcasting. Give them choices of traps/weapon upgrades/pet upgrades/nature-affinity type abilities that they choose and can replace on level-up to reflect their ties to nature and ability to set the field, instead of having quasi-druidic spellcasting that doesn't really work for them.

But that's probably more of a change than what 5e can handle right now.

[Yakk]

I'm in favor of a level 1 feature, where you pick from a menu. And the default choice is the "class feature variants" primal companion. (The beastmaster ranger subclass would require having made that choice, and gives it more upgrades).

As anyone who has played D&D with someone who makes good use of find familiar knows, the ability to have a stealthy and semi-disposable scout is one of the best exploration features in the game.

That would represent one alliance with a nature spirit. The other menu items would be other kinds of alliances with nature spirits.

The Ranger would then get the identity of an outdoor explorer type who makes alliances with nature spirits; that distinguishes it from the Rogue(Scout).

Then lean into the "hunt" idea. I like the class feature variants "HM as a class ability" trick, but make it scale a bit slower (for anti-dip purposes). The primal companion is dip-mitigated because its HP scale with Ranger class level; a companion with 10 HP is of limited use at higher levels.

It also fits the pattern that all d10+ HD classes have a class feature to help them soak damage. Paladin has LoH, Fighter has Second Wind, Barbarian has Rage. The Ranger would have a Primal Animal Companion.

[Keltest]

The more I think about the Ranger, the more I think that they really needed an invocation-like system instead of spellcasting. Give them choices of traps/weapon upgrades/pet upgrades/nature-affinity type abilities that they choose and can replace on level-up to reflect their ties to nature and ability to set the field, instead of having quasi-druidic spellcasting that doesn't really work for them.

But that's probably more of a change than what 5e can handle right now.

Honestly, i kind of toy around with the idea of giving them a version of sneak attack. Not as strong as a rogue's, but their kit really does allow them to dive into a bush and just completely vanish from awareness better than any other class except maybe certain rogue subclasses. I dont think they need a lot to stand out, they just need a couple little prods to reward them more consistently for their preparation.

[stoutstien]

I disagree. The thief can get in the tree, sure, but what are they going to do once theyre up there then? The ranger is a warrior, and the revised ranger, at least, gets appropriate abilities for it, on top of their spell selection to help them out further. Putting it bluntly, the thief is a thief, while the ranger is an ambush predator. The thief can surprise people just as well, but then they dont have the same followup for it.

Well for one thing the thief can set a trap and attack in a single turn.

[Morty]

The 1e ranger was very different from what we have now. It was also problematically OP. Yeah, they never really got the ranger right.

My experience with pre-3E editions is limited to the old Infinity Engine games (where rangers are fighters with extra bits), but it certainly doesn't sound like there's ever been a ranger that worked. Again, 4E gets closest and even then it's problematic.

[Keltest]

Well for one thing the thief can set a trap and attack in a single turn.

Sure, but if you need a single turn to do that, youve already messed up. This is an ambush, not a retreat. If you need to set up a half dozen bear traps or whatever, show up a minute earlier so you have the time. Youre a ranger, you know how many of them there are, where theyre going, how fast theyre going, and you can get there before them. Theres basically no excuse to still be setting up when they walk into your ambush.

[Willie the Duck]

My experience with pre-3E editions is limited to the old Infinity Engine games (where rangers are fighters with extra bits), but it certainly doesn't sound like there's ever been a ranger that worked. Again, 4E gets closest and even then it's problematic.

oD&D rangers were insanely OP (a classic example of the TSR mentality of rewarding good stat rolls with further benefits). They started out with 2 hit dice instead of the usual 1, earned an extra 1/3 XP for the first 8 levels of play, then gained a cleric casting level every odd level and a wizard casting level every even level thereafter. This was counterbalanced by only being allowed to own that which they can carry with them (excess treasure or goods must be donated to a worthy cause), and not being able to hire any men-at-arms or other servants or aides (back when followers and hireling and having a castle an army was seen as the traditional endgame). 1e AD&D rangers were similar simply-better than fighters right up until the later got to become a lord/general. 2nd edition AD&D transitioned the ranger from something of an army ranger into more of a forest ranger, what with the focus on light armor (at least if you wanted to do the 2 weapon fighting and hide/move silently) and was as good or bad as that made the game for your character (the difference between studded leather and full plate was pretty big in AD&D, but there were also a lot of other ways to get defense). Overall, I think it is only 3e and 5e where rangers are clearly far-and-away poorly designed. 3e mostly in that.. well all non-full-casters are clearly playing a different game than full casters, and that being a skillmonkey class in general is challenging in a game with such ubiquitous magic/magic items obviating the need for so many skills. 5e because wilderness/exploration is such a poorly defined pillar and some overall power issues/internally competing mechanics.

[stoutstien]

Sure, but if you need a single turn to do that, youve already messed up. This is an ambush, not a retreat. If you need to set up a half dozen bear traps or whatever, show up a minute earlier so you have the time. Youre a ranger, you know how many of them there are, where theyre going, how fast theyre going, and you can get there before them. Theres basically no excuse to still be setting up when they walk into your ambush.
Eh if you have that much time anyone can set up a halfway decent ambush. The information that rangers get isn't much better than anyone can gather without much effort.

[Tvtyrant]

I always picture Rangers as being hunters or exterminators. They don't see their opponents as enemy combatants, they seem them as vermin to be exterminated. This goes back to Aragorn hunting the Orcs, but also most depictions of Rangers as hunters of monsters or the original version as a gamesman who acted as an anti-poacher.

I would probably give the Ranger the classic tracking abilities, and then subclasses three distinct lines. Poison Ranger who deals consecutively more damage and debuffs to the target with each hit, Houndskeeper who uses beasts and monstrosities to hunt and bring down their prey, and trapper ranger.

Houndskeeper would have a simple mechanic; your pet attacks the last creature you attacked. It's attacks don't deal a lot of damage, they are made to "tree" the target so it trips, slows, etc. These are the groundskeeper types, they focus catching people.

Poison Ranger would get escalating bonuses for hitting the same target each round. They are built to kill monsters, and are best against bosses.

Trapper Ranger adds a trap on a bonus action, making the terrain more dangerous. These are animal hunters by fluff, and cover wide areas in relatively weak traps.

[Edea]

So...if there was a Fighter subclass with 1/3 Druid casting (EK-esque) and its other features revolved around an animal buddy, would we still need the Ranger? What else are they doing?

[cutlery]

I haven't yet seen a ranger conclave that wouldn't be better off as a fighter archetype, or in rare circumstances, a paladin oath.

Having ranger be an entirely separate class from these two is redundant, as things like the scout, an archer build fighter, or the oath of ancients underscore.

[Morty]

oD&D rangers were insanely OP (a classic example of the TSR mentality of rewarding good stat rolls with further benefits). They started out with 2 hit dice instead of the usual 1, earned an extra 1/3 XP for the first 8 levels of play, then gained a cleric casting level every odd level and a wizard casting level every even level thereafter. This was counterbalanced by only being allowed to own that which they can carry with them (excess treasure or goods must be donated to a worthy cause), and not being able to hire any men-at-arms or other servants or aides (back when followers and hireling and having a castle an army was seen as the traditional endgame). 1e AD&D rangers were similar simply-better than fighters right up until the later got to become a lord/general. 2nd edition AD&D transitioned the ranger from something of an army ranger into more of a forest ranger, what with the focus on light armor (at least if you wanted to do the 2 weapon fighting and hide/move silently) and was as good or bad as that made the game for your character (the difference between studded leather and full plate was pretty big in AD&D, but there were also a lot of other ways to get defense). Overall, I think it is only 3e and 5e where rangers are clearly far-and-away poorly designed. 3e mostly in that.. well all non-full-casters are clearly playing a different game than full casters, and that being a skillmonkey class in general is challenging in a game with such ubiquitous magic/magic items obviating the need for so many skills. 5e because wilderness/exploration is such a poorly defined pillar and some overall power issues/internally competing mechanics.

I don't see those as very well designed, honestly. They look more like an example of the ad-hoc "just throw something together that seems to make sense" approach that characterized the old editions. Which might have worked fine for them, but I don't think is a good attitude going forward.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't see those as very well designed, honestly. They look more like an example of the ad-hoc "just throw something together that seems to make sense" approach that characterized the old editions. Which might have worked fine for them, but I don't think is a good attitude going forward.

The oD&D one certainly was a bit thrown together (in its defense, it was introduced as a magazine article, possibly with no real intention of it being a long-lasting addition to the game). The AD&D one I would argue was very well suited to its goal: it was a fighter subtype specifically for the type of player who didn't have any interest in settling down to be noble and general at name level, and wanted to keep dungeon crawling (or probably plane hopping) with the magic users and clerics who were getting level 5+ spells at name level and weren't clear on why the game should be shifting to domain management. The real disappointment, for me, is that they never reassessed using spells (initially thought to have been included as a way of emulating Aragorn's herbalism and arcane knowledge) instead of instituting a skill system. This has ingrained the spellcasting ranger well past the point where a skill system was added, making the reasons for it buried in time and a lot of people wondering why exactly their ranger character is supposed to be a spellcaster.

[Morty]

The oD&D one certainly was a bit thrown together (in its defense, it was introduced as a magazine article, possibly with no real intention of it being a long-lasting addition to the game). The AD&D one I would argue was very well suited to its goal: it was a fighter subtype specifically for the type of player who didn't have any interest in settling down to be noble and general at name level, and wanted to keep dungeon crawling (or probably plane hopping) with the magic users and clerics who were getting level 5+ spells at name level and weren't clear on why the game should be shifting to domain management. The real disappointment, for me, is that they never reassessed using spells (initially thought to have been included as a way of emulating Aragorn's herbalism and arcane knowledge) instead of instituting a skill system. This has ingrained the spellcasting ranger well past the point where a skill system was added, making the reasons for it buried in time and a lot of people wondering why exactly their ranger character is supposed to be a spellcaster.

I am admittedly not a huge fan of giving fighters keeps and making them feudal rulers by default, then making a separate class for players who don't want to deal with all that. But that doesn't have much bearing on the 5E ranger. As for spells, well. The principle of "if you want to do something interesting, better learn to cast spells" has remained strong for D&D's entire history, with a brief pause for ToB and 4E.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I think revised ranger is really good at levels 2-10, which is where I play most of my games. It is a little behind at level 1, but being able to pick all humanoids as your favored foe helps quite a bit.

At level 2, you get a fighting style, hunter's mark and goodberry.

At 3rd, gloomstalker or hunter give you an extra attack without using your bonus action. This is huge for the mid-game. Gloomstalker's first round advantage mixes really well with sharpshooter.

At high levels they fall behind in combat, but the spells help. They get some good spells that can really help out a party. Goodberry, Healing Spirit, Pass without Trace, Silence, Conjure Animals/Woodland Beings.

If I were to change the revised ranger, I would avoid messing with ASI's and spells since that gets complicated. I'd consider a 3rd attack at level 11, and I'd try to make two-weapon fighting viable. At level 1, I'd let them draw weapons as part of their attack. Then at level 5, I'd let them make their offhand attack as part of the attack action without using their bonus action. I also like the class variant ranger's concentration free hunter's mark, Wis modifier # of times per day.

I've got RR 9/ Fighter 3 (who has been good so far) and after another level of fighter I'm not sure what I can usefully take. Hide in Plain Sight just doesn't seem like a useful ability for a whole level; perhaps it would in a solo campaign or with 1 or 2 other sneaky characters. Rogue levels seem somewhat wasted when I already have Fleet of Foot. Cleric/ Druid levels would result in the caster rules that would effectively drop my number of spells from a 5th level caster (RR 9) to a 4th level caster (1/2 of a 9th level 1/2 caster). So ya, I agree that you can make a Ranger based character until mid tier 3, but after that I'm thinking it will be a struggle to be competitive; kind of glad this campaign is close to an end.

[Bobthewizard]

Rogue levels seem somewhat wasted when I already have Fleet of Foot.

Rogue 8 (or Fighter 4, Rogue 7) would still be good. Cunning action to hide or disengage, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, a subclass and a few sneak attack dice.

Druid 7-8 would get you wild shape, more prepared spells and higher level spell slots, but delay your 4th level spell preparation and cost you a 5th level spell.

[Valmark]

I've got RR 9/ Fighter 3 (who has been good so far) and after another level of fighter I'm not sure what I can usefully take. Hide in Plain Sight just doesn't seem like a useful ability for a whole level; perhaps it would in a solo campaign or with 1 or 2 other sneaky characters. Rogue levels seem somewhat wasted when I already have Fleet of Foot. Cleric/ Druid levels would result in the caster rules that would effectively drop my number of spells from a 5th level caster (RR 9) to a 4th level caster (1/2 of a 9th level 1/2 caster). So ya, I agree that you can make a Ranger based character until mid tier 3, but after that I'm thinking it will be a struggle to be competitive; kind of glad this campaign is close to an end.

Your spells would stay the same, actually. Assuming your fighter levels don't matter (so no EK) Ranger 9/Druid 1 (or Cleric) has the same slots as Ranger 10.

[Tanarii]

Overall, I think it is only 3e and 5e where rangers are clearly far-and-away poorly designed. 3e mostly in that.. well all non-full-casters are clearly playing a different game than full casters, and that being a skillmonkey class in general is challenging in a game with such ubiquitous magic/magic items obviating the need for so many skills. 5e because wilderness/exploration is such a poorly defined pillar and some overall power issues/internally competing mechanics.
3.5e Rangers were fine. Unless you played high level (11+), and then they suffered compared to casters.

5e Rangers are fine. Unless you spend all your time in cities or underground, or possibly if you play high level (11+). I couldn't speak to that, but some folks around here like to complain about casters in general being OP at high level.

I've played PHB Rangers in T1 and T2, both Hunter Beastmaster. And they were perfectly fine.

Rangers IMC were underutilized as primary PC despite plenty of use for Natural Explorer and Favored enemy. But that was also true for Barbarians and Fighters. Originally they were the three classes NPC henchmen could be hired as, so unsurprisingly there wasn't much incentive for players to make PCs for them.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Your spells would stay the same, actually. Assuming your fighter levels don't matter (so no EK) Ranger 9/Druid 1 (or Cleric) has the same slots as Ranger 10.

Exactly; I take a level in a full caster class and get no extra spells. I think the least worst option once I'm RR9 F4 is probably Rogue 1 if the campaign goes that far.