We're splitting hairs here. Even if the Ranger is starting with 14 instead of 16, Proficiency + Expertise + 14 Wis is still going to yield a superior Perception / Survival than a class who has Expertise + 10 Wis (Bard/Rogue) or Proficiency + 16 Wis (Druid). And while the latter can close the gap at low levels with Guidance, they give up whatever they were concentrating on to do so, and the Ranger can just go get Guidance themselves too if you care about being #1 that much. 2024 Rangers aren't just good at these skills, they're easily great.
If the idea of some other class potentially going out of their way to pick up Expertise, high Wis, and Guidance to match something they can do without much effort bothers you... be bothered.
Where is your evidence that these are cherry picked?
You grabbed 7 builds from 10 years worth of 5e, zero of which are straight-classed Ranger because they're all trying to do other things like fear effects or ambush novas. That's not even close to a representative sample.
Show me the proof they aren't representative. Show me all these Ranger builds with 16 or 17 Wis at 1st level.
Show me the proof they aren't representative. Show me all these Ranger builds with 16 or 17 Wis at 1st level.
1) You haven't actually shown me any Ranger builds. You've shown me multiclass builds that happen to have some Ranger in them and needed to keep their stats spread out for their schtick, like Quiver needing 13+ Cha for Undead Warlock's Form of Dread.
2) See above for why splitting this hair is pointless. Even if every Ranger on the planet started with 14 Wis it wouldn't help your point.
We're splitting hairs here. Even if the Ranger is starting with 14 instead of 16, Proficiency + Expertise + 14 Wis is still going to yield a superior Perception / Survival than a class who has Expertise + 10 Wis (Bard/Rogue) or Proficiency + 16 Wis (Druid). And while the latter can close the gap at low levels with Guidance, they give up whatever they were concentrating on to do so, and the Ranger can just go get Guidance themselves too if you care about being #1 that much. 2024 Rangers aren't just good at these skills, they're easily great.
If the idea of some other class potentially going out of their way to pick up Expertise, high Wis, and Guidance to match something they can do without much effort bothers you... be bothered.
I will say not only can ranger get guidance they can just get it off their origin if they want or if they don't want it can be their "fighting style". Ranger has a lot of flexibility and that is a very good thing. Honestly, being able to ignore combat spells entirely if I want and still fall back on hunter's mark for the Ranger if I want sounds great. Being able to be an expert in Athletics, acrobatics and sleight of hand if I want instead of the other traditional ranger skills also sounds great. Or maybe I go arcana, religion and history to get skills that the party may not have unless they have a wizard. Ranger is not the "best class" but it is far from the worst, and even if it somehow is the "worst class" the classes all feel close enough together at this point that it won't really matter. Play what you think is fun. I probably will still lean druid more, but ranger still looks good to me when I am split between rogue and druid.
We're splitting hairs here. Even if the Ranger is starting with 14 instead of 16, Proficiency + Expertise + 14 Wis is still going to yield a superior Perception / Survival than a class who has Expertise + 10 Wis (Bard/Rogue) or Proficiency + 16 Wis (Druid). And while the latter can close the gap at low levels with Guidance, they give up whatever they were concentrating on to do so, and the Ranger can just go get Guidance themselves too if you care about being #1 that much. 2024 Rangers aren't just good at these skills, they're easily great.
If the idea of some other class potentially going out of their way to pick up Expertise, high Wis, and Guidance to match something they can do without much effort bothers you... be bothered.
Ranger with 14 Wis and expertise in perception and survival has a +6 in those skills. A Druid with 16 Wis has and proficiency in those skills has a +5. With guidance it basically +6 to 9. The Druid is more likely to focus on raising their Wis at 4th than the Ranger. Meaning at 4th you will see those Druids at a +7 to 10 using guidance. The at 5th the Ranger who isn’t focused on Wis reaches +8, while the Druid using guidance has a +8 to 11. Even if the Druid didn’t increase their Wisdom they would on average be equal to or better at these checks than this Ranger until level 9. Since most tracking, foraging and things like this happen outside of combat this Druid wouldn’t likely be concentrating on another spell. Oh and the Druid could Wild shape to get keen senses for advantage on the check if it’s perception. Sadly Expertise at low levels is only an additional +2 to a roll and +3 at 5th level. It’s not superior to having a better score in the stat + guidance. Again I loop back to my Wis based Beastmaster Ranger who would take Druidic Warrior at 2nd. This Ranger would be the best at these checks, but that is a very specific build. Also every Druid that takes Magician gets to have good Nature checks as well if they don’t dump Int. Oh and they all get find familiar at 2nd level improving their ability to scout (this may be more a Rogue’s toe problem than a Ranger’s depending on how you envision a Ranger).
Show me the proof they aren't representative. Show me all these Ranger builds with 16 or 17 Wis at 1st level.
1) You haven't actually shown me any Ranger builds. You've shown me multiclass builds that happen to have some Ranger in them and needed to keep their stats spread out for their schtick, like Quiver needing 13+ Cha for Undead Warlock's Form of Dread.
2) See above for why splitting this hair is pointless. Even if every Ranger on the planet started with 14 Wis it wouldn't help your point.
There aren't any straight Ranger builds because Ranger sucks after 5/7th level (depending on subclass). You were all "show me data" before but now you can't be bothered to look up facts when they contradict your point. So don't pretend that you are being logical and rational. I think this "debate" is over.
There aren't any straight Ranger builds because Ranger sucks after 5/7th level (depending on subclass).You were all "show me data" before but now you can't be bothered to look up facts when they contradict your point. So don't pretend that you are being logical and rational. I think this "debate" is over.
I feel like reminding folks that Skill Expert is a thing and anyone can take any Expertise they want if they want to spend the feat on it.
So yes, a Druid can easily have better Survival than a Ranger. And moreso, Wild Shape is a stronger exploration, utility, and survival skill than every feature a Ranger gets up to level 20.
Rangers don't need to spend a feat to get Expertise.
Again, "This class can be built to keep up with Ranger" is not a problem with Ranger, it's how the system was designed to work. If you want a system with zero overlap between classes, go play 1E or something, because clearly 5e isn't for you.
Almost everyone I've played with who played Ranger went pure-class.
It's almost like more people than DPR-obsessed optimizers exist playing the game, and maybe WotC should have considered their existence before spitting in their faces and overhauling classes to suit optimizers alone.
It's almost like DPR focused players require mechanics to support them, while roleplayers can use their imaginations a bit more freely to generate the concept they want.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Or, or, or, if a class isn't focused on pure DPR and that makes angry dudes on YouTube bitter, they can...play another class that does what they want it to?
But it's good now, we have Crawford talking only to people who look and think like him to tell us the game's better now.
Stormwind Fallacy rejected.
Not a single class in this game is "focused on pure DPR." Especially in 2024.
Almost everyone I've played with who played Ranger went pure-class.
It's almost like more people than DPR-obsessed optimizers exist playing the game, and maybe WotC should have considered their existence before spitting in their faces and overhauling classes to suit optimizers alone.
It's almost like DPR focused players require mechanics to support them, while roleplayers can use their imaginations a bit more freely to generate the concept they want.
Or, or, or, if a class isn't focused on pure DPR and that makes angry dudes on YouTube bitter, they can...play another class that does what they want it to?
But it's good now, we have Crawford talking only to people who look and think like him to tell us the game's better now.
or or or...you're just over reacting and crying over...not even spilled milk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Druid does not need skill expert to keep up with the Ranger for Wis skill checks. It only needs the guidance cantrip. Skill expert would put the druid fair ahead in these checks. Wildshape and now find familiar has the druid as the king of the exploration pillar. The Ranger doesn’t challenge them until 9th level and that’s only with checks not the pillar as a whole. This is fine as Druids probably should be the best in this pillar. The problem is what else does the Ranger bring to the table if they are in a party with a Druid. Do they have anything unique that lets them shine. Paladins in a group with fighters and clerics still have auras, and smites. The typical Ranger is not out exploring a Druid. He also isn’t out fighting the fighter. What is the special thing the Ranger is bringing to the table. If it’s suppose to be HM we all should see the problem.
Druid does not need skill expert to keep up with the Ranger for Wis skill checks. It only needs the guidance cantrip.
Which the Ranger can get too, in multiple ways, before the Druid can take Skill Expert.
And even if the Druid builds themself to get expertise in one of the Ranger's skills - so what? Yes, overlap is possible in 5e if you build your character a certain way. If you don't like it, don't play 5e. If you want pure uniqueness, 5e is not the game for you. Sorry.
[Summary: druids can be better at survival and the overlap is necessarily bad ]
The problem is what else does the Ranger bring to the table if they are in a party with a Druid. Do they have anything unique that lets them shine. Paladins in a group with fighters and clerics still have auras, and smites. The typical Ranger is not out exploring a Druid. He also isn’t out fighting the fighter. What is the special thing the Ranger is bringing to the table. If it’s suppose to be HM we all should see the problem.
This.^
Every class has its unique mechanic for existing. some classes can duplicate others results (mitigation, healing, damage, modification etc) but they all have their own twist. In an rpg there should be multiple ways to solve a gameplay challenge. Rangers players however seem to not want to be tied to one main method of damage. Hunters Mark can cause strategy and weapon conflicts but sometimes works well. Which makes it a great tool but a bad class framework.
People will never agree on ranger damage methods (sniping, dual wielding, sword and board etc) and some work well with current or proposed Huntersmark design while others don't.
There is one Ranger opinion that remains consistent. A party without a ranger should not travel as fast or as "comfortable" as a party with a ranger.
Druid does not need skill expert to keep up with the Ranger for Wis skill checks. It only needs the guidance cantrip.
Which the Ranger can get too, in multiple ways, before the Druid can take Skill Expert.
And even if the Druid builds themself to get expertise in one of the Ranger's skills - so what? Yes, overlap is possible in 5e if you build your character a certain way. If you don't like it, don't play 5e. If you want pure uniqueness, 5e is not the game for you. Sorry.
So if a Druid goes out of its way to get skill expert to be we shouldn’t pay attention to that, but since the Ranger can go of their way to get guidance we should praise them for that. A Ranger has two ways to get guidance, a feat or forfeiting a fighting style, unless you are going for a particular build neither is good choice for the typical Ranger.
You are intentionally missing the point. Overlap is fine, but unlike the other classes with over lap the Ranger can’t claim it’s at least the best in anything it overlaps with and has nothing unique to bring to the table. Clearly the designers at WotC want to maintain some unique qualities to the game since they didn’t release Theurgy Wizard (after trying twice), Dragon Pact Warlock, and worked on designs because they felt they were too close to or outshined the class they overlapped. Paladin overlaps a fighter and cleric, but also brings its own unique features to the table. A Ranger is a fighter/rogue/druid and if it’s unique thing is HM, we have a problem. HM isn’t good enough to be their unique feature. If the unique thing is that you are a combo of three classes we have a problem. Bards are rogue/cleric/wizard, but are also their own thing and have unique features. A bard in group with a Rogue, cleric and wizard will find unique things to do that the others can’t do. The a ranger in a group with a rogue, fighter, and Druid will not find unique things to do. Nor will it commonly find situations were it’s the best at anything in the party.
If you want pure uniqueness, 5e is not the game for you. Sorry.
Why then does every other class get something unique to them? Barbs have Rage, Fighter has Action Surge, Bard has BI, Warlock has invocations & pact magic, sorcerer has metamagic, rogue has sneak attack, paladin has auras and smites, druid has WS, monk has stunning strike & deflect attack, cleric & wizard have a ton of unique spells.
2024 Ranger has: some extra move speeds, and a handful of unique spells: Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Hunter's Mark, Cordon of Arrows, Conjure Barrage, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Volley, Swift Quiver
But notice that almost all of these unique spells are oriented towards Ranged combat, but already the "creator content" is pushing people to be melee-rangers so when will any of these spells even get used? 2024 PHB is going to make Ranger even more of a "one-trick pony" than it already is, as the obvious build is now a two-weapon using melee Ranger that throws up Hunter's mark and just spams attacks until they or the enemy is dead. While this will be just fine in tier 1, it doesn't scale so we will once again be in the position that Rangers MC once they hit 5th level (except for Beastmaster) because there is nothing to entice them to stay. It just make obvious sense to MC into Rogue or Fighter to increase your DPR and give you actual options & choices in combat.
If you want pure uniqueness, 5e is not the game for you. Sorry.
Why then does every other class get something unique to them? Barbs have Rage, Fighter has Action Surge, Bard has BI, Warlock has invocations & pact magic, sorcerer has metamagic, rogue has sneak attack, paladin has auras and smites, druid has WS, monk has stunning strike & deflect attack, cleric & wizard have a ton of unique spells.
2024 Ranger has: some extra move speeds, and a handful of unique spells: Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Hunter's Mark, Cordon of Arrows, Conjure Barrage, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Volley, Swift Quiver
I think you downplay alot of class uniqueness. Every class has at least 2 unique traits that make the mechanics and theme interface together. Examples: wizards have special ritual casting, Clerics have Chanel divinity, and rogues get reliable talent and cunning action (which are more uniqely class-defining than sneak imo) Even the ones that can be feat looted are lesser versions or naratively tied to the original source.
Now ranger has various themes and trying to mechanically reinforce them all would be impossible. Some forced established elements are good while others are too restricted/forced naratives. Establishing 5e ranger as a spellcaster was probably a good locked in choice But a locked in primary spell forces a style and interferes with individual fantasy. The other fantasy supporting elements.(tracking spells, movement boons etc) are also weak in theme enforcement.
I still argue players got more combat movement benefits out of ignoring difficult difficult terrain rather than extra speed. Now this is at least partially dm encounter design dependant. But then why not allow the option (especially since movement is available via multiple other methods but difficult terrain is hard to ignore)
The "unique" invisibility from nature's veil could have been a really ranger trait but it becomes overlaps the boon to hm and is still lesser than greater invisibility and maintainsmost of its weaknesses. Still a real revision to hips would have made it stand out as a ranger feature.
Imagine if paladins needed to give up both a bonus action and concentration to smite. Or roogues needed to give up a bonus action to sneak attack?
Its horrible game design that rangers must give up both concentration and use bonus actions to use a basic ability (hunters mark) that the class is built around.
Imagine if paladins needed to give up both a bonus action and concentration to smite. Or roogues needed to give up a bonus action to sneak attack?
Its horrible game design that rangers must give up both concentration and use bonus actions to use a basic ability (hunters mark) that the class is built around.
Smite burns a spell slot every time it's used. Hunter's Mark provides a damage increase across multiple hits - against a sturdy enough foe, it might even apply for the entire combat. It needing concentration is justified, especially since other Ranger spells are being confirmed to lose concentration in the 2024 PHB.
Imagine if paladins needed to give up both a bonus action and concentration to smite. Or roogues needed to give up a bonus action to sneak attack?
Its horrible game design that rangers must give up both concentration and use bonus actions to use a basic ability (hunters mark) that the class is built around.
I'm not a fan of Hunter's mark as a framework ability but bonus action is only sometimes used. concentration is also good control metric for "super synergies"
The design of Hunter's mark has been fine but using it creates subsequent restrictions. Hence it should be a choice to use it or not. Tasha's favored foe actually removed some of those restrictions but in turn its damage was reduced. Overall favored foe was better designed than the 2024 ranger.
And for context i(as in my personal style) still can get more use out of favored enemy + sometimes hm over either 2024 or Tasha's . We really appear to have been better off with phb + Tasha's as it was the Best satisfaction rate so far.
I'm not a fan of Hunter's mark as a framework ability but bonus action is only sometimes used. concentration is also good control metric for "super synergies"
The design of Hunter's mark has been fine but using it creates subsequent restrictions. Hence it should be a choice to use it or not. Tasha's favored foe actually removed some of those restrictions but in turn its damage was reduced. Overall favored foe was better designed than the 2024 ranger.
And for context i(as in my personal style) still can get more use out of favored enemy + sometimes hm over either 2024 or Tasha's . We really appear to have been better off with phb + Tasha's as it was the Best satisfaction rate so far.
I really don't understand the logic that we were better off with Favored Foe (concentration, once per round, weak static scaling) than with 2024 Favored Enemy (concentration, every hit, scales with # of attacks, has out of combat uses.) To say nothing of the other things Tasha + 2014 lack like Weapon Mastery, spell preparation, 2 fewer expertises, and rituals.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We're splitting hairs here. Even if the Ranger is starting with 14 instead of 16, Proficiency + Expertise + 14 Wis is still going to yield a superior Perception / Survival than a class who has Expertise + 10 Wis (Bard/Rogue) or Proficiency + 16 Wis (Druid). And while the latter can close the gap at low levels with Guidance, they give up whatever they were concentrating on to do so, and the Ranger can just go get Guidance themselves too if you care about being #1 that much. 2024 Rangers aren't just good at these skills, they're easily great.
If the idea of some other class potentially going out of their way to pick up Expertise, high Wis, and Guidance to match something they can do without much effort bothers you... be bothered.
Show me the proof they aren't representative. Show me all these Ranger builds with 16 or 17 Wis at 1st level.
1) You haven't actually shown me any Ranger builds. You've shown me multiclass builds that happen to have some Ranger in them and needed to keep their stats spread out for their schtick, like Quiver needing 13+ Cha for Undead Warlock's Form of Dread.
2) See above for why splitting this hair is pointless. Even if every Ranger on the planet started with 14 Wis it wouldn't help your point.
I will say not only can ranger get guidance they can just get it off their origin if they want or if they don't want it can be their "fighting style". Ranger has a lot of flexibility and that is a very good thing. Honestly, being able to ignore combat spells entirely if I want and still fall back on hunter's mark for the Ranger if I want sounds great. Being able to be an expert in Athletics, acrobatics and sleight of hand if I want instead of the other traditional ranger skills also sounds great. Or maybe I go arcana, religion and history to get skills that the party may not have unless they have a wizard. Ranger is not the "best class" but it is far from the worst, and even if it somehow is the "worst class" the classes all feel close enough together at this point that it won't really matter. Play what you think is fun. I probably will still lean druid more, but ranger still looks good to me when I am split between rogue and druid.
Ranger with 14 Wis and expertise in perception and survival has a +6 in those skills. A Druid with 16 Wis has and proficiency in those skills has a +5. With guidance it basically +6 to 9. The Druid is more likely to focus on raising their Wis at 4th than the Ranger. Meaning at 4th you will see those Druids at a +7 to 10 using guidance. The at 5th the Ranger who isn’t focused on Wis reaches +8, while the Druid using guidance has a +8 to 11. Even if the Druid didn’t increase their Wisdom they would on average be equal to or better at these checks than this Ranger until level 9. Since most tracking, foraging and things like this happen outside of combat this Druid wouldn’t likely be concentrating on another spell. Oh and the Druid could Wild shape to get keen senses for advantage on the check if it’s perception.
Sadly Expertise at low levels is only an additional +2 to a roll and +3 at 5th level. It’s not superior to having a better score in the stat + guidance. Again I loop back to my Wis based Beastmaster Ranger who would take Druidic Warrior at 2nd. This Ranger would be the best at these checks, but that is a very specific build.
Also every Druid that takes Magician gets to have good Nature checks as well if they don’t dump Int. Oh and they all get find familiar at 2nd level improving their ability to scout (this may be more a Rogue’s toe problem than a Ranger’s depending on how you envision a Ranger).
There aren't any straight Ranger builds because Ranger sucks after 5/7th level (depending on subclass). You were all "show me data" before but now you can't be bothered to look up facts when they contradict your point. So don't pretend that you are being logical and rational. I think this "debate" is over.
Wrong again. Wow, so hard to find.
Rangers don't need to spend a feat to get Expertise.
Again, "This class can be built to keep up with Ranger" is not a problem with Ranger, it's how the system was designed to work. If you want a system with zero overlap between classes, go play 1E or something, because clearly 5e isn't for you.
It's almost like DPR focused players require mechanics to support them, while roleplayers can use their imaginations a bit more freely to generate the concept they want.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Stormwind Fallacy rejected.
Not a single class in this game is "focused on pure DPR." Especially in 2024.
or or or...you're just over reacting and crying over...not even spilled milk.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Druid does not need skill expert to keep up with the Ranger for Wis skill checks. It only needs the guidance cantrip. Skill expert would put the druid fair ahead in these checks. Wildshape and now find familiar has the druid as the king of the exploration pillar. The Ranger doesn’t challenge them until 9th level and that’s only with checks not the pillar as a whole. This is fine as Druids probably should be the best in this pillar. The problem is what else does the Ranger bring to the table if they are in a party with a Druid. Do they have anything unique that lets them shine. Paladins in a group with fighters and clerics still have auras, and smites. The typical Ranger is not out exploring a Druid. He also isn’t out fighting the fighter. What is the special thing the Ranger is bringing to the table. If it’s suppose to be HM we all should see the problem.
Which the Ranger can get too, in multiple ways, before the Druid can take Skill Expert.
And even if the Druid builds themself to get expertise in one of the Ranger's skills - so what? Yes, overlap is possible in 5e if you build your character a certain way. If you don't like it, don't play 5e. If you want pure uniqueness, 5e is not the game for you. Sorry.
This.^
Every class has its unique mechanic for existing. some classes can duplicate others results (mitigation, healing, damage, modification etc) but they all have their own twist. In an rpg there should be multiple ways to solve a gameplay challenge. Rangers players however seem to not want to be tied to one main method of damage. Hunters Mark can cause strategy and weapon conflicts but sometimes works well. Which makes it a great tool but a bad class framework.
People will never agree on ranger damage methods (sniping, dual wielding, sword and board etc) and some work well with current or proposed Huntersmark design while others don't.
There is one Ranger opinion that remains consistent. A party without a ranger should not travel as fast or as "comfortable" as a party with a ranger.
So if a Druid goes out of its way to get skill expert to be we shouldn’t pay attention to that, but since the Ranger can go of their way to get guidance we should praise them for that. A Ranger has two ways to get guidance, a feat or forfeiting a fighting style, unless you are going for a particular build neither is good choice for the typical Ranger.
You are intentionally missing the point. Overlap is fine, but unlike the other classes with over lap the Ranger can’t claim it’s at least the best in anything it overlaps with and has nothing unique to bring to the table. Clearly the designers at WotC want to maintain some unique qualities to the game since they didn’t release Theurgy Wizard (after trying twice), Dragon Pact Warlock, and worked on designs because they felt they were too close to or outshined the class they overlapped. Paladin overlaps a fighter and cleric, but also brings its own unique features to the table. A Ranger is a fighter/rogue/druid and if it’s unique thing is HM, we have a problem. HM isn’t good enough to be their unique feature. If the unique thing is that you are a combo of three classes we have a problem. Bards are rogue/cleric/wizard, but are also their own thing and have unique features. A bard in group with a Rogue, cleric and wizard will find unique things to do that the others can’t do. The a ranger in a group with a rogue, fighter, and Druid will not find unique things to do. Nor will it commonly find situations were it’s the best at anything in the party.
Why then does every other class get something unique to them? Barbs have Rage, Fighter has Action Surge, Bard has BI, Warlock has invocations & pact magic, sorcerer has metamagic, rogue has sneak attack, paladin has auras and smites, druid has WS, monk has stunning strike & deflect attack, cleric & wizard have a ton of unique spells.
2024 Ranger has: some extra move speeds, and a handful of unique spells: Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Hunter's Mark, Cordon of Arrows, Conjure Barrage, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Volley, Swift Quiver
But notice that almost all of these unique spells are oriented towards Ranged combat, but already the "creator content" is pushing people to be melee-rangers so when will any of these spells even get used? 2024 PHB is going to make Ranger even more of a "one-trick pony" than it already is, as the obvious build is now a two-weapon using melee Ranger that throws up Hunter's mark and just spams attacks until they or the enemy is dead. While this will be just fine in tier 1, it doesn't scale so we will once again be in the position that Rangers MC once they hit 5th level (except for Beastmaster) because there is nothing to entice them to stay. It just make obvious sense to MC into Rogue or Fighter to increase your DPR and give you actual options & choices in combat.
I think you downplay alot of class uniqueness. Every class has at least 2 unique traits that make the mechanics and theme interface together. Examples: wizards have special ritual casting, Clerics have Chanel divinity, and rogues get reliable talent and cunning action (which are more uniqely class-defining than sneak imo) Even the ones that can be feat looted are lesser versions or naratively tied to the original source.
Now ranger has various themes and trying to mechanically reinforce them all would be impossible. Some forced established elements are good while others are too restricted/forced naratives. Establishing 5e ranger as a spellcaster was probably a good locked in choice But a locked in primary spell forces a style and interferes with individual fantasy. The other fantasy supporting elements.(tracking spells, movement boons etc) are also weak in theme enforcement.
I still argue players got more combat movement benefits out of ignoring difficult difficult terrain rather than extra speed. Now this is at least partially dm encounter design dependant. But then why not allow the option (especially since movement is available via multiple other methods but difficult terrain is hard to ignore)
The "unique" invisibility from nature's veil could have been a really ranger trait but it becomes overlaps the boon to hm and is still lesser than greater invisibility and maintainsmost of its weaknesses. Still a real revision to hips would have made it stand out as a ranger feature.
Imagine if paladins needed to give up both a bonus action and concentration to smite. Or roogues needed to give up a bonus action to sneak attack?
Its horrible game design that rangers must give up both concentration and use bonus actions to use a basic ability (hunters mark) that the class is built around.
Smite burns a spell slot every time it's used. Hunter's Mark provides a damage increase across multiple hits - against a sturdy enough foe, it might even apply for the entire combat. It needing concentration is justified, especially since other Ranger spells are being confirmed to lose concentration in the 2024 PHB.
I'm not a fan of Hunter's mark as a framework ability but bonus action is only sometimes used. concentration is also good control metric for "super synergies"
The design of Hunter's mark has been fine but using it creates subsequent restrictions. Hence it should be a choice to use it or not. Tasha's favored foe actually removed some of those restrictions but in turn its damage was reduced. Overall favored foe was better designed than the 2024 ranger.
And for context i(as in my personal style) still can get more use out of favored enemy + sometimes hm over either 2024 or Tasha's . We really appear to have been better off with phb + Tasha's as it was the Best satisfaction rate so far.
I really don't understand the logic that we were better off with Favored Foe (concentration, once per round, weak static scaling) than with 2024 Favored Enemy (concentration, every hit, scales with # of attacks, has out of combat uses.) To say nothing of the other things Tasha + 2014 lack like Weapon Mastery, spell preparation, 2 fewer expertises, and rituals.