I'm still upset there's no ruins terrain types. The dungeon and ruins terrains may seem silly, but rangers are more likely than not to encounter the ruins of an ancient civilization buried in a forest. They are, explorers after all, and that's the damned "skill" they gain terrain knowledge under.
The Scout subclass for Rogue should be moved to ranger. (and the Bard's new Dance subclass is too damned close to being a Rogue archetype.)
The ranger still fails for flavor, but feel it has more to do with its proficiencies and the skills that game tends to favor. 5-e is a charisma favorable version whereas in previous editions, Charisma was a dump stat. The player base also just favors role playing over tactics. (personally, I'm one of them). Ranger is a class more styled to survival/hex crawl play.
The best way to give rangers more play is to boost support for these styles of play or incorporate them more into modules. (I need more fey content also, so if someone's listening....)
I'm still upset there's no ruins terrain types. The dungeon and ruins terrains may seem silly, but rangers are more likely than not to encounter the ruins of an ancient civilization buried in a forest. They are, explorers after all, and that's the damned "skill" they gain terrain knowledge ...
The original phb design allowed for "ruins" and "city" environments to be included as part of the surrounding terrain.
I'm very happy with the current ranger. Instead of being a mess of useless ribbons like 2014 or being functional yet a bit bland like Tasha's, we now have a version that is a true wilderness expert, including being the Best at Tracking (Expertise + Terrain Advantage + divinations), great at combat (Martial weapons + fighting style + weapon mastery), and great at scouting (Roving + Tireless + Nature's Veil). And all of that is before we get to the subclasses. It's right where I want it to be.
I agree with this. It isn’t bad at all. I would like to see Find familiar added to the primal list because it makes sense and I’d like to see the cantrips restored, maybe conjured barrage combined with the other similar spell as a level up instead of wasting two spots for basically the same spell. My big issue continues to be with Beast Master. They had a good thing going with the drake warden that was a really good step in the right direction and then they went back to Tasha’s thing. I still strongly agree that your beast should level up and grow as you do, meaning size, power, and ability. I don’t know why exactly you can’t summon a creature you can ride as a medium creature but I feel like you should be able to. The other option if not a little crazier would be beast master allowing the summoning of multiple creatures that you can control. Lastly, they got rid of the generic stat blocks for the Druid, why can’t they do the same for the ranger? It’s not difficult.
I was just thinking of ways to improve this. (Mostly Beast Master). After rereading this, what they have for Beast Master isn’t too bad. But I do have ideas to improve it.
1. Give them prepared spells such as Find Familiar, Speak with Animals and Locate Animals at level 3. Stuff like that for roll playing purposes so the class isn’t strictly all about combat. Maybe even Find Steed (simply for the fact the a beast master should be the best beast summoner.) 2. Allow your beast to grow to large size at level 7, maybe huge size at 11, and Find Greater Steed. 3. Summon two beasts at level 14.
As for the ranger itself, I’ve seen a few people say things like the ranger should have abilities that help the party. I 100% agree with this. Why not have Hunter’s Mark be useful to all players besides just the ranger? Such as give the rest of the party bonuses for the hunter’s mark being active or aura type abilities like the paladin that give the party bonuses for being within a certain amount of feet from the ranger? Such as while while within a certain amount of feet the ranger negates difficult terrain or has advantage on dex saving throws or being poisoned or something like that. I just think the experts seem to be like the support class, so the ranger should be able to be supportive as well instead of simply just a combat machine.
You're crazy, Beast Master is already the highest DPR, most tanky, and best utility ranger subclass available. They get 4 attacks per turn at level 7, the beast is proficient in every skill, and the beast has hit points comparable to a Wizard/Sorcerer and can be regenerated entirely for the cost of a single first level spell.
You're crazy, Beast Master is already the highest DPR, most tanky, and best utility ranger subclass available. They get 4 attacks per turn at level 7, the beast is proficient in every skill, and the beast has hit points comparable to a Wizard/Sorcerer and can be regenerated entirely for the cost of a single first level spell.
I can see where I’d be crazy. I’m often considered that. Anyway, In regards to combat I guess that’s alright, I was just thinking it would be logical to have the changes like the size thing and the spell so that you wouldn’t just have to be a small creature to ride your beast and the Speak with animals because it makes sense with the class. As for Find Familiar, I guess you could use your beast for that if you wanted to, just saying you still wouldn’t have any more attacks in this case since you have to use your bonus action anyway, so it stays the same just with a size option and multiple option. I thought it would be more thematic.
Aye the Beast Ranger is definitely strong now and can actually get 4 attacks as early as level 5 with TWF & Nick (attack, extra attack, offhand attack, bonus action beast attack). Up to 5 attacks at level 11!
It would be nice if the creature could grow to Large at level 7 to enable that mounted ranger fantasy but that's just a desirable extra.
I do, however, agree that every ranger Subclass should get prepared spells like the TCoE subclasses (and every other half-caster subclass). I'm frankly surprised they didn't bring Beast Master and Hunter in line in the latest version. Something like the following:
Beast Master: Speak with Animals, Beast Sense, Conjure Animals, Dominate Beast, Commune with Nature.
Hunter: Snare, Cordon of Arrows, Pass Without Trace, Locate Creature, Hold Monster.
Aye the Beast Ranger is definitely strong now and can actually get 4 attacks as early as level 5 with TWF & Nick (attack, extra attack, offhand attack, bonus action beast attack). Up to 5 attacks at level 11!
It would be nice if the creature could grow to Large at level 7 to enable that mounted ranger fantasy but that's just a desirable extra.
I do, however, agree that every ranger Subclass should get prepared spells like the TCoE subclasses (and every other half-caster subclass). I'm frankly surprised they didn't bring Beast Master and Hunter in line in the latest version. Something like the following:
Beast Master: Speak with Animals, Beast Sense, Conjure Animals, Dominate Beast, Commune with Nature.
Hunter: Snare, Cordon of Arrows, Pass Without Trace, Locate Creature, Hold Monster.
Exactly, that’s all this crazy person is saying. I get that it’s not favorable in dungeons and all but then it’s not favorable for paladins either. I’d, at least, just like the option. That way, you could fill the raising beast fantasy like Pokémon or Danerys from Game of Thrones.
I do like your choice of spells, though, they make sense. I would figure that a Beast Master would be able to have a connection and speak with beasts or get them to do their bidding or lead them into battle like Antman or the character Beast Master. Your choices for Hunter are really good too. All in all, I like the class, I just think these small additions would fill in what it’s missing.
So this may be controversial, but rangers too me are supposed to be masters of the terrain, not masters of SPECIFIC terrains. It is what made the old one and it is still dumb now. From the previous one you are losing a skill expertise to gain advantage on nature checks "about those terrains" so if it is a creature or anything else no advantage. And survival checks to TRACK in THAT terrain, no foraging or anything else just tracking. Later you give a total of 2 skill expertise for no real additional benefit because 2 additional terrains when you can change the terrains on a long rest is meaningless.
Just put back expertise and then also give things like, can't be lost except by magical means, while traveling overland your party ignores difficult terrain, when foraging for food you find double the amount. Regardless of the terrain type, just let it work. Hell advantage on all nature checks related to terrain why not.
Why do we need conjure barrage AND conjure Volley, they both fulfill the same role within the same fantasy. Feels like 2 features and spells that should just be one.
Or, if we're masters of specific terrain, have that mastery be applicable in other circumstances.
So, if I'm a ranger that's at ease in arctic conditions, I might be better able to deal with slippery circumstances, instances where I could lose my footing, or being pushed/shoved around.
And, if I'm good at that, what are the odds that my knowledge/savvy could translate into something that could affect my allies too?
Sure, all of the above is circumstancial, but if you add in spells tied to the terrain (similar to the Circle of the Land druid) and perhaps a mean to convey Cold resistance to one/or many allies as a reaction... and you could have tangible bonuses that make you the specialist in those select circumstances.
The problem with 2nd/3rd edition rangers was that their favored enemy feature narrowed them down too specifically against those choices. And nothing of those choices was transferable to any other creature. then that flavor was given up, and mostly replaced in 4th edition by the Striker feature of Hunter's Mark. Which is now a spell, because.
The Hunter subclass tried a different, more universal approach... but the problem is that the Hunter subclass was watered down and was separate from the core ranger.
The Ranger needs an offensive feature as pivotal as Paladin's Smite, Inspiring Word or Cunning Strike; and a defensive feature around the same vein of usefulness as Aura of Protection. Ideally without copying, and even better if it stacks together well.
Totally agree the whole i'm a arctic ranger thing was always a bad idea. Just give the flat abilities past what a normal skill roll would allow in all terrains/environments that fit the ranger theme.
I kind of think that is what most experts should be doing though. It is not expertise in stealth that is rogue like its the ability to do it as a bonus action. Give the ranger abilities that level up in this regard, same with the rogue. Let a 20th level ranger forage up enough food to feed an army, find food where no food should exist. Let rogues hide in plain sight. Let bards charm people with words.
The Ranger needs an offensive feature as pivotal as Paladin's Smite, Inspiring Word or Cunning Strike; and a defensive feature around the same vein of usefulness as Aura of Protection. Ideally without copying, and even better if it stacks together well.
Hunters Mark should not be a spell but a class ability. Balance it to however many uses per day is built in. If its effectively always on the current hunters mark might work as is just without concentration, its a hunters stance usable 4 times a day each time lasting an hour or whatever. But maybe it could be something like Hunters Quarry, the ranger harries an enemy as long as they land a blow on the enemy until the beginning of their next turn the target has -1(scaling to -5) to their AC, can reduce saves for the same amount x times a day. They themselves would not gain a massive boost in power but they would support the party and let them hit more often.
The Ranger needs an offensive feature as pivotal as Paladin's Smite, Inspiring Word or Cunning Strike; and a defensive feature around the same vein of usefulness as Aura of Protection. Ideally without copying, and even better if it stacks together well.
Hunters Mark should not be a spell but a class ability. Balance it to however many uses per day is built in. If its effectively always on the current hunters mark might work as is just without concentration, its a hunters stance usable 4 times a day each time lasting an hour or whatever. But maybe it could be something like Hunters Quarry, the ranger harries an enemy as long as they land a blow on the enemy until the beginning of their next turn the target has -1(scaling to -5) to their AC, can reduce saves for the same amount x times a day. They themselves would not gain a massive boost in power but they would support the party and let them hit more often.
If the Ranger wants to support their party and help them hit more often they should cast Faerie Fire or Entangle.
Totally agree the whole i'm a arctic ranger thing was always a bad idea. Just give the flat abilities past what a normal skill roll would allow in all terrains/environments that fit the ranger theme.
I kind of think that is what most experts should be doing though. It is not expertise in stealth that is rogue like its the ability to do it as a bonus action. Give the ranger abilities that level up in this regard, same with the rogue. Let a 20th level ranger forage up enough food to feed an army, find food where no food should exist. Let rogues hide in plain sight. Let bards charm people with words.
Who cares if they can forage enough food to feed an army? A whole army is going to have many rangers in it, and the ability to carry the food they need with them. Who cares if they can find food where none exists? The Goodberry spell that is now available to all rangers allows them to magically conjure food for 10 creatures with only 1x 1st level spell slot.
The problem isn't that there weren't enough flavourful mechanics attached to Ranger, it's that 90% of tables didn't ever use those abilities.
But maybe it could be something like Hunters Quarry, the ranger harries an enemy as long as they land a blow on the enemy until the beginning of their next turn the target has -1(scaling to -5) to their AC, can reduce saves for the same amount x times a day. They themselves would not gain a massive boost in power but they would support the party and let them hit more often.
I think that's a fantastic idea.
Though I'd tie numerical values to success as a feature tied to the Bard (and the different variations of subclass Bardic Inspiration variants), no doubt this Hunter's Quarry would be valued.
Personally, I think a damage bonus tied to proficiency bonus, per hit, per party member able to benefit from this Hunter's Quarry feature could be the baseline since its distinct from Bardic Inpsiration. Then, it would be a driver for one of the features the Ranger could convey. "Guys, if you hit my quarry, not only do you deal extra damage, but you also get a chance to knock it prone/remove its reaction/prevent it from healing" or some such.
A party fighting a red dragon could have the ranger alternate between a mark that would hinder the Dragon's multiattacking/impede movement (no flying)/waste its stored breath weapon until it recharges. If the Ranger's terrain is mountains, perhaps it comes with ways to help travers rough terrain and to convey a reaction that briefly gives party-wide resistance to fire damage.
How the hell would that not be a guy that looks good at fighting monsters and expert at dealing with dangers/hazards while being super-useful to have along while not stealing the thunder from anyone else?
Expertise in Survival to collect food, and travel faster... that just scratches the surface of what's possible.
Totally agree the whole i'm a arctic ranger thing was always a bad idea. Just give the flat abilities past what a normal skill roll would allow in all terrains/environments that fit the ranger theme.
I kind of think that is what most experts should be doing though. It is not expertise in stealth that is rogue like its the ability to do it as a bonus action. Give the ranger abilities that level up in this regard, same with the rogue. Let a 20th level ranger forage up enough food to feed an army, find food where no food should exist. Let rogues hide in plain sight. Let bards charm people with words.
Who cares if they can forage enough food to feed an army? A whole army is going to have many rangers in it, and the ability to carry the food they need with them. Who cares if they can find food where none exists? The Goodberry spell that is now available to all rangers allows them to magically conjure food for 10 creatures with only 1x 1st level spell slot.
The problem isn't that there weren't enough flavourful mechanics attached to Ranger, it's that 90% of tables didn't ever use those abilities.
The Ranger needs an offensive feature as pivotal as Paladin's Smite, Inspiring Word or Cunning Strike; and a defensive feature around the same vein of usefulness as Aura of Protection. Ideally without copying, and even better if it stacks together well.
Hunters Mark should not be a spell but a class ability. Balance it to however many uses per day is built in. If its effectively always on the current hunters mark might work as is just without concentration, its a hunters stance usable 4 times a day each time lasting an hour or whatever. But maybe it could be something like Hunters Quarry, the ranger harries an enemy as long as they land a blow on the enemy until the beginning of their next turn the target has -1(scaling to -5) to their AC, can reduce saves for the same amount x times a day. They themselves would not gain a massive boost in power but they would support the party and let them hit more often.
If the Ranger wants to support their party and help them hit more often they should cast Faerie Fire or Entangle.
Or have abilities to enhance that outside of their spells as well.
For me a Ranger is an expert at outdoors, like tracking and survival, and good at fighting, but with no need to be better than the Fighter.
- All those delcared-enemy-with-no-reason stuff is a non-sense that I don’t know where did it come from.
- Specific terrains? No, outdoors. Need to get advantages for outdoors
Also needs mobility, so the best fit is up to medium armor without shield.
About combat, good and efficient, but IMO all that stuff around the Hunter’s Mark is getting annoying and even generating obsesion on people. The Ranger should be good at combat, but damn not everything concerning the Rander must be around the Hunter’s Mark thing.
The Paladin should be something better in combat than Ranger, as it doesn’t get the Expertise abilities, for when balancing the capabilities,
"Guys, if you hit my quarry, not only do you deal extra damage, but you also get a chance to knock it prone/remove its reaction/prevent it from healing" or some such.
And then the Ranger will feel useless when the rest of the party ignore them and attack other creatures instead.
Or have abilities to enhance that outside of their spells as well.
Then take away their spellcasting, if you don't want them to use it to do ranger-y things. Make them a rogue x fighter hybrid with some always-on abilities for tracking that will get used 1/campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm still upset there's no ruins terrain types. The dungeon and ruins terrains may seem silly, but rangers are more likely than not to encounter the ruins of an ancient civilization buried in a forest. They are, explorers after all, and that's the damned "skill" they gain terrain knowledge under.
The Scout subclass for Rogue should be moved to ranger. (and the Bard's new Dance subclass is too damned close to being a Rogue archetype.)
The ranger still fails for flavor, but feel it has more to do with its proficiencies and the skills that game tends to favor. 5-e is a charisma favorable version whereas in previous editions, Charisma was a dump stat. The player base also just favors role playing over tactics. (personally, I'm one of them). Ranger is a class more styled to survival/hex crawl play.
The best way to give rangers more play is to boost support for these styles of play or incorporate them more into modules. (I need more fey content also, so if someone's listening....)
The original phb design allowed for "ruins" and "city" environments to be included as part of the surrounding terrain.
I was just thinking of ways to improve this. (Mostly Beast Master). After rereading this, what they have for Beast Master isn’t too bad. But I do have ideas to improve it.
1. Give them prepared spells such as Find Familiar, Speak with Animals and Locate Animals at level 3. Stuff like that for roll playing purposes so the class isn’t strictly all about combat. Maybe even Find Steed (simply for the fact the a beast master should be the best beast summoner.)
2. Allow your beast to grow to large size at level 7, maybe huge size at 11, and Find Greater Steed.
3. Summon two beasts at level 14.
As for the ranger itself, I’ve seen a few people say things like the ranger should have abilities that help the party. I 100% agree with this. Why not have Hunter’s Mark be useful to all players besides just the ranger? Such as give the rest of the party bonuses for the hunter’s mark being active or aura type abilities like the paladin that give the party bonuses for being within a certain amount of feet from the ranger? Such as while while within a certain amount of feet the ranger negates difficult terrain or has advantage on dex saving throws or being poisoned or something like that. I just think the experts seem to be like the support class, so the ranger should be able to be supportive as well instead of simply just a combat machine.
You're crazy, Beast Master is already the highest DPR, most tanky, and best utility ranger subclass available. They get 4 attacks per turn at level 7, the beast is proficient in every skill, and the beast has hit points comparable to a Wizard/Sorcerer and can be regenerated entirely for the cost of a single first level spell.
I can see where I’d be crazy. I’m often considered that. Anyway, In regards to combat I guess that’s alright, I was just thinking it would be logical to have the changes like the size thing and the spell so that you wouldn’t just have to be a small creature to ride your beast and the Speak with animals because it makes sense with the class. As for Find Familiar, I guess you could use your beast for that if you wanted to, just saying you still wouldn’t have any more attacks in this case since you have to use your bonus action anyway, so it stays the same just with a size option and multiple option. I thought it would be more thematic.
Aye the Beast Ranger is definitely strong now and can actually get 4 attacks as early as level 5 with TWF & Nick (attack, extra attack, offhand attack, bonus action beast attack). Up to 5 attacks at level 11!
It would be nice if the creature could grow to Large at level 7 to enable that mounted ranger fantasy but that's just a desirable extra.
I do, however, agree that every ranger Subclass should get prepared spells like the TCoE subclasses (and every other half-caster subclass). I'm frankly surprised they didn't bring Beast Master and Hunter in line in the latest version. Something like the following:
Beast Master: Speak with Animals, Beast Sense, Conjure Animals, Dominate Beast, Commune with Nature.
Hunter: Snare, Cordon of Arrows, Pass Without Trace, Locate Creature, Hold Monster.
Exactly, that’s all this crazy person is saying. I get that it’s not favorable in dungeons and all but then it’s not favorable for paladins either. I’d, at least, just like the option. That way, you could fill the raising beast fantasy like Pokémon or Danerys from Game of Thrones.
I do like your choice of spells, though, they make sense. I would figure that a Beast Master would be able to have a connection and speak with beasts or get them to do their bidding or lead them into battle like Antman or the character Beast Master.
Your choices for Hunter are really good too.
All in all, I like the class, I just think these small additions would fill in what it’s missing.
So this may be controversial, but rangers too me are supposed to be masters of the terrain, not masters of SPECIFIC terrains. It is what made the old one and it is still dumb now. From the previous one you are losing a skill expertise to gain advantage on nature checks "about those terrains" so if it is a creature or anything else no advantage. And survival checks to TRACK in THAT terrain, no foraging or anything else just tracking. Later you give a total of 2 skill expertise for no real additional benefit because 2 additional terrains when you can change the terrains on a long rest is meaningless.
Just put back expertise and then also give things like, can't be lost except by magical means, while traveling overland your party ignores difficult terrain, when foraging for food you find double the amount. Regardless of the terrain type, just let it work. Hell advantage on all nature checks related to terrain why not.
Why do we need conjure barrage AND conjure Volley, they both fulfill the same role within the same fantasy. Feels like 2 features and spells that should just be one.
Or, if we're masters of specific terrain, have that mastery be applicable in other circumstances.
So, if I'm a ranger that's at ease in arctic conditions, I might be better able to deal with slippery circumstances, instances where I could lose my footing, or being pushed/shoved around.
And, if I'm good at that, what are the odds that my knowledge/savvy could translate into something that could affect my allies too?
Sure, all of the above is circumstancial, but if you add in spells tied to the terrain (similar to the Circle of the Land druid) and perhaps a mean to convey Cold resistance to one/or many allies as a reaction... and you could have tangible bonuses that make you the specialist in those select circumstances.
The problem with 2nd/3rd edition rangers was that their favored enemy feature narrowed them down too specifically against those choices. And nothing of those choices was transferable to any other creature. then that flavor was given up, and mostly replaced in 4th edition by the Striker feature of Hunter's Mark. Which is now a spell, because.
The Hunter subclass tried a different, more universal approach... but the problem is that the Hunter subclass was watered down and was separate from the core ranger.
The Ranger needs an offensive feature as pivotal as Paladin's Smite, Inspiring Word or Cunning Strike; and a defensive feature around the same vein of usefulness as Aura of Protection. Ideally without copying, and even better if it stacks together well.
Totally agree the whole i'm a arctic ranger thing was always a bad idea. Just give the flat abilities past what a normal skill roll would allow in all terrains/environments that fit the ranger theme.
I kind of think that is what most experts should be doing though. It is not expertise in stealth that is rogue like its the ability to do it as a bonus action. Give the ranger abilities that level up in this regard, same with the rogue. Let a 20th level ranger forage up enough food to feed an army, find food where no food should exist. Let rogues hide in plain sight. Let bards charm people with words.
Hunters Mark should not be a spell but a class ability. Balance it to however many uses per day is built in. If its effectively always on the current hunters mark might work as is just without concentration, its a hunters stance usable 4 times a day each time lasting an hour or whatever. But maybe it could be something like Hunters Quarry, the ranger harries an enemy as long as they land a blow on the enemy until the beginning of their next turn the target has -1(scaling to -5) to their AC, can reduce saves for the same amount x times a day. They themselves would not gain a massive boost in power but they would support the party and let them hit more often.
If the Ranger wants to support their party and help them hit more often they should cast Faerie Fire or Entangle.
Who cares if they can forage enough food to feed an army? A whole army is going to have many rangers in it, and the ability to carry the food they need with them.
Who cares if they can find food where none exists? The Goodberry spell that is now available to all rangers allows them to magically conjure food for 10 creatures with only 1x 1st level spell slot.
The problem isn't that there weren't enough flavourful mechanics attached to Ranger, it's that 90% of tables didn't ever use those abilities.
That is precisely why Goodberry is my most hated spell and I disliked a lot of the 2014 Ranger features.
They tried to make the Ranger good at a pillar of play by completely removing the interaction with that pillar.
I think that's a fantastic idea.
Though I'd tie numerical values to success as a feature tied to the Bard (and the different variations of subclass Bardic Inspiration variants), no doubt this Hunter's Quarry would be valued.
Personally, I think a damage bonus tied to proficiency bonus, per hit, per party member able to benefit from this Hunter's Quarry feature could be the baseline since its distinct from Bardic Inpsiration. Then, it would be a driver for one of the features the Ranger could convey. "Guys, if you hit my quarry, not only do you deal extra damage, but you also get a chance to knock it prone/remove its reaction/prevent it from healing" or some such.
A party fighting a red dragon could have the ranger alternate between a mark that would hinder the Dragon's multiattacking/impede movement (no flying)/waste its stored breath weapon until it recharges. If the Ranger's terrain is mountains, perhaps it comes with ways to help travers rough terrain and to convey a reaction that briefly gives party-wide resistance to fire damage.
How the hell would that not be a guy that looks good at fighting monsters and expert at dealing with dangers/hazards while being super-useful to have along while not stealing the thunder from anyone else?
Expertise in Survival to collect food, and travel faster... that just scratches the surface of what's possible.
Ribbon features may not be there for balance.
Or have abilities to enhance that outside of their spells as well.
For me a Ranger is an expert at outdoors, like tracking and survival, and good at fighting, but with no need to be better than the Fighter.
- All those delcared-enemy-with-no-reason stuff is a non-sense that I don’t know where did it come from.
- Specific terrains? No, outdoors. Need to get advantages for outdoors
Also needs mobility, so the best fit is up to medium armor without shield.
About combat, good and efficient, but IMO all that stuff around the Hunter’s Mark is getting annoying and even generating obsesion on people. The Ranger should be good at combat, but damn not everything concerning the Rander must be around the Hunter’s Mark thing.
The Paladin should be something better in combat than Ranger, as it doesn’t get the Expertise abilities, for when balancing the capabilities,
And then the Ranger will feel useless when the rest of the party ignore them and attack other creatures instead.
Then take away their spellcasting, if you don't want them to use it to do ranger-y things. Make them a rogue x fighter hybrid with some always-on abilities for tracking that will get used 1/campaign.