Anything that doesn't require an action by the beast, or require the beast to have hands or humanoid body shape works regardless of attunement or not.

so a stone of good luck would work for example.

Quote from Relux_the_Relux >>

It is not a stretch RAW every creature regarless of INT can attune to Items.

Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it (this can't be the same short rest used to learn the item's properties). This focus can take the form of weapon practice (for a weapon), meditation (for a wondrous item), or some other appropriate activity. If the short rest is interrupted, the attunement attempt fails. Otherwise, at the end of the short rest, the creature gains an intuitive understanding of how to activate any magical properties of the item, including any necessary command words.

Since the focus can take any form one want there is nothing stopping beasts from doing it. Also since the understanding is intuitive. If a PC with 3 Int can focus on an item so can a Beast with 3 int. The only requirement is that is done during a short rest.

 Any form one wants that means being focused on the item. It's not just being in physical contact with it. You might give the animal something that it considers a toy and hope it'll play with it for an hour without letting go, or teach it to hold something for an hour on command, but none of that constitutes "some other appropriate activity" to me. The beast won't understand what's going on, so how could it be appropriately focused on the process? It seems exceedingly unlikely your cat will be meditating on an item for an hour straight, even if you've trained it to sit still and remain awake for an hour on command.

Focused on the item, just means that focused on the item. it doesn't even mean studying the item. It just mean focused on the. If you stare the item for 1 hour straight without break you are by definition focused on the item and a beast can do it. The focused requirement is only there so that the creature doesn't do any other kind of light activity during the short rest. The meditation is just an example of how you can flavor it, not a requirement.

Check the definition of intuitive:

using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive.

No logical capabilities required. 

Quote from Relux_the_Relux >>

Focused on the item, just means that focused on the item. it doesn't even mean studying the item. It just mean focused on the. If you stare the item for 1 hour straight without break you are by definition focused on the item and a beast can do it. The focused requirement is only there so that the creature doesn't do any other kind of light activity during the short rest. The meditation is just an example of how you can flavor it, not a requirement.

Check the definition of intuitive:

using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive.

No logical capabilities required. 

 Intuitive describes the understanding you gain upon completion of the attunement, not the process itself. And what a beast can do vs what a beast will do makes for a world of difference. But I'll agree to disagree from here.

There are more than 20 pages of a...the word escapes me right now, I might edit in later. But my point is there's already a thread discussing whether or not the ranger is "underpowered" and it didn't really get anywhere.

So...why?

I saw a bunch of people arguing that.  I don't think it is underpowered.  I think the beast Master is a mess but overall I think the class is good.

Quote from 01011000Lehrer >>

I saw a bunch of people arguing that.  I don't think it is underpowered.  I think the beast Master is a mess but overall I think the class is good.

 I think your advice and insights into the class are misplaced. Despite their proficiency with them, two-handed heavy weapons aren't a great fit for the ranger. They don't have a fighting style that supports it, outside of the switch-hitting Defense style. If a player is focusing on DPR, then they'd want one of the others. And constantly suggesting players look into the Great Weapon Mastery feat (you mention it no less than 4 times) isn't helpful because that plays against the class' natural strengths. Which, for the record, is controlling the battlefield and not high damage output. They can output pretty solid damage, but that's not their job. Rangers are a hybrid class.

Even the ranger's spell selection will be influenced by their choice of fighting style and subclass. The usefulness of Hunter's Mark hinges entirely on how many attacks the ranger is making. The more attacks, the more mileage they'll get out of the spell. A beast master is likely only going to make one attack. Everyone else is making up to 2, or 3 with TWF.

Even some of the other features you rate from bad to just okay are...what criteria are you using? We get that it's all your opinion, but what is your opinion rooted in? You say they're situational, but so is their Extra Attack feature. The game has three pillars: combat, exploration, and social interaction. So how you weigh each of those pillars is naturally going to color your opinion on features in service to those pillars.

Quote from Jounichi1983 >>

Quote from 01011000Lehrer >>

I saw a bunch of people arguing that.  I don't think it is underpowered.  I think the beast Master is a mess but overall I think the class is good.

 I think your advice and insights into the class are misplaced. Despite their proficiency with them, two-handed heavy weapons aren't a great fit for the ranger. They don't have a fighting style that supports it, outside of the switch-hitting Defense style. If a player is focusing on DPR, then they'd want one of the others. And constantly suggesting players look into the Great Weapon Mastery feat (you mention it no less than 4 times) isn't helpful because that plays against the class' natural strengths. Which, for the record, is controlling the battlefield and not high damage output. They can output pretty solid damage, but that's not their job. Rangers are a hybrid class.

Even the ranger's spell selection will be influenced by their choice of fighting style and subclass. The usefulness of Hunter's Mark hinges entirely on how many attacks the ranger is making. The more attacks, the more mileage they'll get out of the spell. A beast master is likely only going to make one attack. Everyone else is making up to 2, or 3 with TWF.

Even some of the other features you rate from bad to just okay are...what criteria are you using? We get that it's all your opinion, but what is your opinion rooted in? You say they're situational, but so is their Extra Attack feature. The game has three pillars: combat, exploration, and social interaction. So how you weigh each of those pillars is naturally going to color your opinion on features in service to those pillars.

 Generally speaking, Great Weapon Fighting style isn't all that great.  I actually rate it higher than a lot of people but still it's not required to make a good character using a great weapon (example, barbarian doesn't get fighting styles at all).  Many guides I've read even recommend taking defensive style anyway.  Two weapon fighting creates bonus action economy issues so I generally think that's less good but it is certainly viable.  My reasoning is that on your turn you can either bonus action attack or cast Hunter's Mark, not both.  If a creature only lasts one round, you aren't getting any mileage out of having cast hunters mark.   If a creature survives for you to have two arounds against it, then it becomes worth it.  Compare that to a ranger using sharpshooter (which I personally like better than GWM for the ranger but they're both better options) and they have no trouble keeping hunters mark up all the time.  You're also doing more damage on a hit.  Granted, there is a -5 riding on Sharpshooter but a +2 to hit from Archery fighting style, so you're hitting a little less but when you hit doing quite a bit more damage.  Sharpshooter at level 5: 2d8 + 6 + 20 + 2d6 for an average of 42 damage assuming everything hits.  You're hitting a little less though but it's still better than the dual wielder.  Now, the TWF ranger takes Dual Wielder (so we can more easily compare having both taken the appropriate feat).  We're looking at 3d8 + 9 because you can either attack OR cast hunters mark.  That's 22 damage ish.  If the enemy already has hunters mark from a previous round?  3d8 + 9 + 3d6 for an average of 33.  However, that would require the round before to have had the ranger cast hunter's mark instead of bonus action attack for 2d8 + 6 + 2d6, average 22.  So in 2 rounds, the TWF ranger is doing a total of 55 damage on average to the sharpshooter's 84.  Even with the sharpshooter hitting marginally less, the sharpshooter is still doing much more damage across those two rounds.  All that for 1 more AC.  That's why I say Sharpshooter (and GWM) are the better options.  If instead the ranger went GWM we're looking at 4d6+6+20+2d6 for an average in 2 rounds of 102 although hitting even less than the sharpshooter.  The smaller hit chance doesn't even come close cutting that in half to put it on par with TWF.  Because this ranger doesn't need the fighting style you can go defense and you have the same AC as the TWF ranger.  This is why I'm saying those are the best options and why I personally think damage is the best combat roll for a ranger. It fits their abilities and spell options best.  They lack many of the good abjuration spells, resistances, or plate armor that would make them a strong tank.  They also lack most of the healing spells and their spell slots are low which doesn't make them the strongest healers.  Rangers are a half caster with only a handful of battlefield control spells and they have no special abilities that make them better at battle field control.   I really don't see why you think that is their natural strength.  A pure caster or something like a cavalier fighter is much better at control than a ranger will ever be.  Maybe we have different definitions of what makes a good battlefield controller.  I would personally call control a secondary or tertiary focus of the ranger.  If you wanted to focus on that more, a feat like sentinel would be a good grab but I actually think that plays less into the strengths of the ranger than GWM or Sharpshooter and/or crossbow expert.  With 2 attacks, spells like Hunter's Mark and Swift Quiver, the damage roll seems to fit them best.  Personally, I think the biggest strength of the Ranger is versatility.  They are very adept at damage, have a few control and support spells to aid the party when the situation calls for it, and are obviously excellent at the exploration phase in the right environment.  They obviously aren't crushing the social phase unless you're talking to animals or plants, but they don't need to do everything great in order to be great. 

I think I explained adequately why I think some features but I'll try to clear things up. 

• Favored enemy is situational because you have be lucky enough to need the ability and have picked the right thing.  If you picked Dwarves and Humans but need to track an elf, sorry.  Learning extra languages is actually a really nice part of this feature.  If you're trying to recall what kind of breath weapon a dragon has but picked undead, bummer.  Combine that with the capstone level 20 Foe Slayer Ability, you need to be a bit lucky or have a DM that purposefully tailors the campaign to the decisions you made.  These abilities might be completely ignored if you made choices that didn't fit the setting.  This is true of Favored Terrain although there are less of those so it's more likely you'll find use in these.
• Primeval Awareness is rated bad because you'll rarely need it.  If you're wondering around looking for a tomb know to contain undead, using a spell slot to find it might be alright.  If it actually told you where they where, it'd be great. But as it stands, it just tells you that it's within 1 mile.  Helpful?  I suppose.  But so situational that it might never come up in a campaign?  Also possible.  Hence the bad rating.
• Hide in plane sight is bad because you spend 1 minute and you can make yourself and only yourself better at hiding as long as you don't move or take an action or reaction.  OR... you could just use a second level spell slot and cast Pass Without Trace to give that +10 bonus to stealth to your whole party.  You can move around, and even perform actions and then within an hour.   It might have situational uses but more often then not it's the best option at your disposal.  
• Beast Master is bad because the pet is squishy and not overly useful in combat until level 11.  Is it good at exploration?  SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsorta.  Better than a rogue or familiar?  Probably not.  It's certainly not going to help a ton in social situations unless you somehow get advantage on intimidation because you have a tiger growling at some NPC.  That's not anywhere in the rules though.  People argue that you can attune items to the pet but 5e is pretty good about making explicit what is permissible and nowhere does it say your pet can do this.  At best it's fudging rules to fix an otherwise broken subclass.  Moreover, having an animal focus on an item for an hour I guess is within the rules but as someone that has two dogs, good luck.  They're really smart but asking them just to sit stll for 30 minutes is a huge challenge.
• Hunter honestly isn't bad.  It's just bad compared to the other subclasses.  It's honestly fine and maybe I was too harsh.  I think I ended up changing it from average last minute.  I think it's definitely not as good as monster slayer.  

If there is anything else I can make more clear, let me know.  

I appreciate other perspectives and thanks for your posts.  I honestly think it's interesting though that this post was originally to argue against the "Rangers Suck" mentality I often see. Instead of people disagreeing and thinking the Ranger sucks, people are disagreeing and think I'm being too harsh when in reality I think the ranger is a very good class.

Quote from 01011000Lehrer >>

Quote from Jounichi1983 >>

Quote from 01011000Lehrer >>

I saw a bunch of people arguing that.  I don't think it is underpowered.  I think the beast Master is a mess but overall I think the class is good.

 I think your advice and insights into the class are misplaced. Despite their proficiency with them, two-handed heavy weapons aren't a great fit for the ranger. They don't have a fighting style that supports it, outside of the switch-hitting Defense style. If a player is focusing on DPR, then they'd want one of the others. And constantly suggesting players look into the Great Weapon Mastery feat (you mention it no less than 4 times) isn't helpful because that plays against the class' natural strengths. Which, for the record, is controlling the battlefield and not high damage output. They can output pretty solid damage, but that's not their job. Rangers are a hybrid class.

Even the ranger's spell selection will be influenced by their choice of fighting style and subclass. The usefulness of Hunter's Mark hinges entirely on how many attacks the ranger is making. The more attacks, the more mileage they'll get out of the spell. A beast master is likely only going to make one attack. Everyone else is making up to 2, or 3 with TWF.

Even some of the other features you rate from bad to just okay are...what criteria are you using? We get that it's all your opinion, but what is your opinion rooted in? You say they're situational, but so is their Extra Attack feature. The game has three pillars: combat, exploration, and social interaction. So how you weigh each of those pillars is naturally going to color your opinion on features in service to those pillars.

 Generally speaking, Great Weapon Fighting style isn't all that great.  I actually rate it higher than a lot of people but still it's not required to make a good character using a great weapon (example, barbarian doesn't get fighting styles at all).  Many guides I've read even recommend taking defensive style anyway.  Two weapon fighting creates bonus action economy issues so I generally think that's less good but it is certainly viable.  My reasoning is that on your turn you can either bonus action attack or cast Hunter's Mark, not both.  If a creature only lasts one round, you aren't getting any mileage out of having cast hunters mark.   If a creature survives for you to have two arounds against it, then it becomes worth it.  Compare that to a ranger using sharpshooter (which I personally like better than GWM for the ranger but they're both better options) and they have no trouble keeping hunters mark up all the time.  You're also doing more damage on a hit.  Granted, there is a -5 riding on Sharpshooter but a +2 to hit from Archery fighting style, so you're hitting a little less but when you hit doing quite a bit more damage.  Sharpshooter at level 5: 2d8 + 6 + 20 + 2d6 for an average of 42 damage assuming everything hits.  You're hitting a little less though but it's still better than the dual wielder.  Now, the TWF ranger takes Dual Wielder (so we can more easily compare having both taken the appropriate feat).  We're looking at 3d8 + 9 because you can either attack OR cast hunters mark.  That's 22 damage ish.  If the enemy already has hunters mark from a previous round?  3d8 + 9 + 3d6 for an average of 33.  However, that would require the round before to have had the ranger cast hunter's mark instead of bonus action attack for 2d8 + 6 + 2d6, average 22.  So in 2 rounds, the TWF ranger is doing a total of 55 damage on average to the sharpshooter's 84.  Even with the sharpshooter hitting marginally less, the sharpshooter is still doing much more damage across those two rounds.  All that for 1 more AC.  That's why I say Sharpshooter (and GWM) are the better options.  If instead the ranger went GWM we're looking at 4d6+6+20+2d6 for an average in 2 rounds of 102 although hitting even less than the sharpshooter.  The smaller hit chance doesn't even come close cutting that in half to put it on par with TWF.  Because this ranger doesn't need the fighting style you can go defense and you have the same AC as the TWF ranger.  This is why I'm saying those are the best options and why I personally think damage is the best combat roll for a ranger. It fits their abilities and spell options best.  They lack many of the good abjuration spells, resistances, or plate armor that would make them a strong tank.  They also lack most of the healing spells and their spell slots are low which doesn't make them the strongest healers.  Rangers are a half caster with only a handful of battlefield control spells and they have no special abilities that make them better at battle field control.   I really don't see why you think that is their natural strength.  A pure caster or something like a cavalier fighter is much better at control than a ranger will ever be.  Maybe we have different definitions of what makes a good battlefield controller.  I would personally call control a secondary or tertiary focus of the ranger.  If you wanted to focus on that more, a feat like sentinel would be a good grab but I actually think that plays less into the strengths of the ranger than GWM or Sharpshooter and/or crossbow expert.  With 2 attacks, spells like Hunter's Mark and Swift Quiver, the damage roll seems to fit them best.  Personally, I think the biggest strength of the Ranger is versatility.  They are very adept at damage, have a few control and support spells to aid the party when the situation calls for it, and are obviously excellent at the exploration phase in the right environment.  They obviously aren't crushing the social phase unless you're talking to animals or plants, but they don't need to do everything great in order to be great. 

I think I explained adequately why I think some features but I'll try to clear things up. 

• Favored enemy is situational because you have be lucky enough to need the ability and have picked the right thing.  If you picked Dwarves and Humans but need to track an elf, sorry.  Learning extra languages is actually a really nice part of this feature.  If you're trying to recall what kind of breath weapon a dragon has but picked undead, bummer.  Combine that with the capstone level 20 Foe Slayer Ability, you need to be a bit lucky or have a DM that purposefully tailors the campaign to the decisions you made.  These abilities might be completely ignored if you made choices that didn't fit the setting.  This is true of Favored Terrain although there are less of those so it's more likely you'll find use in these.
• Primeval Awareness is rated bad because you'll rarely need it.  If you're wondering around looking for a tomb know to contain undead, using a spell slot to find it might be alright.  If it actually told you where they where, it'd be great. But as it stands, it just tells you that it's within 1 mile.  Helpful?  I suppose.  But so situational that it might never come up in a campaign?  Also possible.  Hence the bad rating.
• Hide in plane sight is bad because you spend 1 minute and you can make yourself and only yourself better at hiding as long as you don't move or take an action or reaction.  OR... you could just use a second level spell slot and cast Pass Without Trace to give that +10 bonus to stealth to your whole party.  You can move around, and even perform actions and then within an hour.   It might have situational uses but more often then not it's the best option at your disposal.  
• Beast Master is bad because the pet is squishy and not overly useful in combat until level 11.  Is it good at exploration?  SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsorta.  Better than a rogue or familiar?  Probably not.  It's certainly not going to help a ton in social situations unless you somehow get advantage on intimidation because you have a tiger growling at some NPC.  That's not anywhere in the rules though.  People argue that you can attune items to the pet but 5e is pretty good about making explicit what is permissible and nowhere does it say your pet can do this.  At best it's fudging rules to fix an otherwise broken subclass.  Moreover, having an animal focus on an item for an hour I guess is within the rules but as someone that has two dogs, good luck.  They're really smart but asking them just to sit stll for 30 minutes is a huge challenge.
• Hunter honestly isn't bad.  It's just bad compared to the other subclasses.  It's honestly fine and maybe I was too harsh.  I think I ended up changing it from average last minute.  I think it's definitely not as good as monster slayer.  

If there is anything else I can make more clear, let me know.  

I appreciate other perspectives and thanks for your posts.  I honestly think it's interesting though that this post was originally to argue against the "Rangers Suck" mentality I often see. Instead of people disagreeing and thinking the Ranger sucks, people are disagreeing and think I'm being too harsh when in reality I think the ranger is a very good class.

 If I was one of those people, I apologize. I’m sorry. 

No apology necessary.  I appreciate the debate.  

 People argue that you can attune items to the pet but 5e is pretty good about making explicit what is permissible and nowhere does it say your pet can do this. 

Attunement rules say that ALL creatures can attune items. And the pet has no rules contradicting this. Thus the pet can attune items.

You're right.  I started out with my conclusions and probably could have just let my assessment speak for itself.  That's fair.

Level 1 -  Nothing special here.  Most classes have a boring level 1 and the Ranger has only situational abilities at level 1 that are very good in exploration but that might not come into play often.  

• 1d10 Hit dice. Only barbarians are going to have more HP.
• Proficiencies
  • Light, Medium armor, shields. Simple and Martial weapons.  Only missing heavy armor.  
  • Strengthand Dexterity Saving throws.  Dexterity is arguably the best saving throw to get.  Strength is arguably the worst.  It's pretty standard to get one good one and one not good one.
  • Skills.  The skills aren't great.  You do get perception, arguably one of the best.  You don't get acrobatics which is weird.  Survival and Nature are very good in some campaigns.  Other campaigns those won't get a lot of use.  Stealth is useful.  Investigation is good although your INT is likely a dump stat so that's not ideal. [I guess that strength saving throws don’t come up as often or are as “lifesaving” as some of the others, but fighters and barbarians are the only others that get it, and it’s really good for grapple escapes and such.]

Monks also get access to strength saves.  Also, strength saves don't do anything to escape grapple effects.  That would be an athletics or Acrobatics check.  Strength saves are fairly rare.  I think there are only 18 or so spells in the game with a strength save and they're fairly uncommon.  Compared to dexterity, wisdom, or charisma saves, strength is fairly rare.

• Favored Enemy.I honestly hate how this makes you get so specific.  It might be very useful depending on the campaign assuming you make the right decisions.  It also depends on the DM.  Giving the player reasons to use this is fun but if the DM doesn't do that it's wasted.  That is more an issue with the DM though. [I don’t disagree here. Any ability or skill is DM dependent, really. When used this is a great set of abilities that expands as the story expands. If this is thought of, not as a combat buff as it has been in the past, but more of a travel guide ability, it is wonderful. You are being kind. Most people just scream at me that this is completely reliant on the DM to make useful. It is, but if these types of things aren’t useful in a game then the game being played wouldn’t need a ranger at all, or knowledge cleric, or scout rogue, or many things involving either knowledge type skills and abilities or travel. An MMO type game wouldn’t need anything more than damage, hit points, and saving throws. If time, distance, knowledge, investigation, planning, NPC interaction, and survival are part of a game than this is a great ability.]
  • Natural Explorer.  I have the same issues with this as favored enemy.  It gets an OK rating as opposed to bad because there are less options meaning it will come up more often.  You can usually ask the GM what the setting looks like and make your decisions based on that.  Mostly a coastal campaign?  Easy pick!  It is again situational based on the DM though.  The bonuses it provides could be useful and fun if the DM gives good opportunities to use them.  If not, well that's more on the DM than the feature. [I agree. Same type of thing as above. People love the scout rogue replacement, but that is just survival expertise. Many characters can have survival proficiency (including the ranger), and anyone (if using multicasting) can have expertise with a one level dip in rogue. Natural explorer is so much more than the lone survival skill. A non-ranger trying to get all the ranger stuff needs to be a scout rogue/archer fighter with the outlander background, and then that’s just tracking, finding food, and shooting arrows. The ranger is more than that, even if you only count spellcasting.]

Looks like we mostly agree on these abilities.  They're good, although it's annoying having to choose from such big lists.

Level 2- You get 2 good features in spell casting and Fighting style.

• Spell Casting.  You are half caster just like a paladin.  You have some very good spells like Hunter's Mark, Goodberry, Absorb Elements, and Zephyr Strikeright at level 1.  Fighting Style.  No GWF here but that's ok.  It's not generally considered all that great anyway.  My personal favorite here is Archery but all the options are good. [Spellcasting is an area where many folks don’t look at when balancing or comparing the ranger to other classes. That is a shame as the spells available can do a lot for the ranger and the group as a whole. Paladins get “more spells”, but most of those spells fall under three categories: healing, damaging, and removing conditions. The ranger spell list is much more varied. They get less and can’t swap them out, but that might be for a good reason. A paladin’s flexibility with the ranger spell list would be bonkers.]

Paladins also get smites which add a lot to the paladin in addition to the larger spell list.  I think the spell lists are very different though and agree with your assessment.

Level 3- So mixed here.  This is where the problems with Rangers really hit.  There are fantastic options and god awful options for the subclass choice.  I'll get into this more later. [The beast master is not that bad. At least, I don’t think it is.]

• SubDepends on what you pick.
• Primeval awareness.  This is another one of those situational abilities that could be good with the right DM or might never ever come up. [This ability, and a couple others coming up, are sleepers. They are better than we think when first reading them or even using them. A mile isn’t that big an area. Getting this information in a mile can easily be used by even a single ranger. A ranger with a beast is even better. And a whole party is amazing! If the ranger is in their favored terrain, I interpret (just like SO MANY other spells and abilities in the PHB) that the words “up to” means the ranger can chose the range they want to extend their awareness of their surroundings, either as small as a mile, 2.5 miles, etc. The great part is if in the favored terrain the last part of that ability kicks in and you get crazy amounts of information. If any of the favored enemy choices are “pinged” then you get that buff too. If both apply, well, that is like an automatic success. (Dragon favored enemy and in favored terrain. Primeval awareness set off for 2 miles.) Ranger: “Dragons are nearby.” (Makes an expertise survival check at advantage to find out how many, where, when, and to find them.) This can be used in a city. Should there be aberrations in a small city? Likely not. Crack this off and find out if there are. The last game I was a player in, the DM and I talked and I gave him control of this ability. I know I know, “player agency”, “DM dependent”, yeah yeah. We used this like “I sense a disturbance in the force.” And it was fantastic! It became a plot device for the DM and, when used, made my ranger feel like a Jedi Knight.]

I think this interpretation is very generous.  The ability says "within 1 mile", which means between 0 and 5280 feet.  Not, 0 and any number between 1 and 5280.  It also doesn't do anything but what it says it does.  You cannot find the number or location of them by using this ability.  It does not work with Natural Explorer or Favored Enemy the way you are describing unless you can find a trail of them.  If you find a trail, you can track them with advantage, and determine the number, size, and time since they passed through.  You may be able to use these abilities to determine where they might be or might be headed, but that is not explicit in the description of these abilities.  Changing the ability in the way you describe is fine, but that is outside what the explicit rules for the abilities are.

Level 8 - Another ASI

• Land Stride.  Not a bad ability.  Not amazing but it's useful when it's useful. [This ability really bothers me, in how it isn’t used. Difficult terrain should be everywhere. Downed creatures, climbing, ice, wet surfaces, steep stairs, a forest, heavy snow, sludge in a sewer, moving through other creatures, etc. These things are rarely used by tables, I assume, because it “isn’t fun” or “too much to keep track of”. (sigh) These are some of the things that make the game, and especially combat, really interesting. Another note is this ability with the spell (which you get at level 9) plant growth. This combination can shut down a small army. Again “if these elements of the game are used in the game” the ranger is amazing. But SO MANY games are Talk. Fight. Cast spell. Reward. Rest.]

Agreed.  Difficult terrain can make combat encounters very interesting.  The trouble is that it doesn't really make travel more interesting being able to ignore this.  "You have to go slower here.  Except now you don't."  It might be good if it means you're less likely to encounter problems or you can catch up to a quarry or outrun a chasing mob.  Lots of interesting options here but it is difficult to make this engaging.  

Level 9- More spells! 

• You're getting level 3 spells now and a pretty good power spike.  Conjure Animals is a great spell even at level 9.  There are some other situationally useful spells here as well. [Yeah! Conjure animals is how I think the base ranger class really keeps up with the martials. A 3 level smite does 4d8 damage. 8 wolves do…more than that. Even if your DM is, on purpose or not, cutting off the legs of this spell for the ranger (or druid), at the very least and most ineffective this spell gives the party 8 help actions. Plant growth is amazing. Lightning arrow is great, but the third level slot is great for hail of thorns too. Hail of thorns is a small area, but that is its strength, if you ask me. Hitting two targets with hail of thorns is like a ranged smite. Hitting a large target makes for an even bigger “splash area” too.]

Level 18- Goodbye being annoyed by invisible creatures!Feral Senses- You can see invisible creatures (pretty much).  It's situational but it's a great feature. [This is an interesting ability. The “if not hidden from you” bit confuses folks. I interpret this as not the hidden condition but being behind something, like a wall, bolder, or door. It’s less clear than the rogue, but a larger area of effect, and I believe more powerful.]

It's pretty straight forward imho and a very useful ability.  

Level 20- It's... ok.

1. Foe Slayer... This isn't bad if you've made good (lucky) choices for your Favored enemies.  When it works, it's nice to have!  When it doesn't, it's the worst capstone ever.  [If you are looking at this as just a damage boost than it is ok. If you are looking at to-hit probabilities then the bonus to-hit is mathematically amazing! It’s not as flashy or exciting as a paladin’s 20 abilities, but it’s very flexible and effective in a boring “crunchy” kind of way. I would think number crunchers would love this ability.

It's ok.  When you can use it, it's actually a pretty good way to turn a miss into a hit or hit into a bigger hit.  It's not a lot of added damage but it's something.  I actually like the ability.  Trouble is, often times you won't be able to use it because you'll be fighting an enemy not on your favored list.  

• Beast Master- So this gets a lot of grief and rightfully so.  There are some gimmicky things that I won't get into that make it useful but overall this is messy at best.  It's abilities actually take away from the base ranger kit.  It's nuts.  At level 3 you can either have your pet attack, or yourself!  You're likely better off going with yourself which means it just hangs out doing nothing for a while.  
  • Ranger's Companion.  This is why you're here and it makes me sad.  Its squishy, its limited, and its damage might actually LOWER your average DPR at certain points in the game.  When it dies, it's a pain to replace. [Until levels 11 and higher the attacks of the beast are not meant to replace those of the ranger. The beast is an added option to the ranger’s toolkit. Some beasts can do more damage than the ranger (snakes and panther) at levels 1 through 4, but other beats have “effects” with their attacks that are the main feature. The grapple or knockdown effect are great and akin to some of the battle master maneuvers. A ranged ranger can have a melee component, for guarding and defending, and AoO, something the ranger loses when focusing on ranged combat. A Melee ranger can have a nice ranged option, something they lose with the melee focus. All of this is repeatable. The beast can die, sure. But the battle master only has a few uses each battle. The beast (unless your DM hates you) should be making death saving throws. Also, if you do nothing with the beast it is adding hit points, attacks of opportunity, and dodging, which could put its armor class in the same range as the fighter or paladin at any given point in the game, easy. In the DMG, beasts (any stat block) can be tinkered with by the DM (with the player if the DM allows) by RAW to make them a little more what they (the player) are looking for. Want a police style dog that restrains a target instead of knocking it down Take a wolf, replace the pack tactics and knock down effect with an auto retraining bite (just like the giant frog). It will still be a medium or smaller, CR 1/4 or lower, “beast”. Give the blood hawk a bonus action perception check (just like the dragons’ legendary actions). Give your beast proficiency in the athletics skill (no effect on CR) so they can be better at moving enemies into your AoE spell range. 0-2 saving throw proficiencies have no effect on the CR of a creature, so give them a couple! Constitution and wisdom would supplement the ranger’s saving throws nicely! Most beasts (the “better” ones, d6 damage die or +3 attack mod) actually do have damage output the same as the ranger when the ranger is NOT using hunter’s mark, and there are all kinds of mathematical advantages that can be squeezed out of that, especially after level 10. One last thing, the beast master ranger and the beast companion take their turns at the same time. They each have a turn, but just like conjured animals, groups of the same type of monsters, controlled mounts, and groups of animals pulling a chariot or wagon, the two turns of the ranger and beast happen interweaved. This is VERY important to the subclass as this is what sets it apart form a find steed, steel defender, familiar, “pet”, or anything else. Working in unison, having the options to time the actions of each, is what makes the beast master so powerful. Other spells and abilities tell you the thing rolls its own initiative, not so with the beast companion. The companion IS THE RANGER’S SUBCLASS. It is part of the ranger. Part of the ranger’s turn. If you think I’m stupid, please try playing the BMR with this interpretation of the turn overlapping and try for yourself.]
  • Exceptional Training.  At least it can use the help action using your bonus action now?  You still should not be using it to attack but at least it's attacks count as magical now.  I suppose if you don't have a magic weapon, you might be better off having it attack if you're dealing with enemies resistant to nonmagic attacks. [This is great. Expanded action economy. Magic attacks. People will say the familiar can do the help action better. Sure. They have 1 hit point and an armor class of like 11. A ranger can have a familiar just as anyone can get one. The companion has a PC level AC and hit points. The companion is a threat on the battlefield as well, not JUST a flying help action. Options, options, and more options.]
  • Bestial Fury.This is actually pretty good!  The problem is that your beast at level 11 (when you get this) only has 44 hitpoints which is less than a Wizard with 10 Con... It's going to get smashed.  Even if it manages to be protected from melee, it'll get hammered by spells or ranged attacks.  Hopefully your DM gives it death saves... [This is big. Consistent damage output with the beast and ranger combined is now on par with the fighter, paladin, hunter, rogue, and barbarian. “Enough” hit points. An armor class or 18 to 22. One big thing here is hunter’s mark is both half as effective for the BM ranger (only one attack) but it is also only half as debilitating when the ranger is NOT using hunter’s mark, so other spells like hail of thorns and lightning arrow end up doing MORE damage for the BM versus the hunter.]
  • Share Spells.  .. This isn't awful.  There are some useful spells.  Zephyr Strikecomes to mind as a good option.  Still, it's not great.  You're likely going to be casting protective spells on yourself so your buddy can get them too to try to keep it alive. [This is how the beast stays alive at epic game play levels. Zephyr strike, absorb elements, cure wounds, all of this will keep your beast alive and well. Then there is the attack potential. Only a handful of spells work with this, but more spells work with this that with the paladin find steed. Lots of stuff to unpack here, but just know that this is a big buff.]

It really comes down to how bad the Beast Master is.  It's awful.  It literally makes the hunter worse for having chosen it.  The other ones are at least ok.  Things like favored enemy or favored terrain are often criticized.  Honestly though, a game where those aren't useful is somewhat similar to a game where a bards skill based abilities aren't useful.  When a DM makes them useful, they're very useful and fun abilities.  In terms of combat, the base ranger is strong.  Most of the subclasses are good and add some interesting things to the base ranger.  The only problem is the beast master.  The ranger is otherwise in a good spot. [I really don't think the beats master is bad or awful. I don't even think it's the worst subclass in the game. The ranger base, and the BM subclass, have rules that are written poorly. Several of the abilities work together in ways that other classes don't have to think about. People think and feel bad things about the beast master ranger, but mathematically its not bad, its good. Used as a subclass feature and a resource, it is quite good! Quite strong! Not just for a ranger, but as a subclass. What I think when I'm having discussions with folks about this class and subclass is that people aren't playing games that use many of these parts of the game anyway, people are interpreting the abilities in a way that works against the class and subclass, and the subclass plays differently then people's expectations of the mechanics.e

 

I don't really think "worst subclass in the game" is a good measuring stick.  Honestly, the four elements monk probably takes that reward.  I honestly can't think of any other subclass that is worse though.  You're right in the things you're saying, but honestly compared to the other subclsses, this falls up crazy short unless you try to pull something gimmicky or exploit some unintended interaction with the rules.  Even then, the beast is going to die a lot even if your DM is nice to it.  You're right, the beast might be better than the ranger at grappling and that does give another option.  However, putting it up there in melee means the DM probably should be attacking it.  That basically is akin to putting a wizard with 10 Con up their in the thick of combat.  It's going to go down then you're going to be expending resources to try to get it back up.  When I compare it to the other subclasses, it just does not match up.

I also think it's worth looking at the new UA Drakewarden subclass.  It's similar but every one of the issues I have with this subclass is fixed in really interesting and fun ways.  It's more durable, more useful, and you can bring it back using a spell slot instead of spending 8 hours.  It's so good in comparison.  It is just UA at this point and will undoubtedly be adjusted before it is released, if it ever is.  That said, I look at this and see what the beast master should have been.  

Quote from Relux_the_Relux >>

 People argue that you can attune items to the pet but 5e is pretty good about making explicit what is permissible and nowhere does it say your pet can do this. 

Attunement rules say that ALL creatures can attune items. And the pet has no rules contradicting this. Thus the pet can attune items.

 I know the rules for creatures are that they can attune to an item assuming they can focus on it for an hour.  I don't think an animal would be very successful at that.  It's also not explicit in the rules for the beast master which makes me thinks that this is an unintended manipulation of the rules.  Even if it is not, I still don't think the subclass is very good.  Here are the actual rules for Attunement.  

Some magic items require a creature to form a bond with them before their magical properties can be used. This bond is called attunement, and certain items have a prerequisite for it. If the prerequisite is a class, a creature must be a member of that class to attune to the item. (If the class is a spellcasting class, a monster qualifies if it has spell slots and uses that class's spell list.) If the prerequisite is to be a spellcaster, a creature qualifies if it can cast at least one spell using its traits or features, not using a magic item or the like.

Without becoming attuned to an item that requires attunement, a creature gains only its nonmagical benefits, unless its description states otherwise. For example, a magic shield that requires attunement provides the benefits of a normal shield to a creature not attuned to it, but none of its magical properties.

Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it (this can't be the same short rest used to learn the item's properties). This focus can take the form of weapon practice (for a weapon), meditation (for a wondrous item), or some other appropriate activity. If the short rest is interrupted, the attunement attempt fails. Otherwise, at the end of the short rest, the creature gains an intuitive understanding of how to activate any magical properties of the item, including any necessary command words.

An item can be attuned to only one creature at a time, and a creature can be attuned to no more than three magic items at a time. Any attempt to attune to a fourth item fails; the creature must end its attunement to an item first. Additionally, a creature can't attune to more than one copy of an item. For example, a creature can't attune to more than one ring of protection at a time.

A creature's attunement to an item ends if the creature no longer satisfies the prerequisites for attunement, if the item has been more than 100 feet away for at least 24 hours, if the creature dies, or if another creature attunes to the item. A creature can also voluntarily end attunement by spending another short rest focused on the item, unless the item is cursed.

By your interpretation of the rules, a familiar could attune to items as well.  So could a pet dog or a horse.  If true, that makes everyone stronger, not just the Beast Master.  That means it doesn't actually make the beast master stronger relative to other classes or ranger subclasses.  More importantly, this is silly to me and not a good way to try to make the beast master useful.  Also, nowhere does it say that "ALL creatures can attune items."  It only says that a creature can attune to an item by doing something with the item for an hour that is applicable such as weapon training or meditation.  It's up to interpretation on whether or not a given creature can attune to something.  

Time and time again the writers of the rules have said that something does exactly what it says it does, nothing more.  Interpreting the rules for the beast master to allow the beast to attune to items is well outside what the rules explicitly say and I have yet to read anything written by the writers or otherwise that suggests this is intended.  If you're a DM and allow it, or a player and your DM allows it, good for you.  However, that is an interpretation that is not explicitly backed up by any rules.

“I think this interpretation is very generous.  The ability says "within 1 mile", which means between 0 and 5280 feet.  Not, 0 and any number between 1 and 5280.  It also doesn't do anything but what it says it does.  You cannot find the number or location of them by using this ability.  It does not work with Natural Explorer or Favored Enemy the way you are describing unless you can find a trail of them.  If you find a trail, you can track them with advantage, and determine the number, size, and time since they passed through.  You may be able to use these abilities to determine where they might be or might be headed, but that is not explicit in the description of these abilities.  Changing the ability in the way you describe is fine, but that is outside what the explicit rules for the abilities are.”

My interpretation is the 1 mile is a set perimeter for any environment other than a favorite terrain, but the 1 mile is the minimum parameter if you are in your favored terrain, giving you a 1 mile to six mile range to choose from when you crack off the ability. I guess the rest depends on how the dungeon master and player interpret the other parts of these abilities, overland travel and survival rules in general, and the skills or abilities checks themselves. Yes. Primeval awareness tells you nothing beyond whether each of those specific creature types are or are not within the range of the ability, whatever that may be. I do think it, combined with either one or both of the other two abilities, favored terrain and favored enemy, make for a powerful combination. all of this depending on whether any of this is used or is important in a particular game. If there is no danger, mystery, or ticking clock present while traveling, time is, of course, of little importance. I know we agree on this point already. If you are on the side of "you have to find tracks before you can use them to track something", would that just be a perception or investigation check preceding a survival check? And wouldn't the ranger be fairly adept at those as well?

“Agreed.  Difficult terrain can make combat encounters very interesting.  The trouble is that it doesn’t really make travel more interesting being able to ignore this.  “You have to go slower here.  Except now you don’t.”  It might be good if it means you’re less likely to encounter problems or you can catch up to a quarry or outrun a chasing mob.  Lots of interesting options here but it is difficult to make this engaging.”

Yes. Without the travel being of any importance, travel is not important. This always makes me sad because many of my favorite movies, books, and stories feature the getting to point B from point A a very important part. The first three ranger abilities certainly suffer from whether or not they are utilized by a group, story, or dungeon master to some degree. I think all classes have something like this going for them. Fighters might be challenging or boring to play in a little combat story oriented game. Rogues might feel a little less useful campaign featuring a siege on a castle or on an open battlefield. 

”It would be wonderful if this is how it worked. I suppose you could spend a minute applying the camo and at some point later use it to gain the benefit.  I always interpreted it to be apply it now and get the benefit now.  It certainly seems to be the intent but who knows.  This does make it somewhat better, but it's not amazing even still.  Especially since you have access to pass without trace which would let your whole party gain this benefit which is much  more useful.”

I know there is a tweet from Jeremy Crawford a few years ago, I assume while eating dinner, where he lays out this ability as the more restrictive, boring, and useless interpretation. And Mike Mearls said you still need cover, even later n the evening several years before that. I haven’t seen that translated into official content yet, not even in the sage advice compendium. I just cannot bring myself to believe that, admittedly the most common opinion I see, interpretation of this ability is correct. it does nothing mechanically, and makes no sense from a “realistic“ perspective. I think of how circumstantial it would still be with my interpretation along with how to racial traits get it from the very beginning I can’t see it being interpreted any other way. I have played this with the "the two parts can happen with time passing in-between" and "you don't need cover with this ability just like the wood elf and halfling racial abilities" and it is a lot of fun and not game breaking in any way. Granted, that was just my experience. 

”I don’t really think “worst subclass in the game” is a good measuring stick.  Honestly, the four elements monk probably takes that reward.  I honestly can’t think of any other subclass that is worse though.  You’re right in the things you’re saying, but honestly compared to the other subclsses, this falls up crazy short unless you try to pull something gimmicky or exploit some unintended interaction with the rules.  Even then, the beast is going to die a lot even if your DM is nice to it.  You're right, the beast might be better than the ranger at grappling and that does give another option.  However, putting it up there in melee means the DM probably should be attacking it.  That basically is akin to putting a wizard with 10 Con up their in the thick of combat.  It's going to go down then you're going to be expending resources to try to get it back up.  When I compare it to the other subclasses, it just does not match up.”

The battle master is a very consistently brought up subclass for the fighter. The battle master gets a few uses of a situational affect, with a little added damage, maybe each combat. Like what? 4 to 6 uses each fight, assuming the dungeon master or situation allows them to rest between each encounter. (Which they shouldn’t.) And that is pretty much the subclass! No magical attacks. No added armor class. No additional target for the enemy. No additional hit points. Several of the beasts have their own little “effects”, so a Ranger is kind of locked in just one or two little battle master maneuver-like abilities, but I imagine they get to use that at least as often and as much as a battle master would in an average day. At higher levels there is a consistent damage boost too, which isn’t a big deal because that is built into the fighter base class. But most of all, the beast companion doubles down on all of the earlier "shitty" abilities the ranger has (that we all love!). Most of the animals are proficient in perception and several of them have advantage on certain types of perception checks giving them a very good chance to have the best in the entire party. The scout rogue has expertise in the survival skill! That is very good! A Ranger with a hawk or owl can have a perception check much higher than a rogue’s, and can make the check up in the air moving at 120 feet per round, at advantage! Beast sense is a wonderful little second level spell that allows the Ranger to use the senses of an animal. Now the Ranger is making perception, survival, and investigation checks based on sight and hearing through the animal either up in the air or off on its own. Can the find familiar spell do this? Of course! But again, if people think beast companions are “squishy“...

Sounds like we agree on most things and have a few little differences of opinions and a couple others.

I don't really think "worst subclass in the game" is a good measuring stick.  Honestly, the four elements monk probably takes that reward.  I honestly can't think of any other subclass that is worse though.  You're right in the things you're saying, but honestly compared to the other subclsses, this falls up crazy short unless you try to pull something gimmicky or exploit some unintended interaction with the rules.  Even then, the beast is going to die a lot even if your DM is nice to it.  You're right, the beast might be better than the ranger at grappling and that does give another option.  However, putting it up there in melee means the DM probably should be attacking it.  That basically is akin to putting a wizard with 10 Con up their in the thick of combat.  It's going to go down then you're going to be expending resources to try to get it back up.  When I compare it to the other subclasses, it just does not match up.

 I've always been curious as to how people judge why these classes and archetypes are the "worst" in the game. I mean, honestly, it probably comes down to straight damage potential. Which, to me, just means they're judging the classes and archetypes on a metric they're not necessarily intended to be judged on. And this means their biases are warping their own expectations as they fail to consider the intention of the designers.

And while it's fine to tailor your game to suit your own preferred style of play. We should all do that, and our DMs should be tailoring games to suit the classes at the table. Give barbarians something to smash, monks some stuff to do cool monk shite with, rangers something to track, and so forth. I don't think it's fine to deride or dismiss because you (not necessarily anyone here) don't care enough to properly understand what it is you're criticizing.

Quote from Jounichi1983 >>

I don't really think "worst subclass in the game" is a good measuring stick.  Honestly, the four elements monk probably takes that reward.  I honestly can't think of any other subclass that is worse though.  You're right in the things you're saying, but honestly compared to the other subclsses, this falls up crazy short unless you try to pull something gimmicky or exploit some unintended interaction with the rules.  Even then, the beast is going to die a lot even if your DM is nice to it.  You're right, the beast might be better than the ranger at grappling and that does give another option.  However, putting it up there in melee means the DM probably should be attacking it.  That basically is akin to putting a wizard with 10 Con up their in the thick of combat.  It's going to go down then you're going to be expending resources to try to get it back up.  When I compare it to the other subclasses, it just does not match up.

 I've always been curious as to how people judge why these classes and archetypes are the "worst" in the game. I mean, honestly, it probably comes down to straight damage potential. Which, to me, just means they're judging the classes and archetypes on a metric they're not necessarily intended to be judged on. And this means their biases are warping their own expectations as they fail to consider the intention of the designers.

And while it's fine to tailor your game to suit your own preferred style of play. We should all do that, and our DMs should be tailoring games to suit the classes at the table. Give barbarians something to smash, monks some stuff to do cool monk shite with, rangers something to track, and so forth. I don't think it's fine to deride or dismiss because you (not necessarily anyone here) don't care enough to properly understand what it is you're criticizing.

 I was with you until your last sentence.  This is a game with rules and mechanics.  Understanding those rules and mechanics leads a person to be able to look critically at a subclass, like the Beast Master, and say, "from a mechanics standpoint, that sucks compared to the other subclasses." 

I know full well it's not all about damage numbers.  It might be about social skills, healing and support, or exploration, or any number of other things.  The problem is that the beast master doesn't make the ranger better at any of those things.  In fact, depending on what choices you make you're actually even likely to be doing less damage from 3-10 having the pet attack.  So instead of something that makes you better in some aspect of the game, what you get is a squishy pet that doesn't do much damage and without it you're just a normal ranger with no subclass.  Because it's so easy to get it killed as I outlined already, you'll find yourself in that scenario unless the DM goes out of his or her way to not kill it.  A feature that the DM has to tiptoe around doesn't make for a good feature.  And when it dies, chances are pretty good you'll have to find a new one and that may or may not be possible during that particular session.  "Hold on guys, we have to leave the dungeon so I can go spend 8+ hours getting a new pet."  It's immersion breaking and not fun.  So the ranger probably just finishes the dungeon without any subclass features.  I DMed for a beast master a while back and I was constantly knocking it down without wanting to.  She got frustrated with it going down every fight and I got frustrated trying to design encounters that would challenge the party but not knock down the pet constantly.  Every time it got downed she'd have to spend an action and spell slot healing it just for it to not be useful in combat and then get downed again.  There were times where instead of attacking it, which is what made the most sense, I'd just have an enemy run away from it for no other reason than to no kill it again.  Compelling gameplay...  That was my experience anyway and it's clearly anecdotal.  However, it is indicative of the issues facing the subclass.

All that said, mechanics be damned.  If someone likes the beast master and either doesn't see it's shortcomings or can ignore them and still have fun then it's successful in at least that much.  When I say it's bad, it isn't to deride or dismiss someone else's enjoyment.  It's mostly because I enjoy discourse and debate and see the ranger as unjustly criticized for the glaring shortcomings of one of its subclasses.

Was this before the errata that allows the animal companion to use the Dodge action if not commanded to do something else? I would think that attacking a dodging animal companion would not be the optimal use of the enemy’s attacks. 

Quote from 01011000Lehrer >>

Quote from Jounichi1983 >>

I don't really think "worst subclass in the game" is a good measuring stick.  Honestly, the four elements monk probably takes that reward.  I honestly can't think of any other subclass that is worse though.  You're right in the things you're saying, but honestly compared to the other subclsses, this falls up crazy short unless you try to pull something gimmicky or exploit some unintended interaction with the rules.  Even then, the beast is going to die a lot even if your DM is nice to it.  You're right, the beast might be better than the ranger at grappling and that does give another option.  However, putting it up there in melee means the DM probably should be attacking it.  That basically is akin to putting a wizard with 10 Con up their in the thick of combat.  It's going to go down then you're going to be expending resources to try to get it back up.  When I compare it to the other subclasses, it just does not match up.

 I've always been curious as to how people judge why these classes and archetypes are the "worst" in the game. I mean, honestly, it probably comes down to straight damage potential. Which, to me, just means they're judging the classes and archetypes on a metric they're not necessarily intended to be judged on. And this means their biases are warping their own expectations as they fail to consider the intention of the designers.

And while it's fine to tailor your game to suit your own preferred style of play. We should all do that, and our DMs should be tailoring games to suit the classes at the table. Give barbarians something to smash, monks some stuff to do cool monk shite with, rangers something to track, and so forth. I don't think it's fine to deride or dismiss because you (not necessarily anyone here) don't care enough to properly understand what it is you're criticizing.

 I was with you until your last sentence.  This is a game with rules and mechanics.  Understanding those rules and mechanics leads a person to be able to look critically at a subclass, like the Beast Master, and say, "from a mechanics standpoint, that sucks compared to the other subclasses." 

I know full well it's not all about damage numbers.  It might be about social skills, healing and support, or exploration, or any number of other things.  The problem is that the beast master doesn't make the ranger better at any of those things.  In fact, depending on what choices you make you're actually even likely to be doing less damage from 3-10 having the pet attack.  So instead of something that makes you better in some aspect of the game, what you get is a squishy pet that doesn't do much damage and without it you're just a normal ranger with no subclass.  Because it's so easy to get it killed as I outlined already, you'll find yourself in that scenario unless the DM goes out of his or her way to not kill it.  A feature that the DM has to tiptoe around doesn't make for a good feature.  And when it dies, chances are pretty good you'll have to find a new one and that may or may not be possible during that particular session.  "Hold on guys, we have to leave the dungeon so I can go spend 8+ hours getting a new pet."  It's immersion breaking and not fun.  So the ranger probably just finishes the dungeon without any subclass features.  I DMed for a beast master a while back and I was constantly knocking it down without wanting to.  She got frustrated with it going down every fight and I got frustrated trying to design encounters that would challenge the party but not knock down the pet constantly.  Every time it got downed she'd have to spend an action and spell slot healing it just for it to not be useful in combat and then get downed again.  There were times where instead of attacking it, which is what made the most sense, I'd just have an enemy run away from it for no other reason than to no kill it again.  Compelling gameplay...  That was my experience anyway and it's clearly anecdotal.  However, it is indicative of the issues facing the subclass.

 

All that said, mechanics be damned.  If someone likes the beast master and either doesn't see it's shortcomings or can ignore them and still have fun then it's successful in at least that much.  When I say it's bad, it isn't to deride or dismiss someone else's enjoyment.  It's mostly because I enjoy discourse and debate and see the ranger as unjustly criticized for the glaring shortcomings of one of its subclasses.

 I'd like to apologize in advance if any of this comes off...badly. I'm a little sleep deprived after some late-night heartburn, so I'm up with chewable antacids.

I'm going to have to disagree with some of this. If you think an animal companion with Keen Senses, an alternative method of locomotion, or even just something big enough for a small character to ride can't help out with combat, exploration, or even just support the party in some other way then I think you're not giving them enough credit. Most beasts start off fairly strong, around CR 1, drop off a little bit in Tier 2 (which is why they Exceptional Training at Ranger 7), and finish at CR 5. A scant few, like the pony and giant poisonous snake, can get as high as CR 6. They're squishy, but they can hit hard. (On average, they're as tough as Elementals and the strongest forms a Circle of the Moon druid can take.) This makes them glass cannons. They should be protected, not merely left to their own devices. 

Knowing and understanding their role in the party is essential. Many have support and control abilities. The wolf and blood hawk have Pack Tactics. The giant crab automatically grapples eligible targets, reducing their speed to 0, and can reposition them if need be. They get huge power spikes at Ranger 11 (Multiattack) and 15 (Share Spells). Using Pass without Trace to stealthily split the party, since both ranger and companion produce an aura, to catch the enemy camp in a pincer move is awesome. Casting Conjure Barrage at two points of origin with just one spell slot is a feat of spell-twinning no sorcerer can ever hope to reproduce with metamagic. As a subclass, beast master is tactical in a way that hunter, and most martials, simply aren't. It requires thinking differently than, I think, a fair number of players, and most theory-crafters, do.

I've seen rangers played to high levels and I've done it myself. Not even six months ago I ran a game for a party of three, one of whom was a beast master with a wolf. Most enemy mook attacks didn't land because it had barding. AoE spells were a problem, but I can count the number of times it went down on one hand. It didn't die until the penultimate fight in the campaign when the dragon rolled really well with its breath weapon and just killed it instantly. We had a touching funeral after the dungeon was cleared. It was nice.

And this is just me talking about an archetype. I haven't even really touched on some of your base class ratings. Some things you call bad without seeing their potential. You call Primal Awareness situational, but so is Extra Attack. That won't help in social encounters or when trying to solve a puzzle. Everything on the character sheet is situational because they won't always come up or be relevant. And this goes for every class. As far as criticisms go, calling any feature "situational" is inane. Here's another example: Hide in Plain Sight means the ranger doesn't need something to hide behind to use Dexterity (Stealth). If they're a wood elf, they don't even light obscurement. If there are limited spots in the area, it frees one up for another party member to use. It's evocative of movies like Predator. And it stacks with Pass without Trace, if need be. It's cool and does a lot, and the most you had to say was, "It could be useful I suppose."

Harkening back to my previous post, players should be looking for opportunities to do cool shite with their characters. And DMs should be looking for ways to let their players do cool shite with their characters. And while you acknowledge and agree with this sentiment, you don't really advocate for it in your guide. And you really should be. Because what I see is an evaluation in a vacuum; divorced from practical knowledge and experience. Or, at the very least, colored by biases that are not acknowledged. It may make some valid points, but it's also a poor argument in favor of the class' potential. And, arguably, doesn't even attempt at that. For all your talk of the ranger being, "unjustly criticized for the glaring shortcomings of one of its subclasses," I don't see any of this as you going to bat for it.

 I'd like to apologize in advance if any of this comes off...badly. I'm a little sleep deprived after some late-night heartburn, so I'm up with chewable antacids.

I'm looking at this as objectively as I can.  I may have missed the mark and had a preexisting bias cloud my judgement but I don't think so.  If I failed at "going to bat" for the class, then where I failed is not being explicit enough in where I think the class shines.  I'll put it succinctly.  It's a half caster with access to some very good spells.  The spell list has some good damage spells, a few good control spells, a few situational social spells, and a few spells to help in exploration.  All around a good mix.  It's a very good martial class that succeeds in being a solid damage dealer.  It can tank although I don't think that's its biggest strength due to lacking plate armor, having any type of resistance mechanic, or having any real means of keeping the enemies attention.  It's exceptionally good (situationally depending on terrain and tracking target) at exploration.  It has very limited social abilities, spells, and skills that focus on beasts or plants but in the right situation that's useful.  I think the ranger is a good class.  I think the ranger suffers needlessly from having to choose favored terrain and enemy.  These are fun mechanics but if the wrong choices are made then they're wasted.  There are some good options for subclasses that augment ranger abilities.  Gloomstalker and Horizon walker are my two favorites mechanically.  I think the beast master has some serious issues, most notably damage in  levels 3-10 and general survivability of the beast.

I really think you're giving the ranger's beast a little too much credit in comparing them to CR5 elementals.  At 20, the wolf (for example) is doing 2d4+8 damage (2 attacks, average 26) and has a DC 11 str save or knock a target prone.  It also can attack using pact tactics.  It has 80 hit points and an AC of 19.  This probably most directly compares to the Earth Elemental (because the other elementals have other features that don't really compare).  The Earth Elemental has 126 hit points and an AC of 17.  It's also has resistances to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage while also immune to poison.  It deals 2d8+5 damage (2 attacks, average 28).  Not an awful comparison except the hit points are 50% higher for the elemental and has resistances.  If we look at Fire Elemental, the damage tilts fairly heavily in the fire elemental's favor, the AC is a fair amount less while the HP is still a fair amount higher.  It has the same resistances as the earth elemental and is also immune to fire.  I'd personally rate the elementals higher than the ranger's wolf though.  I don't think this is an awful comparison until we start talking about it in terms of the Moon Druid.  I'm not crazy about the comparison because the features are SO different and come about at very different times.  The druid for example at 20 can just simply pop back into the elemental form if it drops on the next turn using a bonus action.   The ranger has to spend another 8+ hours replacing the pet if it drops.  My biggest issue is that at level 20, the party is going to be fighting some serious monsters and the ranger's pet is less able to survive attack than an equal level wizard with 10 constitution and far fewer spells or defensive options.

Whether you're crazy about the comparison or not, the math checks out. The wolf is CR 5 at 20th level. And, unlike the elementals, it's attacks count as magical. And a pony (CR 1/8) at 20th level with plate armor barding is CR 6.

I can agree with the power spike at 11 and 15 but Conjure Barrage doesn't work with the Share Spells feature.  That feature only works on spells that target the ranger.  It doesn't say with a range of self.  The target for that spell is creatures in a cone originating from self.  It's different from a technical perspective.  Even if this worked, it would fall under gimmicky and an unintended manipulation of the rules that I am trying to avoid.  A feature shouldn't need weird and unintended rule interactions in order to be good.  If anything, if this did work as far as the rules were concerned, it would just be another example of how poorly thought out this subclass is.  If Crawford comes out and says that is how it's intended to work then it is obviously a big bump to the beast master but I won't hold my breath.  As it is, Share Spells is a fairly good feature.  There aren't a ton of spells at the ranger's disposal that it does work with but the ones that are there are good.

I realize it requires thinking differently to put the pet to good use, especially at the highest levels.  I still have the issue of how hard it is to keep it alive and how punishing it is when it dies.  It's basically a wizard with 10 con that doesn't have any defensive spells or abilities and most CR 1/4 beasts are front line combatants.  One other thing worth mentioning is that the DC for the control abilities for beasts never increases so those types of abilities become less and less useful.

Yes, some of their control abilities get less useful as they level. The giant crab's might not last more than one round, but it is automatic. I even factored the low DC of the giant poisonous snake's venom into my analysis, and it's still CR 6. And the spell combination does, in fact, work. Crawford said so 5 years ago, and as far as I can tell he hasn't walked it back. Which means, if a ranger wanted magic initiate, they could get a lot of interesting spells that can work with it.

Primeval Awareness requires the DM to be on board and I guess I didn't mention how the DM should get on board.  But honestly how useful is this interaction?  PC: "Are there any undead within 1 mile?"  DM: "Yes".  Ok now what?  You don't know where they are.  You don't know how many.  How does that change what you're going to do?  How does that help you find the place or creature you're trying to find?  The player just spent a spell slot to learn that they're in the right 1 mile radius sphere.  They could move a mile and try again to see if they're still in the right area and begin triangulating the position of their quarry for another spell slot.  Honestly, I like puzzles like that and don't hate this as a possible solution.  It is very situational though.  Hence the rating.

A mile is 20 minutes by foot, assuming the terrain isn't difficult. It lets you know what threats are in the area and that they're close by.