Has anyone talked about how the D24 beast master can make a total of 5 attacks a round starting at level 11?
I would rather have intresting features rather than extra attacks. That playstyle is suited to fighter appeal more so than ranger fantasy. More powerful isn't necessarily better overall.
Especially since the new small creature flying build now works for find familiar with giant fly or vultures. Meanwhile rangers get that play taken away entirely. (Note I never played ranger that way as I saw it as too risky but that doesn't mean it should be removed or was problematic. Thats a different discussion)
That's personal preference though. Many people would prefer the 5 attacks over features that you may find interesting, and they find boring.
Has anyone talked about how the D24 beast master can make a total of 5 attacks a round starting at level 11?
I would rather have intresting features rather than extra attacks. That playstyle is suited to fighter appeal more so than ranger fantasy. More powerful isn't necessarily better overall.
Especially since the new small creature flying build now works for find familiar with giant fly or vultures. Meanwhile rangers get that play taken away entirely. (Note I never played ranger that way as I saw it as too risky but that doesn't mean it should be removed or was problematic. Thats a different discussion)
That's personal preference though. Many people would prefer the 5 attacks over features that you may find interesting, and they find boring.
Why stop at 5? Why not 7?
Because they gave me 5?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Hunter's Mark is only a trap when you try to use it all the time. There are 2 times to use hunter's mark: A) when you're fighting a single "tank" foe (high AC, High HP), B) when you're tracking a major player in your game. the HM linked features improve both situations. the other features generally help with the other situations: A) traveling overland/exploring. B) fighting lots of lower AC, Lower HP foes/minions. In those cases, you shouldn't be using HM as there are much better spells and abilities to handle them. Then HM isn't a trap - it's just an idjit play. Rangers have always been good at the latter 2 situations, but many folks had complaints about having a lower max damage. The new changes improve that for most rangers - even for the gloom stalker after round 1.
There is no excuse for both the laziness and ineffectiveness of the Ranger capstone. None. The final slap in the face is calling it Foe Slayer when it should be called Foe Tickler. The extra damage it does barely tickles the creatures that the Ranger is facing at level 20.
yes, it's not much of a capstone, but then it's not that important as most campaigns will never get to L20 anyway. If one does it's easy enough for a DM to homebrew an addition to make it into something the table agrees is worthy. Even all the concern over the Level 13 ability is overblown. eliminating the ability for damage to stop your concentration is all that s really needed unless what you want is excessive power by stacking other concentration spells on top of HM.,
See it's not about the damage (as I suspect the d10 will add up on multiple instances of damage like the beastmasters 5 attacks) or the usefulness of such features (like being to loose concentration)that concerns me. The problem is that it's shoehorning play to a situational ability. They have recreated the "comparison feels bad no matter how good it is" problem. It's just a different group that feels bad.(Actually it's almost everyone)
Meanwhile the ranger still fails the "what is a ranger and why do they exist" test. Each class should have a mechanical and narrative purpose but the new ranger is actually worse at the ranger playspace but "at least they can do damage" <sarcastic tone.>
Where's the team support? I would argue Aragorn removed other people's exhaustion more than his own. Same with other ranger-specific stories the ranger gets the party to supercede their individual limits.
Where's the traveling skills? A team with a ranger guide should be faster than one without.
Do people actually do overland travel anymore? None of my groups do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Do people actually do overland travel anymore? None of my groups do.
Anecdotes show possibility but they do not show probability or causality.
It's kind of irrelevant if the adventure design calls for it or not because ranging is literally the one consistent theme of a ranger. Even as a zero sum combat ability it provides tone and theme.
Now even when traveling is hand waved there are quick ways for it to benefit the ranger. Starting with free forages or other "free activity" while remaining alert always benefited my 2014 characters.
At the same time having the justification of we "arrived faster" can be part of the adventure design providing tangible boons. Early to the ritual vs interrupted final preparation is naratively very different. Even on a railroaded arrive at x faster travel can still be a benefit for escapes or chases.
Dnd is a game about defined features and their narrative implications. By creating a feature it should in turn create its own use cases. Now 2014 features had use cases that weren't obvious so many assumed it was more situational than it actually was. A little cleanup and modernization would have made a great build instead of the hunter's mark machines we got.
what I am saying is...that I doubt the majority of tables will notice one way or the other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
We had the warlock class with negative feedback about too much focus on eldritch blast and the take away that rangers should focus on hunter's mark like that seems like a poor design choice to me. It seems to me that WotC missed the similarities in what was done on class A when changing class B.
Something occurred to me today...JC has mentioned that BG3 has influenced some of his design decisions, especially on spells. Why not add the favored enemy options from that if we're leaning into spells and skills?
Favored Enemy Options:
-Bounty Hunter: Proficiency in Investigation, Ensaring Strike gets a buff.
-Keeper of the Veil: Proficiency in Arcana, learn Protection from Good and Evil
-Mage Breaker: Proficiency in Arcana, gain True Strike Cantrip
-Ranger Knight: Proficiency in History and Heavy Armor
-Sanctified Stalker:Proficiency in Religion, gain Sacred Flame Cantrip
These are all flavorful, in line with what they seem to be wanting design wise, and we know JC and CP played BG3. Hell, you could even make it similar to the Primal Order option of the Druid. Just my non-cents
If they removed concentration and scaled the damage like Monks martial di, HM would be a bigger boon. I agree the epic boon 20,, was just a here you go I gave you something. Maybe they did all this to make Rangers a class people would dip in to and not just play outright. They swapped out the Monks for Rangers as worst class now. Maybe so they can have some more work in the future.
Actually rangers, and especially hunters, are considerably more formidable now than were in 2014. All of the ribbon exploration features as well as favored enemy/terrain bonuses are effectively fully covered with expertise in nature and survival ( as opposed to 2014 where the expertise was severely limited.weapon mastery, especially Nick, and the changes to TWF grant them more attacks (especially at lower levels). The removal of concentration on a number of control spells helps there as well and the change to being a semi-prepared caster is huge. Effectively you can completely change your spell roster within a 2 week period as needed. The rewrite on hunters allowing them to change out their attack and defense features is going to be a major improvement that should make hunters far more useful and interesting. Yes the gloomstalker’s round 1 nova got a nerf, but then their latter rounds got a boost so it’s not a nerf overall, just in some folk’s play style. Rangers have always been very powerful in the right hands, but they are complexPCs to play making them hard to play if your looking for them to just do one thing.
^^ don't agree. Ranger and Paladin die hards are exaggerating.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Actually rangers, and especially hunters, are considerably more formidable now than were in 2014. All of the ribbon exploration features as well as favored enemy/terrain bonuses are effectively fully covered with expertise in nature and survival ( as opposed to 2014 where the expertise was severely limited.
Formidable is not better. Being able to function to do a set of expected ranger jobs is what makes a ranger.
getting one expertise (Until 9 I believe ) doesn't even allow a decent spread of skills required for the ranger Job. You even listed two basic skills but often perception or stealth is considered more "core" to ranger. Even if you take the assumptions survival and nature is all you need you are still short.
A scout rogue can now preform all of the ranger skills better by taking nature and survival. I was never against having scout as an option because at least a ranger had unique survival traits showing both a narrative and mechanical reason for rangers existence as a class.
The removal of concentration on a number of control spells helps there as well and the change to being a semi-prepared caster is huge
As far as I understand 2 ranger spells got concentration removed (both in the vein of ranged arrow next attack stuff. meanwhile combos like fogcloud and beastsense(a way to effectively use fogcloud) are still in conflict. They also removed the secondary fogcloud Synergy which was PHB Beast companions. (which a druid can still do via wild shape). This is just one example I believe there are more but i don't have access yet to the new material.
Formidable is not better. Being able to function to do a set of expected ranger jobs is what makes a ranger.
That kind of begs some questions. The expected ranger job seems to be a jack-of-all-trades style survivalist. That style of class gives up something for the versatility. I'd ask what you think makes a ranger a ranger instead of leaving it to me to fill in the blanks on that statement based on what I think a ranger is or what I think WotC was going for in the class. I would keep in mind that what we might think a ranger is might not match the majority of other people either. It happens.
getting one expertise (Until 9 I believe ) doesn't even allow a decent spread of skills required for the ranger Job. You even listed two basic skills but often perception or stealth is considered more "core" to ranger. Even if you take the assumptions survival and nature is all you need you are still short.
I have contention on this statement. Rogues and bards only get one more skill with expertise and the comment is giving a class entitlement vibe where because another class has two then rangers should have two. Rangers have weapon mastery, fighting style, extra attack, and better weapon / armor proficiencies than either class. Bards and rogues (especially rogues) are more focused on skills than rangers because rangers are more focused on weapon combat.
Expertise in a skill isn't even a big gap at low levels. It's a +2 bonus over proficiency and then +3 and among many other skills where the bonus doesn't exist for any of these classes.
Rogues and bards gaining 4 expertise skills when rangers only gain 3 seems like a very minor quibble given the relatively small impact expertise actually has overall.
A scout rogue can now preform all of the ranger skills better by taking nature and survival. I was never against having scout as an option because at least a ranger had unique survival traits showing both a narrative and mechanical reason for rangers existence as a class.
Which makes sense. Rogues are more focused on skills than rangers and a wilderness rogue is a valid concept. Think Sherwood Forest and many Merry Men as to how the concept might be applied. But it's in reference to skills, not all of the ranger abilities, and we should probably point out that hunter's make grants advantage on perception or survival checks related to the marked target.
Deft explorer adds two languages along with the expertise instead of another expertise. It's a small detail but it can matter situationally.
The ranger fighting style has the option to take 2 druid cantrips instead of a fighting style feat so guidance and druidcraft as options can be applied here. Keeping magic in mind, rangers have access to many wilderness based spells that scout rogues do not. Enhance ability is also a generic skill buff that can be applied.
Roving is better than superior mobility tireless isn't an option for scouts.
You're also comparing a subclass (scout) to a class (ranger). To make the comparison more apples and less oranges we would need to pick a subclass. Fey wanderer adds otherworldly glamor or beast master gives an animal companion that can be used.
As far as I understand 2 ranger spells got concentration removed (both in the vein of ranged arrow next attack stuff. meanwhile combos like fogcloud and beastsense(a way to effectively use fogcloud) are still in conflict.
I agree on concentration being problematic. A lot of ranger spells are still concentration spells. This is an issue because of the choice to focus on hunter's mark, which is still a concentration spell.
The reason hunter's mark is still a concentration spell (according to WotC interviews) was that rangers were OP without the restriction in their playtesting. That reason doesn't change the conflict where a class with a focus on one concentration spell needs to made a serious choice between using the spell on which they focus or another concentration spell. This also applies to rituals since rituals break concentration and rangers can now cast spells with the ritual tag as such.
Sure, popping a 5th level slot at 20th level for a 3d10 damage bonus in combat all day sounds decent enough but that locks out other options. Who wants to do that just to give up the bonus for another spell? I would not so I would end up ignoring most of the spells with concentration or using rituals anyway.
If one-way was determined to be OP and the other way becomes problematic that does seem like a design issue to me. I don't see an issue with the shamanistic hunter approach WotC uses for the ranger combining skills and magic on a martial character to make the class "good at ranger things" and can make a build I see as better than the scout rogue. I do see an issue with relying on hunter's mark so much. ;-)
Formidable is not better. Being able to function to do a set of expected ranger jobs is what makes a ranger.
That kind of begs some questions. The expected ranger job seems to be a jack-of-all-trades style survivalist. That style of class gives up something for the versatility. I'd ask what you think makes a ranger a ranger instead of leaving it to me to fill in the blanks on that statement based on what I think a ranger is or what I think WotC was going for in the class. I would keep in mind that what we might think a ranger is might not match the majority of other people either. It happens...............
There is a game I like to play called what "class is best at X". for example just taking hits or absorbing damage would be a barbarian. Sure other builds might be similar but the default will always be a barbarian. Some questions are a little more shared like what class is best at working a menagerie?. So many classes/subclasses may build for such and adventure but druid or ranger should have the easiest way of building to match.
now who should be the best at traveling? A ranger team should end travel faster and be better prepared for what comes next.
A rangers job is quite simple "boost the ranging experience" and make nature a beneficial part of the world . Now you want such to be expressed in mechanics that both support inside and outside combat. Another poster complained [2024 Rangers are now designed selfish]. That stuck with me because even the hardest unsocial rangers in fiction (or real life) made the group better. The key to turning "general survivalist" into a class feature is to simply represent it as a a part of gameplay. Give a defined feature that equates to survivalist. This could be represented with a universal Terrain feature or specialized equipment (especially since equipment features don't really exist anyplace else), Primal awareness could be reworked to allow you to Target a creature you couldn't see with hunters mark or some other active boost while "ON"
Bard and rouges both have unique enhancements to their "expert status" rouges particularly Have reliable talent, meanwhile bards share their skills via inspiration. Rangers Could actively share their "ranging expertise" features (at least partially) to make it feel up to standard with "Similar experts".
Note: defining skills expertise as a feature is really just vague and undefined because of the inconsistency of skill checks and their use.
Why stop at 5? Why not 7?
if you want a ranger with lots of attacks, take a 2014 .hunter.
Because they gave me 5?
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Hunters mark is a trap, and the fact that Ranger now revolves around it is tragic.
Hunter's Mark is only a trap when you try to use it all the time. There are 2 times to use hunter's mark: A) when you're fighting a single "tank" foe (high AC, High HP), B) when you're tracking a major player in your game. the HM linked features improve both situations. the other features generally help with the other situations: A) traveling overland/exploring. B) fighting lots of lower AC, Lower HP foes/minions. In those cases, you shouldn't be using HM as there are much better spells and abilities to handle them. Then HM isn't a trap - it's just an idjit play.
Rangers have always been good at the latter 2 situations, but many folks had complaints about having a lower max damage. The new changes improve that for most rangers - even for the gloom stalker after round 1.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
There is no excuse for both the laziness and ineffectiveness of the Ranger capstone. None. The final slap in the face is calling it Foe Slayer when it should be called Foe Tickler. The extra damage it does barely tickles the creatures that the Ranger is facing at level 20.
yes, it's not much of a capstone, but then it's not that important as most campaigns will never get to L20 anyway. If one does it's easy enough for a DM to homebrew an addition to make it into something the table agrees is worthy. Even all the concern over the Level 13 ability is overblown. eliminating the ability for damage to stop your concentration is all that s really needed unless what you want is excessive power by stacking other concentration spells on top of HM.,
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
See it's not about the damage (as I suspect the d10 will add up on multiple instances of damage like the beastmasters 5 attacks) or the usefulness of such features (like being to loose concentration)that concerns me. The problem is that it's shoehorning play to a situational ability. They have recreated the "comparison feels bad no matter how good it is" problem. It's just a different group that feels bad.(Actually it's almost everyone)
Meanwhile the ranger still fails the "what is a ranger and why do they exist" test. Each class should have a mechanical and narrative purpose but the new ranger is actually worse at the ranger playspace but "at least they can do damage" <sarcastic tone.>
Where's the team support? I would argue Aragorn removed other people's exhaustion more than his own. Same with other ranger-specific stories the ranger gets the party to supercede their individual limits.
Where's the traveling skills? A team with a ranger guide should be faster than one without.
Do people actually do overland travel anymore? None of my groups do.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Anecdotes show possibility but they do not show probability or causality.
It's kind of irrelevant if the adventure design calls for it or not because ranging is literally the one consistent theme of a ranger. Even as a zero sum combat ability it provides tone and theme.
Now even when traveling is hand waved there are quick ways for it to benefit the ranger. Starting with free forages or other "free activity" while remaining alert always benefited my 2014 characters.
At the same time having the justification of we "arrived faster" can be part of the adventure design providing tangible boons. Early to the ritual vs interrupted final preparation is naratively very different. Even on a railroaded arrive at x faster travel can still be a benefit for escapes or chases.
Dnd is a game about defined features and their narrative implications. By creating a feature it should in turn create its own use cases. Now 2014 features had use cases that weren't obvious so many assumed it was more situational than it actually was. A little cleanup and modernization would have made a great build instead of the hunter's mark machines we got.
what I am saying is...that I doubt the majority of tables will notice one way or the other.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I don't like it.
We had the warlock class with negative feedback about too much focus on eldritch blast and the take away that rangers should focus on hunter's mark like that seems like a poor design choice to me. It seems to me that WotC missed the similarities in what was done on class A when changing class B.
Something occurred to me today...JC has mentioned that BG3 has influenced some of his design decisions, especially on spells. Why not add the favored enemy options from that if we're leaning into spells and skills?
Favored Enemy Options:
-Bounty Hunter: Proficiency in Investigation, Ensaring Strike gets a buff.
-Keeper of the Veil: Proficiency in Arcana, learn Protection from Good and Evil
-Mage Breaker: Proficiency in Arcana, gain True Strike Cantrip
-Ranger Knight: Proficiency in History and Heavy Armor
-Sanctified Stalker:Proficiency in Religion, gain Sacred Flame Cantrip
These are all flavorful, in line with what they seem to be wanting design wise, and we know JC and CP played BG3. Hell, you could even make it similar to the Primal Order option of the Druid. Just my non-cents
If they removed concentration and scaled the damage like Monks martial di, HM would be a bigger boon. I agree the epic boon 20,, was just a here you go I gave you something. Maybe they did all this to make Rangers a class people would dip in to and not just play outright. They swapped out the Monks for Rangers as worst class now. Maybe so they can have some more work in the future.
Actually rangers, and especially hunters, are considerably more formidable now than were in 2014. All of the ribbon exploration features as well as favored enemy/terrain bonuses are effectively fully covered with expertise in nature and survival ( as opposed to 2014 where the expertise was severely limited.weapon mastery, especially Nick, and the changes to TWF grant them more attacks (especially at lower levels). The removal of concentration on a number of control spells helps there as well and the change to being a semi-prepared caster is huge. Effectively you can completely change your spell roster within a 2 week period as needed. The rewrite on hunters allowing them to change out their attack and defense features is going to be a major improvement that should make hunters far more useful and interesting. Yes the gloomstalker’s round 1 nova got a nerf, but then their latter rounds got a boost so it’s not a nerf overall, just in some folk’s play style. Rangers have always been very powerful in the right hands, but they are complexPCs to play making them hard to play if your looking for them to just do one thing.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
hunters are made worse, not better in this edition
^^ don't agree. Ranger and Paladin die hards are exaggerating.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Formidable is not better. Being able to function to do a set of expected ranger jobs is what makes a ranger.
getting one expertise (Until 9 I believe ) doesn't even allow a decent spread of skills required for the ranger Job. You even listed two basic skills but often perception or stealth is considered more "core" to ranger. Even if you take the assumptions survival and nature is all you need you are still short.
A scout rogue can now preform all of the ranger skills better by taking nature and survival. I was never against having scout as an option because at least a ranger had unique survival traits showing both a narrative and mechanical reason for rangers existence as a class.
As far as I understand 2 ranger spells got concentration removed (both in the vein of ranged arrow next attack stuff. meanwhile combos like fogcloud and beastsense(a way to effectively use fogcloud) are still in conflict. They also removed the secondary fogcloud Synergy which was PHB Beast companions. (which a druid can still do via wild shape). This is just one example I believe there are more but i don't have access yet to the new material.
That kind of begs some questions. The expected ranger job seems to be a jack-of-all-trades style survivalist. That style of class gives up something for the versatility. I'd ask what you think makes a ranger a ranger instead of leaving it to me to fill in the blanks on that statement based on what I think a ranger is or what I think WotC was going for in the class. I would keep in mind that what we might think a ranger is might not match the majority of other people either. It happens.
I have contention on this statement. Rogues and bards only get one more skill with expertise and the comment is giving a class entitlement vibe where because another class has two then rangers should have two. Rangers have weapon mastery, fighting style, extra attack, and better weapon / armor proficiencies than either class. Bards and rogues (especially rogues) are more focused on skills than rangers because rangers are more focused on weapon combat.
Expertise in a skill isn't even a big gap at low levels. It's a +2 bonus over proficiency and then +3 and among many other skills where the bonus doesn't exist for any of these classes.
Rogues and bards gaining 4 expertise skills when rangers only gain 3 seems like a very minor quibble given the relatively small impact expertise actually has overall.
Which makes sense. Rogues are more focused on skills than rangers and a wilderness rogue is a valid concept. Think Sherwood Forest and many Merry Men as to how the concept might be applied. But it's in reference to skills, not all of the ranger abilities, and we should probably point out that hunter's make grants advantage on perception or survival checks related to the marked target.
Deft explorer adds two languages along with the expertise instead of another expertise. It's a small detail but it can matter situationally.
The ranger fighting style has the option to take 2 druid cantrips instead of a fighting style feat so guidance and druidcraft as options can be applied here. Keeping magic in mind, rangers have access to many wilderness based spells that scout rogues do not. Enhance ability is also a generic skill buff that can be applied.
Roving is better than superior mobility tireless isn't an option for scouts.
You're also comparing a subclass (scout) to a class (ranger). To make the comparison more apples and less oranges we would need to pick a subclass. Fey wanderer adds otherworldly glamor or beast master gives an animal companion that can be used.
I agree on concentration being problematic. A lot of ranger spells are still concentration spells. This is an issue because of the choice to focus on hunter's mark, which is still a concentration spell.
The reason hunter's mark is still a concentration spell (according to WotC interviews) was that rangers were OP without the restriction in their playtesting. That reason doesn't change the conflict where a class with a focus on one concentration spell needs to made a serious choice between using the spell on which they focus or another concentration spell. This also applies to rituals since rituals break concentration and rangers can now cast spells with the ritual tag as such.
Sure, popping a 5th level slot at 20th level for a 3d10 damage bonus in combat all day sounds decent enough but that locks out other options. Who wants to do that just to give up the bonus for another spell? I would not so I would end up ignoring most of the spells with concentration or using rituals anyway.
If one-way was determined to be OP and the other way becomes problematic that does seem like a design issue to me. I don't see an issue with the shamanistic hunter approach WotC uses for the ranger combining skills and magic on a martial character to make the class "good at ranger things" and can make a build I see as better than the scout rogue. I do see an issue with relying on hunter's mark so much. ;-)
There is a game I like to play called what "class is best at X". for example just taking hits or absorbing damage would be a barbarian. Sure other builds might be similar but the default will always be a barbarian. Some questions are a little more shared like what class is best at working a menagerie?. So many classes/subclasses may build for such and adventure but druid or ranger should have the easiest way of building to match.
now who should be the best at traveling? A ranger team should end travel faster and be better prepared for what comes next.
A rangers job is quite simple "boost the ranging experience" and make nature a beneficial part of the world . Now you want such to be expressed in mechanics that both support inside and outside combat. Another poster complained [2024 Rangers are now designed selfish]. That stuck with me because even the hardest unsocial rangers in fiction (or real life) made the group better. The key to turning "general survivalist" into a class feature is to simply represent it as a a part of gameplay. Give a defined feature that equates to survivalist. This could be represented with a universal Terrain feature or specialized equipment (especially since equipment features don't really exist anyplace else), Primal awareness could be reworked to allow you to Target a creature you couldn't see with hunters mark or some other active boost while "ON"
Bard and rouges both have unique enhancements to their "expert status" rouges particularly Have reliable talent, meanwhile bards share their skills via inspiration. Rangers Could actively share their "ranging expertise" features (at least partially) to make it feel up to standard with "Similar experts".
Note: defining skills expertise as a feature is really just vague and undefined because of the inconsistency of skill checks and their use.