Hi folks, inspired by the great discussion we had at the “Rangers kinda suck” thread, I put up a simple document where I analyzed in details this common misconception that Rangers are weak and underwhelming. I created a straightforward comparison scorecard where I tried to rate abilities in order to back my assumptions with numbers, not personal points of view.
My strong opinions are:
PHB Rangers were doing fine since the beginning
Gloomstalker is the best martial subclass in the game (an optimized build abusing XBE + SS and Conjure Animals is probably the undisputed DPR king)
Nice summery but don't sell Hunters Mark short. I've used it in battle and had the party let one enemy escape after I changed HM to that creature. It made tracking the Orc or Goblin etc... super easy. If cast at a higher level you can track the creature for 8 hours and find its lair and the hidden treasure plus 1d6 on every hit is not huge but consistent damage.
I totally agree. I think Hunters Mark is great when combined with Gloomstalker’s Dread Ambusher. My main concern is the funnel vision that it is the only spell Ranger should have, forgetting about the rest.
Nice summery but don't sell Hunters Mark short. I've used it in battle and had the party let one enemy escape after I changed HM to that creature. It made tracking the Orc or Goblin etc... super easy. If cast at a higher level you can track the creature for 8 hours and find its lair and the hidden treasure plus 1d6 on every hit is not huge but consistent damage.
In terms of combat, unless you have it on a free cast from something like Fey Touched it is a pretty big waste for what you could use your concentration for in tier 3+. In tier 2 you are pushing the limits of usefulness, this is especially true when you have Favored Foe already for free. If you use two weapon fighting, you are generally going to do more damage with Favored Foe and you won't be using a spell slot.
Even if you don't use TWF, Hunters Mark is still a bonus action suck in combat, at high levels it is really hard to integrate effectively with things like Nature's Veil or Vanish or the bonus action abilities given by many of the subclasses. I can move/cast Hunters Mark and do an extra 2d6 or I can turn invisible and get advantage on both my attacks, give the enemy disadvantage on his attacks and use favored foe twice to get an extra 2d8 damage.
If you want to keep it around for utitility I get it, but it is very situational. Out of combat, you can get the same advantage on Wisdom checks for free just by having another party member help you and there is no such thing as double advantage. If you are going to concentrate on it for 8 hours you also better not be having tough encounters during that time, or your party is going to wonder why you doing an extra 1d6 instead of casting something like Conjure Animals or Summon Fey or one of the really great 3rd level subclass spells like Fear.
In general for utility I would try to pick up Hex instead. I find Hunters Mark to be extremely situational, where Hex is just a flat disadvantage on skill checks for an ability. Hex is great for social situations or pairing with grapple and is usable more often I think.
I do think there is a case for Hunter's Mark to be hombrewed to be stronger on the ribbon effect. Instead of giving advantage on Wisdom checks it could give you advantage and make checks to track automatic success unless the target is magically warded against divination. That would bring it up to roughly the same level as Hex I think.
One point of rangers "power"/usefulness is skill scope.
Even you(a supporter) start with the faulty assumption skills don't affect combat. Non-combat encounters impact combat greatly. Poison harvesting, ambush and watch, handicap avoidance, [resistance and immunity] detection and such all impact combat.
I believe the skills system has been obfuscated in the community adventure design different from the expected approach.
People get full forensics often from one skill check but then make rangers break down tracking or hunting or foraging into several steps. (I'm fine with either as long as it's consistent for all types of tasks)
In particular having "functional expertise" in 5-10 skills sometimes was better than expertise in one or two skills all the time. This was because of varied amounts of requirements for said tasks.
One point of rangers "power"/usefulness is skill scope.
Even you(a supporter) start with the faulty assumption skills don't affect combat. Non-combat encounters impact combat greatly. Poison harvesting, ambush and watch, handicap avoidance, [resistance and immunity] detection and such all impact combat.
I believe the skills system has been obfuscated in the community adventure design different from the expected approach.
People get full forensics often from one skill check but then make rangers break down tracking or hunting or foraging into several steps. (I'm fine with either as long as it's consistent for all types of tasks)
In particular having "functional expertise" in 5-10 skills sometimes was better than expertise in one or two skills all the time. This was because of varied amounts of requirements for said tasks.
I think this demonstrates the weakness of D&D as a Skill-centric game. While there are optional rules in the DMG where the DM asks for multiple checks to succeed at something, they are purely optional and therefore often ignored. The one d20 system of skill checks also is not well suited to demonstrating proficiency with a skill since you can always roll a natural 1 on that d20. This is where having a multi-dice system, such as in World of Darkness games, makes more sense. Unsurprisingly, RPGs that place a greater emphasis on skills don't use a d20 system.
I do agree with you guys. That’s the reason several people shout everywhere that Rangers could be replaced by a Rogue/Fighter with proficiency/expertise in Survival. I hate those simplistic commentaries, but it’s the flawed design system upon exploration who actually influence people to think like that.
That’s why I’m defending so much that spellcasting is the key ability for Rangers.
Hunter’s Mark does all of that in tracking support, and also gives you a solid 1d6 in damage bonus. It’s a good spell who can excel when you have a good use case to consistently attack multiple times the same target for more than 4+ rounds, like TWF or XBE against a dragon or golem.
One point of rangers "power"/usefulness is skill scope.
Even you(a supporter) start with the faulty assumption skills don't affect combat. Non-combat encounters impact combat greatly. Poison harvesting, ambush and watch, handicap avoidance, [resistance and immunity] detection and such all impact combat.
I believe the skills system has been obfuscated in the community adventure design different from the expected approach.
People get full forensics often from one skill check but then make rangers break down tracking or hunting or foraging into several steps. (I'm fine with either as long as it's consistent for all types of tasks)
In particular having "functional expertise" in 5-10 skills sometimes was better than expertise in one or two skills all the time. This was because of varied amounts of requirements for said tasks.
I think this demonstrates the weakness of D&D as a Skill-centric game. While there are optional rules in the DMG where the DM asks for multiple checks to succeed at something, they are purely optional and therefore often ignored. The one d20 system of skill checks also is not well suited to demonstrating proficiency with a skill since you can always roll a natural 1 on that d20. This is where having a multi-dice system, such as in World of Darkness games, makes more sense. Unsurprisingly, RPGs that place a greater emphasis on skills don't use a d20 system.
Like I implied, I believe 5e can do skills very well and have several options for handling the d20 rng. (Scope adjustments, exception based rules, stacked features, situational bypassing ect)
I think the wotc policy of avoiding rules, tools and guidelines for dms, is what allows the "wild west" idea of what is a skill encounter. People who have a good concept of there own seem to have no problem with rangers. However people who want to reinforce a negative view have enough design gaps to create a confirmation bias. (Aka extra steps required for only ranger tasks).
This d20 rng concept around skills is what scares me about the satisfaction around one rangers. They claim expertise is enough to feel like an expert rather than as a start point.
Spells can fix this and do well to cover gaps in 5e. In one it becomes necessary(no stacked ranger task features) and so one limits unique build choices. (Possibly with more classes as well) Still this is not a UA thread so I should limit my self on such content subject to change.
I think the wotc policy of avoiding rules, tools and guidelines for dms, is what allows the "wild west" idea of what is a skill encounter. People who have a good concept of there own seem to have no problem with rangers. However people who want to reinforce a negative view have enough design gaps to create a confirmation bias. (Aka extra steps required for only ranger tasks).
Perhaps you can be more specific about "wild west idea" in terms of skills. I think I have an inkling, but for the sake of casual readers of this thead, spelling it out would be helpful.
Perhaps you can be more specific about "wild west idea" in terms of skills. I think I have an inkling, but for the sake of casual readers of this thead, spelling it out would be helpful.
Combat is definitely the best defined area in 5e, while ability checks leave a lot up to DM interpretation and there's not nearly enough guidance on how to handle even common cases.
For example, if you decide to intimidate someone, does the target make an opposed roll (if so, what) or is it supposed to just use a save DC chosen by the DM (again, if so what)? And that's a skill which pretty much only has a single use case. Survival meanwhile is a catch-all for a whole bunch of things and is even more poorly defined, with very few good examples of how it's intended to be used beyond basic finding of provisions, and even that's mostly left to the foraging section in the DMG, so a lot of players won't be aware of the rules, and your average DM can't keep the entire DMG in their head at once.
Often in games I've seen DMs just asking for a roll and then looking at the result and going "yeah that feels like enough to succeed" or "sorry that's not enough" and while that's a perfectly fine way to do it most of the time, it can quickly lead to a lot of inconsistency (what felt right one time may not feel right the next). It'd help if we had an expanded "out of combat" section covering more common activities; a DM would still need to rule on unusual cases or anything not covered, but it'd help to know how we're expected to handle more basic tasks, ideally in one location that's easier to lookup.
The Ranger more than any class definitely suffers from that lack of guidance on general checks, as it means that while one DM may handle them in a way that really emphasises the Ranger's out of combat strengths, another might cripple them with a different style (usually unintentionally, as a lot of what DMs mess up is because they're making snap judgements to keep the game moving). Strictly speaking it's a problem that exists for other classes as well, like Bard or Rogue, but their typical non-combat skill sets are much more easily understood and utilised by DMs (to sneak you roll Stealth, to persuade you roll Persuasion etc.).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
gloomstalker is dpr king in one to one or darkness battles, but it must make way for the hunter in open warfare,if you ask why:
a hunter with the build giant killer, escape the horde, whirlwind and stand against the tide(all but(or maybe even) whirlwind individually the weakest) has a secret synergy trick; fighting big enemies(like ogres)in dense formations. (first note, never use mobile or zephyr strike for this trick.)you run through and between the enemy lines whirlwinding with a maul until you are out of speed.this can you do with only whirlwind, but now come the two tricks:1.opportunity attacks, provoke them automatically or on purpose, they will miss and you get an attack against the enemies and an enemy attack against them. this two extra attacks per enemy are useful in enemy two enemy situation..2. cast conjure animals at fifth level, wih 16 wolves, before or after the whirlwinding, and since you probably didn’t kill the enemies with something like 4d6 +2d8+8(with ogres and +2 str)) damage, this will get up to 16 enemies out of battle, either killing or proning them. during enemy turns you repeat trick *1* without advantage and next turn you cast conjure again with a new total of 32 wolves and whirlwind again, repeat the enemy turn thing, cast conjure as 3th level spell until out of slots(this stacks to a total of 74 wolves) whirlwind and repeat, when out of 3th to 5th slots cast hunter’s mark. adding great weapon mastery the damage per enemy becomes 4d6+2d8+8+20=51.this being utilized seems unrealistic but armies were about 10000 men strong in medieval, so in open warfare
this combination beats even the most solid built gloomstalker, I suppose something like ce and ss or pm and gwm.
but one thing I guess we agree: rangers with masses of wolves are deadly
gloomstalker is dpr king in one to one or darkness battles, but it must make way for the hunter in open warfare,if you ask why:
a hunter with the build giant killer, escape the horde, whirlwind and stand against the tide(all but(or maybe even) whirlwind individually the weakest) has a secret synergy trick; fighting big enemies(like ogres)in dense formations. (first note, never use mobile or zephyr strike for this trick.)you run through and between the enemy lines whirlwinding with a maul until you are out of speed.this can you do with only whirlwind, but now come the two tricks:1.opportunity attacks, provoke them automatically or on purpose, they will miss and you get an attack against the enemies and an enemy attack against them. this two extra attacks per enemy are useful in enemy two enemy situation..2. cast conjure animals at fifth level, wih 16 wolves, before or after the whirlwinding, and since you probably didn’t kill the enemies with something like 4d6 +2d8+8(with ogres and +2 str)) damage, this will get up to 16 enemies out of battle, either killing or proning them. during enemy turns you repeat trick *1* without advantage and next turn you cast conjure again with a new total of 32 wolves and whirlwind again, repeat the enemy turn thing, cast conjure as 3th level spell until out of slots(this stacks to a total of 74 wolves) whirlwind and repeat, when out of 3th to 5th slots cast hunter’s mark. adding great weapon mastery the damage per enemy becomes 4d6+2d8+8+20=51.this being utilized seems unrealistic but armies were about 10000 men strong in medieval, so in open warfare
this combination beats even the most solid built gloomstalker, I suppose something like ce and ss or pm and gwm.
but one thing I guess we agree: rangers with masses of wolves are deadly
You only get one reaction per round. I tend to forget that with the hunter.
There still are great ways hunter can be used but with rangers you really need to be careful of the wording.
gloomstalker is dpr king in one to one or darkness battles, but it must make way for the hunter in open warfare,if you ask why:
a hunter with the build giant killer, escape the horde, whirlwind and stand against the tide(all but(or maybe even) whirlwind individually the weakest) has a secret synergy trick; fighting big enemies(like ogres)in dense formations. (first note, never use mobile or zephyr strike for this trick.)you run through and between the enemy lines whirlwinding with a maul until you are out of speed.this can you do with only whirlwind, but now come the two tricks:1.opportunity attacks, provoke them automatically or on purpose, they will miss and you get an attack against the enemies and an enemy attack against them. this two extra attacks per enemy are useful in enemy two enemy situation..2. cast conjure animals at fifth level, wih 16 wolves, before or after the whirlwinding, and since you probably didn’t kill the enemies with something like 4d6 +2d8+8(with ogres and +2 str)) damage, this will get up to 16 enemies out of battle, either killing or proning them. during enemy turns you repeat trick *1* without advantage and next turn you cast conjure again with a new total of 32 wolves and whirlwind again, repeat the enemy turn thing, cast conjure as 3th level spell until out of slots(this stacks to a total of 74 wolves) whirlwind and repeat, when out of 3th to 5th slots cast hunter’s mark. adding great weapon mastery the damage per enemy becomes 4d6+2d8+8+20=51.this being utilized seems unrealistic but armies were about 10000 men strong in medieval, so in open warfare
this combination beats even the most solid built gloomstalker, I suppose something like ce and ss or pm and gwm.
but one thing I guess we agree: rangers with masses of wolves are deadly
You only get one reaction per round. I tend to forget that with the hunter.
There still are great ways hunter can be used but with rangers you really need to be careful of the wording.
right in that case you react with giant killer in your turn, and in enemy turn with stand against the tide. maybe you have luck and the enemies have multiattack.
or you can try to talk your dm into giving you two reactions
I read a post on reddit of a year old or so, a few days ago and in that was stated that it would be a good idea to make hunter part of the base class aside the subclass, that would make every ranger subclass good enough to compete with other classes, but with some it works especially well.with a beastmaster you canbe small and ride a flying creature shooting volleys.but imagine a gloomstalker hunter, the two dpr kings in respectively ambush and darkness and huge battles combined, that would make more dpr at level 15 than multiple level 20 fighters.this build combined with a few spells(aka conjure animals, with wolves) could even defeat armies.
I read a post on reddit of a year old or so, a few days ago and in that was stated that it would be a good idea to make hunter part of the base class aside the subclass, that would make every ranger subclass good enough to compete with other classes, but with some it works especially well.with a beastmaster you canbe small and ride a flying creature shooting volleys.but imagine a gloomstalker hunter, the two dpr kings in respectively ambush and darkness and huge battles combined, that would make more dpr at level 15 than multiple level 20 fighters.this build combined with a few spells(aka conjure animals, with wolves) could even defeat armies.
Again many people are are missing out on the concept Jeremy presented called "Potental Power" . Even the phb ranger can outshine most other classes using "potential power". moving more Areas of power into consistent power seems like a better approach. (as long as it doesn't create a stale spot.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi folks, inspired by the great discussion we had at the “Rangers kinda suck” thread, I put up a simple document where I analyzed in details this common misconception that Rangers are weak and underwhelming. I created a straightforward comparison scorecard where I tried to rate abilities in order to back my assumptions with numbers, not personal points of view.
My strong opinions are:
Nice summery but don't sell Hunters Mark short. I've used it in battle and had the party let one enemy escape after I changed HM to that creature. It made tracking the Orc or Goblin etc... super easy. If cast at a higher level you can track the creature for 8 hours and find its lair and the hidden treasure plus 1d6 on every hit is not huge but consistent damage.
I totally agree. I think Hunters Mark is great when combined with Gloomstalker’s Dread Ambusher. My main concern is the funnel vision that it is the only spell Ranger should have, forgetting about the rest.
Lots of great spells. I’m learning so many others but I do keep Hunters mark for its tracking and it doesn’t hurt in battle.
In terms of combat, unless you have it on a free cast from something like Fey Touched it is a pretty big waste for what you could use your concentration for in tier 3+. In tier 2 you are pushing the limits of usefulness, this is especially true when you have Favored Foe already for free. If you use two weapon fighting, you are generally going to do more damage with Favored Foe and you won't be using a spell slot.
Even if you don't use TWF, Hunters Mark is still a bonus action suck in combat, at high levels it is really hard to integrate effectively with things like Nature's Veil or Vanish or the bonus action abilities given by many of the subclasses. I can move/cast Hunters Mark and do an extra 2d6 or I can turn invisible and get advantage on both my attacks, give the enemy disadvantage on his attacks and use favored foe twice to get an extra 2d8 damage.
If you want to keep it around for utitility I get it, but it is very situational. Out of combat, you can get the same advantage on Wisdom checks for free just by having another party member help you and there is no such thing as double advantage. If you are going to concentrate on it for 8 hours you also better not be having tough encounters during that time, or your party is going to wonder why you doing an extra 1d6 instead of casting something like Conjure Animals or Summon Fey or one of the really great 3rd level subclass spells like Fear.
In general for utility I would try to pick up Hex instead. I find Hunters Mark to be extremely situational, where Hex is just a flat disadvantage on skill checks for an ability. Hex is great for social situations or pairing with grapple and is usable more often I think.
I do think there is a case for Hunter's Mark to be hombrewed to be stronger on the ribbon effect. Instead of giving advantage on Wisdom checks it could give you advantage and make checks to track automatic success unless the target is magically warded against divination. That would bring it up to roughly the same level as Hex I think.
One point of rangers "power"/usefulness is skill scope.
Even you(a supporter) start with the faulty assumption skills don't affect combat. Non-combat encounters impact combat greatly. Poison harvesting, ambush and watch, handicap avoidance, [resistance and immunity] detection and such all impact combat.
I believe the skills system has been obfuscated in the community adventure design different from the expected approach.
People get full forensics often from one skill check but then make rangers break down tracking or hunting or foraging into several steps. (I'm fine with either as long as it's consistent for all types of tasks)
In particular having "functional expertise" in 5-10 skills sometimes was better than expertise in one or two skills all the time. This was because of varied amounts of requirements for said tasks.
I think this demonstrates the weakness of D&D as a Skill-centric game. While there are optional rules in the DMG where the DM asks for multiple checks to succeed at something, they are purely optional and therefore often ignored. The one d20 system of skill checks also is not well suited to demonstrating proficiency with a skill since you can always roll a natural 1 on that d20. This is where having a multi-dice system, such as in World of Darkness games, makes more sense. Unsurprisingly, RPGs that place a greater emphasis on skills don't use a d20 system.
I do agree with you guys. That’s the reason several people shout everywhere that Rangers could be replaced by a Rogue/Fighter with proficiency/expertise in Survival. I hate those simplistic commentaries, but it’s the flawed design system upon exploration who actually influence people to think like that.
That’s why I’m defending so much that spellcasting is the key ability for Rangers.
Hunter’s Mark does all of that in tracking support, and also gives you a solid 1d6 in damage bonus. It’s a good spell who can excel when you have a good use case to consistently attack multiple times the same target for more than 4+ rounds, like TWF or XBE against a dragon or golem.
The spell casting for sure is the main thing that separates a Ranger from a Fighter/Rogue multiclass.
I personally love the synergy between a Ranger/Rogue multiclass.
Like I implied, I believe 5e can do skills very well and have several options for handling the d20 rng. (Scope adjustments, exception based rules, stacked features, situational bypassing ect)
I think the wotc policy of avoiding rules, tools and guidelines for dms, is what allows the "wild west" idea of what is a skill encounter. People who have a good concept of there own seem to have no problem with rangers. However people who want to reinforce a negative view have enough design gaps to create a confirmation bias. (Aka extra steps required for only ranger tasks).
This d20 rng concept around skills is what scares me about the satisfaction around one rangers. They claim expertise is enough to feel like an expert rather than as a start point.
Spells can fix this and do well to cover gaps in 5e. In one it becomes necessary(no stacked ranger task features) and so one limits unique build choices. (Possibly with more classes as well) Still this is not a UA thread so I should limit my self on such content subject to change.
Perhaps you can be more specific about "wild west idea" in terms of skills. I think I have an inkling, but for the sake of casual readers of this thead, spelling it out would be helpful.
Combat is definitely the best defined area in 5e, while ability checks leave a lot up to DM interpretation and there's not nearly enough guidance on how to handle even common cases.
For example, if you decide to intimidate someone, does the target make an opposed roll (if so, what) or is it supposed to just use a save DC chosen by the DM (again, if so what)? And that's a skill which pretty much only has a single use case. Survival meanwhile is a catch-all for a whole bunch of things and is even more poorly defined, with very few good examples of how it's intended to be used beyond basic finding of provisions, and even that's mostly left to the foraging section in the DMG, so a lot of players won't be aware of the rules, and your average DM can't keep the entire DMG in their head at once.
Often in games I've seen DMs just asking for a roll and then looking at the result and going "yeah that feels like enough to succeed" or "sorry that's not enough" and while that's a perfectly fine way to do it most of the time, it can quickly lead to a lot of inconsistency (what felt right one time may not feel right the next). It'd help if we had an expanded "out of combat" section covering more common activities; a DM would still need to rule on unusual cases or anything not covered, but it'd help to know how we're expected to handle more basic tasks, ideally in one location that's easier to lookup.
The Ranger more than any class definitely suffers from that lack of guidance on general checks, as it means that while one DM may handle them in a way that really emphasises the Ranger's out of combat strengths, another might cripple them with a different style (usually unintentionally, as a lot of what DMs mess up is because they're making snap judgements to keep the game moving). Strictly speaking it's a problem that exists for other classes as well, like Bard or Rogue, but their typical non-combat skill sets are much more easily understood and utilised by DMs (to sneak you roll Stealth, to persuade you roll Persuasion etc.).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
gloomstalker is dpr king in one to one or darkness battles, but it must make way for the hunter in open warfare,if you ask why:
a hunter with the build giant killer, escape the horde, whirlwind and stand against the tide(all but(or maybe even) whirlwind individually the weakest) has a secret synergy trick; fighting big enemies(like ogres)in dense formations. (first note, never use mobile or zephyr strike for this trick.)you run through and between the enemy lines whirlwinding with a maul until you are out of speed.this can you do with only whirlwind, but now come the two tricks:1.opportunity attacks, provoke them automatically or on purpose, they will miss and you get an attack against the enemies and an enemy attack against them. this two extra attacks per enemy are useful in enemy two enemy situation..2. cast conjure animals at fifth level, wih 16 wolves, before or after the whirlwinding, and since you probably didn’t kill the enemies with something like 4d6 +2d8+8(with ogres and +2 str)) damage, this will get up to 16 enemies out of battle, either killing or proning them. during enemy turns you repeat trick *1* without advantage and next turn you cast conjure again with a new total of 32 wolves and whirlwind again, repeat the enemy turn thing, cast conjure as 3th level spell until out of slots(this stacks to a total of 74 wolves) whirlwind and repeat, when out of 3th to 5th slots cast hunter’s mark. adding great weapon mastery the damage per enemy becomes 4d6+2d8+8+20=51.this being utilized seems unrealistic but armies were about 10000 men strong in medieval, so in open warfare
this combination beats even the most solid built gloomstalker, I suppose something like ce and ss or pm and gwm.
but one thing I guess we agree: rangers with masses of wolves are deadly
You only get one reaction per round. I tend to forget that with the hunter.
There still are great ways hunter can be used but with rangers you really need to be careful of the wording.
right in that case you react with giant killer in your turn, and in enemy turn with stand against the tide. maybe you have luck and the enemies have multiattack.
or you can try to talk your dm into giving you two reactions
I read a post on reddit of a year old or so, a few days ago and in that was stated that it would be a good idea to make hunter part of the base class aside the subclass, that would make every ranger subclass good enough to compete with other classes, but with some it works especially well.with a beastmaster you canbe small and ride a flying creature shooting volleys.but imagine a gloomstalker hunter, the two dpr kings in respectively ambush and darkness and huge battles combined, that would make more dpr at level 15 than multiple level 20 fighters.this build combined with a few spells(aka conjure animals, with wolves) could even defeat armies.
Again many people are are missing out on the concept Jeremy presented called "Potental Power" . Even the phb ranger can outshine most other classes using "potential power". moving more Areas of power into consistent power seems like a better approach. (as long as it doesn't create a stale spot.)