While the Ranger in 5E D&D is at the middle of the popularity scale (according to D&D Beyond's own statistics), a majority of players choose the Archery track for their characters And while a ranged ranger is certainly a valid and effective type of character in many D&D campaigns, I can't help but wonder why this is when a large number of pop cultural portrayals of Rangers cast them as sword-and-sword or sword-and-shield defenders of justice and hope.
Rangers’ low level abilities lend very little to being better at taking damage, avoiding direct damage or incapacitating opponents. As a class with d10 hit dice for HP, this leaves them significantly behind the Barbarian and the Fighter as tanks to prevent enemies from reaching the back lines to kill the squishier casters. Since Rangers are a d10 melee-capable (though not always effective) class, they should be able to deal comparable damage output at least to a Fighter or Monk one level behind them.
One of the major arguments for how defenders of the status quo PHB Ranger frame their argument is that their spells supplement their weapon proficiencies to boost damage. Here is where the melee Ranger has both potential and problems. While the core Ranger has access to some very useful spells, most of their better combat options are concentration spells, including the popular ones like Hunter’s Mark, Zephyr Strike, Conjure Animals, and Grasping Vine. However, the Ranger has fewer spell slots than a Paladin with 16 or higher Charisma. Just as importantly, they are not proficient in heavy armor and lose out on stealthiness in medium armor. This means that the average Ranger who gets within striking range of a level equivalent monster with Multiattack is likely to lose her concentration spell in a round or two of combat. This is a design flaw for a class whose archetype includes such characters as Aragorn and Drizzt Do’Urden. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to think that some portion of the often low satisfaction with this class is due to the apparent mismatch with what most people think of when they hear ‘”ranger” versus what it is currently restricted to being.
So my question is: What changes could WotC make to the base class to make playing as a melee Ranger more effective and less vulnerable. (Unless the vulnerability of the class is somehow part of it's theme?)
I think that the strength of the ranger lies in their ability to surprise the enemy. Their proficiency in Perception and Stealth gives them a much better chance to get surprise and then they can do a lot of damage before the enemy even has a chance to act. Most encounters don’t last many rounds so surprise in an encounter that lasts 3-4 rounds is going to have a huge impact on the ranger’s ability to deal damage compared to other classes.
That does make some sense and it explains why the Gloom Stalker sub-class is heavily weighted to the first combat round. I worry though, that in parties where most members have just okay DEX or don't have the Stealth skill, the Ranger will often be leading the party and therefore get caught alone for a round or two before the rest can catch up. Most Rangers don't have spells like Misty Step or teleportation.
So my question is: What changes could WotC make to the base class to make playing as a melee Ranger more effective and less vulnerable. (Unless the vulnerability of the class is somehow part of it's theme?)
Fully agree with you, and your question is a good one. Sadly, despite the efforts of many in the community to convince WotC to address these very valid concerns, they are deaf to them. The best they've done is make a number of 'half starts' at improving key areas of the ranger, including two or three unearthed arcana editions and then the effort of Mike Mearls on his Happy Fun Hour last November (which for me came closest to addressing the main issues without disrupting those who are happy with the PHB version as it is). And essentially, these are all abandoned now from what I can tell. TBH I've given up hope and instead just focus on convincing my DMs to allow a bit of homebrew. Maybe when 6e comes out, they'll ask someone who really cares and understands the ranger class to re-design it.
When it comes to melee rangers I think that two feats more or less fix some of the problem. Of course that mean 8th lvl or Var. human but...
Medium Armor Master: no disadvantage on stealth checks, and max Dex bonus of 3 rather then 2. (though a breastplate, chain-shirt, or hide armor that doesn't have the penalty.)
Duel Wielder: +1 AC while DWing. use 2 one-handed weapons that aren't light. (this gets you into d8 weaponry.)
With these 2 feats you don't have the disadvantage with your armor and you are basically wearing a shield while using 2 d8 weapons. Just make sure to invest in stealth.
These feats might help to reduce the problem, but they do not in any way, fix it. If a Fighter or Paladin spent a feat on Heavy Armor Master at the same level as a Ranger, don't they have both higher AC or equivalent AC while also getting resistance to several types of weapon damage? That clearly beats the Ranger. So, yes, having the feat is helpful, but neither of these address the design burden on melee Rangers appreciably in comparison to other d10 melee classes, or even the Rogue, who has a lower HD, but gets to hide or disengage as a bonus action, not to mention Evasion, etc. at a much lower level than Rangers.
Ranger is a Gish build from the start. So no it won't stand up to the meat grinder. And it's not appropriate to compare them to fighters and rogues because they lack the spell casting element to their design. And Paladins have always leaned more on the side of fighter then caster. That's why bards and warlocks aren't included in this argument. Ranger is an exploration based class in the same way that bards are social based class. That's why Rangers get Natural Explorer and Primeval Awareness and Land Stride. And warlock have even less design definition than the other two.
It isn't that there is a design burden. It's that you are trying to use them in a way that they aren't designed to operate.
I'm sorry, how is having a melee-ready character with d10 hit dice ACT like a melee character NOT using a character like it's supposed to operate?
Yes, Paladins are the best comparison, since they are both half casters. But for some reason, Rangers are both more fragile due to AC issues AND rely more on long term concentration spells than Paladins at ALL levels. Most Paladin concen spells are smite spells. One and done. They are both less likely to lose concentration and less likely to need it. PLUS they get auras that don't expend a spell slot that ALSO improve their own (and allies') saving throws. Most Ranger concen spells need to be up for several rounds to truly useful. But none of their core class features helps them maintain concentration.
If a Ranger focuses only on arrow or crossbows this issue is severly mitigated. The problem is that there is nothing in the theme or lore that says Rangers are SUPPOSED to be a ranged attack class any more than they are supposed to be a melee attack class. Please re-read my first post. Ranger archetypes include characters like Aragorn and Drizzt. If a bunch of people come into D&D, roll up a Ranger and get disappointed that their melee abilities can't match up b/c they keep losing concentration, isn't that a Design issue? If Rangers aren't supposed to be melee characters, then the designers should Say So in the PHB, right?
I'm not saying that Rangers are Supposed to wear heavy armor. Is that what you're thinking? There are other ways to mitigate damage and/or improve concentration. These can be implemented. You know, instead of pretending the problem isn't there in the first place.
Before replying, please read my first post and this one more carefully.
Hi folks, I just posted a Ranger base class revision proposal to the Homebrew section of D&D Beyond. Next to it is a feat proposal that goes along with it, open to all classes of course. :)
Please take a look and let me know what you think.
Maybe you might just need some better/other damage options as spells. How about this one? You could even pair it with Hunter's Mark if you cast Hunter's Mark on a previous turn.
@Joshua Not a bad spell. However, Rangers still have too few spell slots to use it on a weak attack spell. They're not Sorcerers. The beauty of cantrip casting is that they are an unlimited resource.
Hey, i did the math and it is not a weak spell. It is (weapon damage(d8 average)+DEX/STR mod+1d4)... TWICE! And the attacks do damage on a miss. That is more than any other spell lv2 does(barely)... (︶︹︺)
Ranger is a Gish build from the start. So no it won't stand up to the meat grinder. And it's not appropriate to compare them to fighters and rogues because they lack the spell casting element to their design. And Paladins have always leaned more on the side of fighter then caster. That's why bards and warlocks aren't included in this argument. Ranger is an exploration based class in the same way that bards are social based class. That's why Rangers get Natural Explorer and Primeval Awareness and Land Stride. And warlock have even less design definition than the other two.
It isn't that there is a design burden. It's that you are trying to use them in a way that they aren't designed to operate.
That's all fine and technically you are absolutely correct. The problem however is as Mike Mearls recently described it here. So many DMs do not run games that feature the Exploration pillar as prominently as the 5e designers might have expected during design and testing. Therefore, a class such as ranger, which is iconic and has its roots right back to the founding days of D&D, is kneecapped as a result. Providing they proceed down the expected route and offer alternate class features to those players and DMs who have not successfully incorporated Exploration into tables as much as might have been envisioned, then it's 'problem solved'. Otherwise, unless you are at a table that really emphasises Exploration as by-the-book, then you won't get the most out of the Ranger.
@Joshua Like I said, it's not a bad spell. I am sorry if I come off as a bit harsh. I honestly missed the "two attacks" part of the spell. It is, however, a Homebrew spell. And no matter what, remember that at 6th level, Rangers only get 2 spell slots of 2nd level. At 10th level, only 3 slots at that level. Rangers aren't primary casters. I'm not here arguing that they should be. I'm judging that homebrew spell based on how well it addresses my question at the top of the thread, not whether or not it can of use in combat.
@Sash Even if they did include more exploration though, there's little in the PHB version of the base Ranger's Primeval Awareness, Natural Explorer or even Favored Enemy that is useful in combat (though questionably, PrimevalA and FavoredE MIGHT prevent combat in the hands of the right player). For better or worse, most people focus on the combat aspect of D&D when creating characters. This is why, after all, we see a lot more Hexblade Warlocks at tables than Pact of the Chain Warlocks. If you go on the DDB message boards in the class sections, most people focus on effective builds to accomplish Y or clarification on rules that might prevent them from using class features to accomplish Y, where Y is about how to defeat certain types of encounters. While I absolutely do believe that social RPing and exploration RPing should be supported more by WotC published material, that does not expiate the reality that players in a game like D&D do not die primarily due to exploring badly or failing a Deception or Performance check. They die in combat. So obviously, combat features are where most people look when deciding whether a class is worth their time.
@Sash Even if they did include more exploration though, there's little in the PHB version of the base Ranger's Primeval Awareness, Natural Explorer or even Favored Enemy that is useful in combat (though questionably, PrimevalA and FavoredE MIGHT prevent combat in the hands of the right player). For better or worse, most people focus on the combat aspect of D&D when creating characters. This is why, after all, we see a lot more Hexblade Warlocks at tables than Pact of the Chain Warlocks. If you go on the DDB message boards in the class sections, most people focus on effective builds to accomplish Y or clarification on rules that might prevent them from using class features to accomplish Y, where Y is about how to defeat certain types of encounters. While I absolutely do believe that social RPing and exploration RPing should be supported more by WotC published material, that does not expiate the reality that players in a game like D&D do not die primarily due to exploring badly or failing a Deception or Performance check. They die in combat. So obviously, combat features are where most people look when deciding whether a class is worth their time.
I fully agree with your points. If a DM and her table were explicitly committed to a very strong focus on Exploration in a campaign then the ranger as written could shine in that area (although he might die in the first battle). In the ‘real world’ that you accurately describe, a ranger does not shine as at least three big lower level features offer bugger all combat benefit, and you could play whole sessions without FE or NE ever coming up.
I would like to point out that the 2 characters you call out as classic fantasy rangers became rangers well into their adulthood. Drizzt learned how to fight from his father, most likely in the style of a fighter, he was influenced by a blind ranger at a later time. Aragorn was the hidden heir groomed for ascension to the throne. He probably had the training of a soldier or knight before he led the Rangers of the North.
I would like to point out that the 2 characters you call out as classic fantasy rangers became rangers well into their adulthood. Drizzt learned how to fight from his father, most likely in the style of a fighter, he was influenced by a blind ranger at a later time. Aragorn was the hidden heir groomed for ascension to the throne. He probably had the training of a soldier or knight before he led the Rangers of the North.
More simply put, multiclass Fighter/Ranger.
Which begs the question how the devs made the decision to create Ranger as an entirely separate class from Fighter or Rogue in the first place. I really could have gone either way, myself. It's just strange that they rolled out the base Ranger with most Fighting Styles available to Fighters and a d10 hit die but did not bother to give them anything particularly useful for defense. It's worth noting that the 2nd edition Ranger was more like a 1/3 caster than the 1/2 caster we see now (though when they got access to their spells significantly later).
I would like to point out that the 2 characters you call out as classic fantasy rangers became rangers well into their adulthood. Drizzt learned how to fight from his father, most likely in the style of a fighter, he was influenced by a blind ranger at a later time. Aragorn was the hidden heir groomed for ascension to the throne. He probably had the training of a soldier or knight before he led the Rangers of the North.
More simply put, multiclass Fighter/Ranger.
The problem I have with that (very accurate) assertion is that the WotC description very clearly and prominently describes Rangers as studied warriors that patrol the boundaries between the untamed savage wilds and the vulnerability of civilization. If you downplay the combat aspects of Aaragorn, what exactly is left to attribute to his Ranger-iness? Knowing that Kings Foil will stall the wounds from a Morgul blade?
I do agree with you and most to all your opinions that the ranger does suffer from this simply because they put too much emphasis on the exploration survivalist feature's of the ranger. Which we have stated that most groups straight up ignore and leave it to just a simple survival checks most of the time. Which if this is the case, with the exception of the listed abilities, the Rogue's Scout would be a better survivalist than the Ranger (which is honeslty my biggest peeve of all the "why ranger sucks" enlargements).
As for the why do most rangers are archer's, i'm not sure either and the examples that you used comparison for rangers are the ones that I use. For some reason, people just picture rangers with bows, which I can get because they are the "wild man" and survivalist archetypes and they want to play a class that focuses on being a hunter. It just seems that most people what to be that kind of hunter ranger rather than a melee ranger and honestly form how WotC has designed ranger, I don't blame them because of most of the abilities miss the mark for combat. I do believe that the UA revised ranger was a right step in the right direction, but even that needed work.
When I stand back and look at it from a design perspective, WotC just put way too much focus on the environmental abilities and which has led to the ranger to suffer in combat. Like with Favored enemy and Favored terrian being the worst of them. They could have done so much, like adding WIS mod, prof bonus or advantage to initiative while in favored terrain. Then my biggest issue with favored enemy is that it does nothing mechanically for combat. I know that some will argue that recalling information about an enemy can be useful, but it does nothing if you don't know about the creature even if it is your favored enemy.
Now here's a couple of quick things that I can think of that would help the ranger if they were to revise it (which from what I've heard might be coming in a future UA because they do not want the PHB ranger to be the one used in Baldurs Gate 3 and would like to have that version for players too). I know you may disagree with some of these
As stated before, make the "favored" abilities have use during combat. I personally like the idea that the UA revised ranger did for increases damage to the favored enemy by a small amount.
Give the ranger more features that empowers the group that is not tied to the ranger's favored terrain. I know that favored terrain does a good job with this now for travel and exploration, but giving the ranger some base suvival skills would help it not be over shined by the Rogue's Scout.
Since WotC is making subclasses have alternate attack buffs, e.i. the Monster Slayers - Slayer's Prey feature, they can do the same with hunter's mark. I know this one is likely not going to be done since it is already a spell, but they can make the feature use it as a free cast twice per short rest and not require concentration.
Just change Hide in plain site, as is it's trash unless you want to ensure to get a surprise round for you or hiding from someone and have to time to make your ghillie suit.
With vanish getting hide as a bonus action that late for the ranger just seems odd to me. Like maybe add it to the Land's Stride feature and put something else in its place
Foe Slayer needs to be buffed, with at least removing the favored enemy requirement (my group currently has that as a homebrew rule). I do like how you have it, with both an attack and damage buff equal to the WIS mod.
While the Ranger in 5E D&D is at the middle of the popularity scale (according to D&D Beyond's own statistics), a majority of players choose the Archery track for their characters And while a ranged ranger is certainly a valid and effective type of character in many D&D campaigns, I can't help but wonder why this is when a large number of pop cultural portrayals of Rangers cast them as sword-and-sword or sword-and-shield defenders of justice and hope.
Rangers’ low level abilities lend very little to being better at taking damage, avoiding direct damage or incapacitating opponents. As a class with d10 hit dice for HP, this leaves them significantly behind the Barbarian and the Fighter as tanks to prevent enemies from reaching the back lines to kill the squishier casters. Since Rangers are a d10 melee-capable (though not always effective) class, they should be able to deal comparable damage output at least to a Fighter or Monk one level behind them.
One of the major arguments for how defenders of the status quo PHB Ranger frame their argument is that their spells supplement their weapon proficiencies to boost damage. Here is where the melee Ranger has both potential and problems. While the core Ranger has access to some very useful spells, most of their better combat options are concentration spells, including the popular ones like Hunter’s Mark, Zephyr Strike, Conjure Animals, and Grasping Vine. However, the Ranger has fewer spell slots than a Paladin with 16 or higher Charisma. Just as importantly, they are not proficient in heavy armor and lose out on stealthiness in medium armor. This means that the average Ranger who gets within striking range of a level equivalent monster with Multiattack is likely to lose her concentration spell in a round or two of combat. This is a design flaw for a class whose archetype includes such characters as Aragorn and Drizzt Do’Urden. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to think that some portion of the often low satisfaction with this class is due to the apparent mismatch with what most people think of when they hear ‘”ranger” versus what it is currently restricted to being.
So my question is: What changes could WotC make to the base class to make playing as a melee Ranger more effective and less vulnerable. (Unless the vulnerability of the class is somehow part of it's theme?)
I think that the strength of the ranger lies in their ability to surprise the enemy. Their proficiency in Perception and Stealth gives them a much better chance to get surprise and then they can do a lot of damage before the enemy even has a chance to act. Most encounters don’t last many rounds so surprise in an encounter that lasts 3-4 rounds is going to have a huge impact on the ranger’s ability to deal damage compared to other classes.
That does make some sense and it explains why the Gloom Stalker sub-class is heavily weighted to the first combat round. I worry though, that in parties where most members have just okay DEX or don't have the Stealth skill, the Ranger will often be leading the party and therefore get caught alone for a round or two before the rest can catch up. Most Rangers don't have spells like Misty Step or teleportation.
Fully agree with you, and your question is a good one. Sadly, despite the efforts of many in the community to convince WotC to address these very valid concerns, they are deaf to them. The best they've done is make a number of 'half starts' at improving key areas of the ranger, including two or three unearthed arcana editions and then the effort of Mike Mearls on his Happy Fun Hour last November (which for me came closest to addressing the main issues without disrupting those who are happy with the PHB version as it is). And essentially, these are all abandoned now from what I can tell. TBH I've given up hope and instead just focus on convincing my DMs to allow a bit of homebrew. Maybe when 6e comes out, they'll ask someone who really cares and understands the ranger class to re-design it.
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
#OpenDND
When it comes to melee rangers I think that two feats more or less fix some of the problem. Of course that mean 8th lvl or Var. human but...
Medium Armor Master: no disadvantage on stealth checks, and max Dex bonus of 3 rather then 2. (though a breastplate, chain-shirt, or hide armor that doesn't have the penalty.)
Duel Wielder: +1 AC while DWing. use 2 one-handed weapons that aren't light. (this gets you into d8 weaponry.)
With these 2 feats you don't have the disadvantage with your armor and you are basically wearing a shield while using 2 d8 weapons. Just make sure to invest in stealth.
These feats might help to reduce the problem, but they do not in any way, fix it. If a Fighter or Paladin spent a feat on Heavy Armor Master at the same level as a Ranger, don't they have both higher AC or equivalent AC while also getting resistance to several types of weapon damage? That clearly beats the Ranger. So, yes, having the feat is helpful, but neither of these address the design burden on melee Rangers appreciably in comparison to other d10 melee classes, or even the Rogue, who has a lower HD, but gets to hide or disengage as a bonus action, not to mention Evasion, etc. at a much lower level than Rangers.
Ranger is a Gish build from the start. So no it won't stand up to the meat grinder. And it's not appropriate to compare them to fighters and rogues because they lack the spell casting element to their design. And Paladins have always leaned more on the side of fighter then caster. That's why bards and warlocks aren't included in this argument. Ranger is an exploration based class in the same way that bards are social based class. That's why Rangers get Natural Explorer and Primeval Awareness and Land Stride. And warlock have even less design definition than the other two.
It isn't that there is a design burden. It's that you are trying to use them in a way that they aren't designed to operate.
I'm sorry, how is having a melee-ready character with d10 hit dice ACT like a melee character NOT using a character like it's supposed to operate?
Yes, Paladins are the best comparison, since they are both half casters. But for some reason, Rangers are both more fragile due to AC issues AND rely more on long term concentration spells than Paladins at ALL levels. Most Paladin concen spells are smite spells. One and done. They are both less likely to lose concentration and less likely to need it. PLUS they get auras that don't expend a spell slot that ALSO improve their own (and allies') saving throws. Most Ranger concen spells need to be up for several rounds to truly useful. But none of their core class features helps them maintain concentration.
If a Ranger focuses only on arrow or crossbows this issue is severly mitigated. The problem is that there is nothing in the theme or lore that says Rangers are SUPPOSED to be a ranged attack class any more than they are supposed to be a melee attack class. Please re-read my first post. Ranger archetypes include characters like Aragorn and Drizzt. If a bunch of people come into D&D, roll up a Ranger and get disappointed that their melee abilities can't match up b/c they keep losing concentration, isn't that a Design issue? If Rangers aren't supposed to be melee characters, then the designers should Say So in the PHB, right?
I'm not saying that Rangers are Supposed to wear heavy armor. Is that what you're thinking? There are other ways to mitigate damage and/or improve concentration. These can be implemented. You know, instead of pretending the problem isn't there in the first place.
Before replying, please read my first post and this one more carefully.
I would say use magic items to offset their weaknesses. Bracers of Defense comes to mind for both melee and range. Or even dual class if you want to.
Hi folks, I just posted a Ranger base class revision proposal to the Homebrew section of D&D Beyond. Next to it is a feat proposal that goes along with it, open to all classes of course. :)
Please take a look and let me know what you think.
Link to class revision.
Link to new feat.
Maybe you might just need some better/other damage options as spells. How about this one? You could even pair it with Hunter's Mark if you cast Hunter's Mark on a previous turn.
Elemental Aggression
You can find my published homebrew Spells here.
@Joshua Not a bad spell. However, Rangers still have too few spell slots to use it on a weak attack spell. They're not Sorcerers. The beauty of cantrip casting is that they are an unlimited resource.
Hey, i did the math and it is not a weak spell. It is (weapon damage(d8 average)+DEX/STR mod+1d4)... TWICE! And the attacks do damage on a miss. That is more than any other spell lv2 does(barely)... (︶︹︺)
*Grumbles* Says it's weak. *Grumbles*
You can find my published homebrew Spells here.
That's all fine and technically you are absolutely correct. The problem however is as Mike Mearls recently described it here. So many DMs do not run games that feature the Exploration pillar as prominently as the 5e designers might have expected during design and testing. Therefore, a class such as ranger, which is iconic and has its roots right back to the founding days of D&D, is kneecapped as a result. Providing they proceed down the expected route and offer alternate class features to those players and DMs who have not successfully incorporated Exploration into tables as much as might have been envisioned, then it's 'problem solved'. Otherwise, unless you are at a table that really emphasises Exploration as by-the-book, then you won't get the most out of the Ranger.
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
#OpenDND
@Joshua Like I said, it's not a bad spell. I am sorry if I come off as a bit harsh. I honestly missed the "two attacks" part of the spell. It is, however, a Homebrew spell. And no matter what, remember that at 6th level, Rangers only get 2 spell slots of 2nd level. At 10th level, only 3 slots at that level. Rangers aren't primary casters. I'm not here arguing that they should be. I'm judging that homebrew spell based on how well it addresses my question at the top of the thread, not whether or not it can of use in combat.
@Sash Even if they did include more exploration though, there's little in the PHB version of the base Ranger's Primeval Awareness, Natural Explorer or even Favored Enemy that is useful in combat (though questionably, PrimevalA and FavoredE MIGHT prevent combat in the hands of the right player). For better or worse, most people focus on the combat aspect of D&D when creating characters. This is why, after all, we see a lot more Hexblade Warlocks at tables than Pact of the Chain Warlocks. If you go on the DDB message boards in the class sections, most people focus on effective builds to accomplish Y or clarification on rules that might prevent them from using class features to accomplish Y, where Y is about how to defeat certain types of encounters. While I absolutely do believe that social RPing and exploration RPing should be supported more by WotC published material, that does not expiate the reality that players in a game like D&D do not die primarily due to exploring badly or failing a Deception or Performance check. They die in combat. So obviously, combat features are where most people look when deciding whether a class is worth their time.
I fully agree with your points. If a DM and her table were explicitly committed to a very strong focus on Exploration in a campaign then the ranger as written could shine in that area (although he might die in the first battle). In the ‘real world’ that you accurately describe, a ranger does not shine as at least three big lower level features offer bugger all combat benefit, and you could play whole sessions without FE or NE ever coming up.
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
#OpenDND
I would like to point out that the 2 characters you call out as classic fantasy rangers became rangers well into their adulthood. Drizzt learned how to fight from his father, most likely in the style of a fighter, he was influenced by a blind ranger at a later time. Aragorn was the hidden heir groomed for ascension to the throne. He probably had the training of a soldier or knight before he led the Rangers of the North.
More simply put, multiclass Fighter/Ranger.
Which begs the question how the devs made the decision to create Ranger as an entirely separate class from Fighter or Rogue in the first place. I really could have gone either way, myself. It's just strange that they rolled out the base Ranger with most Fighting Styles available to Fighters and a d10 hit die but did not bother to give them anything particularly useful for defense. It's worth noting that the 2nd edition Ranger was more like a 1/3 caster than the 1/2 caster we see now (though when they got access to their spells significantly later).
The problem I have with that (very accurate) assertion is that the WotC description very clearly and prominently describes Rangers as studied warriors that patrol the boundaries between the untamed savage wilds and the vulnerability of civilization. If you downplay the combat aspects of Aaragorn, what exactly is left to attribute to his Ranger-iness? Knowing that Kings Foil will stall the wounds from a Morgul blade?
I do agree with you and most to all your opinions that the ranger does suffer from this simply because they put too much emphasis on the exploration survivalist feature's of the ranger. Which we have stated that most groups straight up ignore and leave it to just a simple survival checks most of the time. Which if this is the case, with the exception of the listed abilities, the Rogue's Scout would be a better survivalist than the Ranger (which is honeslty my biggest peeve of all the "why ranger sucks" enlargements).
As for the why do most rangers are archer's, i'm not sure either and the examples that you used comparison for rangers are the ones that I use. For some reason, people just picture rangers with bows, which I can get because they are the "wild man" and survivalist archetypes and they want to play a class that focuses on being a hunter. It just seems that most people what to be that kind of hunter ranger rather than a melee ranger and honestly form how WotC has designed ranger, I don't blame them because of most of the abilities miss the mark for combat. I do believe that the UA revised ranger was a right step in the right direction, but even that needed work.
When I stand back and look at it from a design perspective, WotC just put way too much focus on the environmental abilities and which has led to the ranger to suffer in combat. Like with Favored enemy and Favored terrian being the worst of them. They could have done so much, like adding WIS mod, prof bonus or advantage to initiative while in favored terrain. Then my biggest issue with favored enemy is that it does nothing mechanically for combat. I know that some will argue that recalling information about an enemy can be useful, but it does nothing if you don't know about the creature even if it is your favored enemy.
Now here's a couple of quick things that I can think of that would help the ranger if they were to revise it (which from what I've heard might be coming in a future UA because they do not want the PHB ranger to be the one used in Baldurs Gate 3 and would like to have that version for players too). I know you may disagree with some of these
My Homebrew | Background | Feats | Magic Items | Races | Spells | Subclass | Full List
Most Popular Homebrew: Nephilim (Aasimar-Tielfling) - Race
Newest Homebrew: Image Distortion - 1st-Level Illusion Spell