I was watching this video ranking Ranger subclasses (https://youtu.be/H0lFyhRjbSg if you're interested), and during their discussion on the Hunter subclass, they talked about how there was no unique flavor to the subclass that didn't stretch beyond vanilla ranger-y-ness, and that they saw no reason to take the abilities for it and give them to a separate subclass when the base class was already so barebones.
I was wondering what people thought of this? With all the talk of the Ranger being an underpowered class, what if base rangers got to choose between stuff like Hoard Breaker and Colossus Slayer, Or between Whirlwind Strike or Volley, or even Evasion/Uncanny Dodge IN ADDITION to their subclass features?
I feel like that would not only give a lot of good customization options for an (again) fairly sparse class, but I don't think it would push it over the edge into OP territory either.
Thoughts? Should Hunter abilities mostly just be base Ranger abilities?
In fact, I think these two got several things wrong about the ranger PHB base class, the 2 PHB subclasses, and the Tasha's beast master variants. Rangers play vary differently then they read. If you go hunter, you are doubling down on the fighter element of the ranger. If you go beast master, you are doubling down on the wilderness exploration and battlefield control element of the ranger.
coincidence... I watched the video a few minutes ago. Visit this forum and see your thread!
I think the DD´s are on to something. I really love Rangers - always did always will. My first option in every Fantasy RPG is always a beastmaster, and in my opinion
WOTC botched the Ranger/Beastmaster in 5th edition. I think that giving the Ranger the Hunter options as baseclass would be overkill if you chose one of the stronger
subclasses like Gloomstalker or Horizon Walker. But you could combine Hunter and Beastmaster and have a strong subclass without problems I think.
Right now I test and play a wisdom based Beastmaster with the Tashas primal beast and druidic warrior - really looking forward to that campaign!
I find it strange that they open up musing about the lore behind the ranger, and then don't bother actually diving into that when discussing the subclasses.
As for their actual grading, I find their opinions worth a pretty hefty serving of salt. Aside from making some factual mistakes (i.e. horses are not viable Beast Companions, the Primal Companions cannot use Multiattack with the ranger's Bonus Action), they never really dive into the "why" something is the way it is. Now, this is nominally fine; no one really needs to fully understand the "why" so long as they buy into the premise. That said, it's hypocritical of them to spend so much time on playing a role and lore and then flippantly act as if it doesn't matter. And it makes for disjointed criticism; however well-meaning it may be.
But it's hard for me to consider their work as being well-meaning when it comes across as this lazy. I'm not saying there aren't weaknesses in the ranger as a class; there are. But they aren't really addressing them, either.
I find it strange that they open up musing about the lore behind the ranger, and then don't bother actually diving into that when discussing the subclasses.
As for their actual grading, I find their opinions worth a pretty hefty serving of salt. Aside from making some factual mistakes (i.e. horses are not viable Beast Companions, the Primal Companions cannot use Multiattack with the ranger's Bonus Action), they never really dive into the "why" something is the way it is. Now, this is nominally fine; no one really needs to fully understand the "why" so long as they buy into the premise. That said, it's hypocritical of them to spend so much time on playing a role and lore and then flippantly act as if it doesn't matter. And it makes for disjointed criticism; however well-meaning it may be.
But it's hard for me to consider their work as being well-meaning when it comes across as this lazy. I'm not saying there aren't weaknesses in the ranger as a class; there are. But they aren't really addressing them, either.
Their video is riddled with rules mistakes, statements of opinions based on how it "feels", zero hard math, and zero accounting for exploration and battlefield control. They barely spoke about the spells of the ranger class which is what makes it so powerful at levels 9 and up.
If you are looking at an older yet really good video on the ranger and PHB subclasses, check out this...
I find it strange that they open up musing about the lore behind the ranger, and then don't bother actually diving into that when discussing the subclasses.
As for their actual grading, I find their opinions worth a pretty hefty serving of salt. Aside from making some factual mistakes (i.e. horses are not viable Beast Companions, the Primal Companions cannot use Multiattack with the ranger's Bonus Action), they never really dive into the "why" something is the way it is. Now, this is nominally fine; no one really needs to fully understand the "why" so long as they buy into the premise. That said, it's hypocritical of them to spend so much time on playing a role and lore and then flippantly act as if it doesn't matter. And it makes for disjointed criticism; however well-meaning it may be.
But it's hard for me to consider their work as being well-meaning when it comes across as this lazy. I'm not saying there aren't weaknesses in the ranger as a class; there are. But they aren't really addressing them, either.
Their video is riddled with rules mistakes, statements of opinions based on how it "feels", zero hard math, and zero accounting for exploration and battlefield control. They barley spoke about the spells of the ranger class which is what makes it so powerful at levels 9 and up.
I find it strange that they open up musing about the lore behind the ranger, and then don't bother actually diving into that when discussing the subclasses.
As for their actual grading, I find their opinions worth a pretty hefty serving of salt. Aside from making some factual mistakes (i.e. horses are not viable Beast Companions, the Primal Companions cannot use Multiattack with the ranger's Bonus Action), they never really dive into the "why" something is the way it is. Now, this is nominally fine; no one really needs to fully understand the "why" so long as they buy into the premise. That said, it's hypocritical of them to spend so much time on playing a role and lore and then flippantly act as if it doesn't matter. And it makes for disjointed criticism; however well-meaning it may be.
But it's hard for me to consider their work as being well-meaning when it comes across as this lazy. I'm not saying there aren't weaknesses in the ranger as a class; there are. But they aren't really addressing them, either.
Their video is riddled with rules mistakes, statements of opinions based on how it "feels", zero hard math, and zero accounting for exploration and battlefield control.
yeah! I got that too from the video... well I will play my new beastmaster soon, and will for sure post how it plays ... very much looking forward to playing it!
I think that they rushed the initial development of the Ranger and did not have as much time to properly test what material they did have. The ranger has the issue of not having as clear a Class fantasy as the other players handbook classes once you cover all that had been previously developed. This is directly at odds with the original development goals to not step on other classes' toes. This is pure speculation that after the issues that 4e hand with not having the same (minimum) line up as 3e had at launch they rushed the ranger in rather than spending more (needed) time on it. So that perhaps the abilities were split to make two archetype.
The very first time I read the 5e Ranger my thoughts were "why isn't everything in the Hunter subclass a part of the Ranger base class" and there is still no good reason why it shouldn't be.
Remove or tweek most of the base abilities, move stuff around a few levels, give the base Ranger everything in the Hunter class and a beast companion or Find Beast Companion spell from the start with Beastmaster getting a rework based on that foundation.
As for the video, their presentation and arguments were odd.
"This is the standard Rangery-Ranger."
"If you want to be the most Ranger you can be, the Hunter is the way to go."
These arguments make it seem that all the base Ranger is missing is combat features and that the choice of archery or two-weapon fighting is the defining characteristic of the Ranger. This perspective seems to stem from the 3.X Ranger, where WOTC ****ed up the original Ranger in that edition and had to make another rework four years later (WOTC really has had a Ranger problem for a long time).
The combat buffs to the base Ranger are certainly necessary, but that is not all the Ranger is. Thematically the base Ranger has everything a Ranger is, including combat capabilities, it is just that those base abilities are so bad in execution. A Hunter alone does not a Ranger make.
I think that they rushed the initial development of the Ranger and did not have as much time to properly test what material they did have. The ranger has the issue of not having as clear a Class fantasy as the other players handbook classes once you cover all that had been previously developed. This is directly at odds with the original development goals to not step on other classes' toes. This is pure speculation that after the issues that 4e hand with not having the same (minimum) line up as 3e had at launch they rushed the ranger in rather than spending more (needed) time on it. So that perhaps the abilities were split to make two archetype.
The very last public playtest version of the ranger was nothing like the final version of the PHB. I think you are correct.
I think that they rushed the initial development of the Ranger and did not have as much time to properly test what material they did have. The ranger has the issue of not having as clear a Class fantasy as the other players handbook classes once you cover all that had been previously developed. This is directly at odds with the original development goals to not step on other classes' toes. This is pure speculation that after the issues that 4e hand with not having the same (minimum) line up as 3e had at launch they rushed the ranger in rather than spending more (needed) time on it. So that perhaps the abilities were split to make two archetype.
The very last public playtest version of the ranger was nothing like the final version of the PHB. I think you are correct.
It was also relatively early in the player cycle. So was the Sorcerer, and draconic ones had proficiency in heavy armor and martial weapons.
It's not that WotC didn't have enough time to playtest. They did. The issue is the ranger has always been this odd duck of a tripartite hybrid of druid, fighter, and rogue. And some people have a hard time wrapping their head around the concept.
I had similar thoughts to Korbin_Orion when initially reading the Ranger class and Hunter subclass. Instead of thinking "why isn't this in the base ranger class" I more thought "why is this subclass a thing? It's just plain boring and uninspired. If all ranger subclasses are like this in theme and mechanics, I never want to play a ranger."
Thankfully, there have been some better subclasses since the PHB release that are filled with a lot more flavor and inspiration (Gloom Stalker, Horizon Walker, Fey Wanderer, etc). I've never played a ranger before, but these subclasses and some of Tasha's CFVs for the class at least give me a slight desire to play it . . . eventually, that is.
I do think that certain parts of the Hunter subclass should just be translated to the base Ranger class, but certainly not all of it and not in the same way, and certain parts of the ranger class would have to be changed. For example: I do think that rangers should just automatically get Evasion. Monks do and Rogues do, I don't see any balance reason why the base class shouldn't get it. (I do think that Escape the Horde and Uncanny Dodge could belong to a subclass, though.)
IMO, Whirlwind Attack and Volley should just be ranger spells.
tl;dr - I partially agree with them. It would definitely need changing in order to make work, but I don't see any need for a generic, boring "Hunter" ranger. All rangers are themed as hunters, just as all paladins are themed as holy warriors.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The very last public playtest version of the ranger was nothing like the final version of the PHB. I think you are correct.
Yeah I barely remember skimming that one as I did not have a group to play with due to work scheduling conflicts so most of my playtest was on play-by-post. I recall some of the videos and later streams that really set theory home for me. Though I did find it kind of odd when I asked Mearls about the whole size restriction of the animal companion on beastmaster it boil down to have an near permanent 2 square x 2 square (10ft x 10ft) blocker while completely forgetting that moon druid can stay in wild shape of similar size most of the same amount of time. Also while forgetting summon spells are a thing.
I would say Volley and Whirlwind Attack are already weaker versions of Conjure Volley and Steel Wind Strike that can be used on every turn without a spell slot. They are further comparable to Conjure Barrage and Hail of Thorns.
If they were made spells without tweaks they would certainly fall behind even a level 1 Hail of Thorns. The more tweaks I imagine to balance them without adding extraordinary functionality makes them more and more similar to these various spells to where you essentially have duplicate spells without any significant variations to warrant them being separate spells.
Land's Stride is one of the few higher level Ranger abilities I think is pretty good. One is because it is grouped with an ASI, so at that level specifically it pairs well. Any higher and it would be a decent ability though disappointing if it were the sole ability at that level, and it could arguably be given at a lower level as the sole feature and stand on its own.
The other reason is how it compares with Freedom of Movement. Land's Stride is always active, is weaker in some areas than Freedom of Movement while also granting other boons. Within the Ranger class, this feature is gained 5 levels before the Ranger gets access to Freedom of Movement. Outside of Ranger, Land's Stride is gained at the same level as other full caster classes gain access to the freedom of Movement.
I bring this up because if you compare Volley and Whirlwind Attack to Conjure Volley and Steel Wind Strike, you have much weaker yet functionally similar versions of those spells but you can use them every single turn, you get them 6 levels sooner than a Ranger gets the comparable spells, and they compare in much the same way as Land's Stride and Freedom of Movement. If they were just slapped on to the base class you may have to adjust at which level, but doing something like this requires a more extensive rework of the Ranger in any case.
While they did get some things wrong in the video for sure (they admitted as much in their pinned comment), I don't think they're completely wrong on this. Important reminder is that they're looking exclusively at the combat pillar for this video series and are mostly ignoring multiclassing because it adds too many variables/hexblade makes a whole lot of subclasses in general excellent with a single level dip.
I kinda agree that Colossus Slayer could have been moved to base Ranger. I get it, Ranger is supposed to be a Druid/Fighter/Rogue mixture with a heavy emphasize on exploration in the PHB version but the problem is it fell really flat. It... kinda needed a little bit more of all three and yet also needed more of its own identity? And for being the subclass that's supposed to heavily go in on the combat side of Ranger, Hunter feels really tame and also really... lacks anything that feels like a Hunter. They've realized with expansions that the base Ranger class isn't cutting it given how good Gloom Stalker and Swarmkeeper are, and I think they had room to do a minor overhaul both to help the base Ranger and to make Hunter more interesting. They did it for Beast Master after all.
Colossus Slayer being added to base Ranger would have been an interesting way to give it a "second extra attack" without actually giving it one. Never gets any damage modifiers added to it, but its a way for Rangers to have a small bit of consistent bonus damage. Wouldn't have to be level 3 still, could make it part of the 10th level. For the actual 3rd level let Hunter get both Giant Killer and Horde Breaker, and also give them a spell list like how the newer Ranger subclasses do. Keep it trap/tracking based, it would probably be the weakest spell list of the lot but its more options.
Steel Will probably needs a buff so its an actual option instead of falling flat compared to the other two. Advantage on Saving Throws against being Frightened, Charmed, or put to Sleep is a good mix I think and all three still fit the flavour of fighting off an assault on your will.
I'd also shunt the Multiattack options to the Ranger base, those two feel like things any Ranger should be able to do. It would let them stand out a bit more martially: having baked in options for weapon AoEs even if they're suboptimal a lot of the time. Its sorta like how Fighter stands out by having more attacks, Rogue stands out with Sneak Attack, and Paladin stands out with Smite.
11th level would need to be replaced with something then, personally I would like another thing that fits the "hunter" flavour better. Tremorsense maybe? Its a media thing where hunters will put their head to the ground to try to pick up on movement (think Aragon in LotR) so I really like the idea of them gaining say 20ft of Tremorsense in combat, and then Expertise on Perception checks to try to locate the direction of a moving target that's on the ground out to X amount of range. Don't let it be pinpoint precise outside of a very close range, but them them something unique and huntery. Some sort of hook to make a player go "Oh man I gotta try that out at some point even if is just in a one shot".
Stand Against the Tide is also pretty weak by current standards and would never be picked over the other two options. Adding something in like the creature has disadvantage on trying to hit you until the end of its next turn if you activate the ability with your reaction would make it a more viable option for being a defensive tool.
Its mainly just a few parts moved around, and updating the PHB subclasses to met the modern standard for them (spell list, subpar options at level 11 and 15). There's only one out of the box tool being suggested and none of the things being moved to base Ranger break it wide open with another subclass's features.
I think if we're going to suggest how to best adjust things from the RAW, then we should understand the design philosophy.
The features at both 3rd-level and 11th-level are offensive options while the features at 7th-level and 15th-level are defensive. They also fit different themes. Let's take a quick look just at 3rd-level. Giant Killer and Horde Breaker are for tacking different kinds of foes. Does your Hunter specialize in big-game monstrosities (a valid choice for Favored Enemy) like manticores and owlbears? Or are they better at taking down packs of smaller-threat creatures, though no-less dangerous in large numbers, like goblins or wolves? Colossus Slayer is probably better against medium creatures with a decent amount of hit points, or for archers against larger targets that Horde Breaker won't be effective against. It's a sort of middle-of-the-road path.
At 7th-level, you're choosing between being a skirmisher (Escape the Horde), dodging incoming blows (Multiattack Defense), and standing your ground (Steel Will). 11th-level forces the Hunter to double down on your much early preference towards melee vs ranged combat or become more of a switch hitter. But both make you better at taking down multiple foes. And, since you're moving into Tier 3, you've outgrown your initial role. 15th-level is...a bit late, IMO, for some much earlier monk and rogue abilities of the same name. But they're all good defensive options, and the choice reflects the ranger's story; where they've been and where they're going.
So if you want to make these all into core abilities, then something else needs to be added to fill that gap. And then you need to figure out (a) when the ranger should gain access to the original Hunter features and (b) how this affects balance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was watching this video ranking Ranger subclasses (https://youtu.be/H0lFyhRjbSg if you're interested), and during their discussion on the Hunter subclass, they talked about how there was no unique flavor to the subclass that didn't stretch beyond vanilla ranger-y-ness, and that they saw no reason to take the abilities for it and give them to a separate subclass when the base class was already so barebones.
I was wondering what people thought of this? With all the talk of the Ranger being an underpowered class, what if base rangers got to choose between stuff like Hoard Breaker and Colossus Slayer, Or between Whirlwind Strike or Volley, or even Evasion/Uncanny Dodge IN ADDITION to their subclass features?
I feel like that would not only give a lot of good customization options for an (again) fairly sparse class, but I don't think it would push it over the edge into OP territory either.
Thoughts? Should Hunter abilities mostly just be base Ranger abilities?
I don't think so.
In fact, I think these two got several things wrong about the ranger PHB base class, the 2 PHB subclasses, and the Tasha's beast master variants. Rangers play vary differently then they read. If you go hunter, you are doubling down on the fighter element of the ranger. If you go beast master, you are doubling down on the wilderness exploration and battlefield control element of the ranger.
coincidence... I watched the video a few minutes ago. Visit this forum and see your thread!
I think the DD´s are on to something. I really love Rangers - always did always will. My first option in every Fantasy RPG is always a beastmaster, and in my opinion
WOTC botched the Ranger/Beastmaster in 5th edition. I think that giving the Ranger the Hunter options as baseclass would be overkill if you chose one of the stronger
subclasses like Gloomstalker or Horizon Walker. But you could combine Hunter and Beastmaster and have a strong subclass without problems I think.
Right now I test and play a wisdom based Beastmaster with the Tashas primal beast and druidic warrior - really looking forward to that campaign!
I find it strange that they open up musing about the lore behind the ranger, and then don't bother actually diving into that when discussing the subclasses.
As for their actual grading, I find their opinions worth a pretty hefty serving of salt. Aside from making some factual mistakes (i.e. horses are not viable Beast Companions, the Primal Companions cannot use Multiattack with the ranger's Bonus Action), they never really dive into the "why" something is the way it is. Now, this is nominally fine; no one really needs to fully understand the "why" so long as they buy into the premise. That said, it's hypocritical of them to spend so much time on playing a role and lore and then flippantly act as if it doesn't matter. And it makes for disjointed criticism; however well-meaning it may be.
But it's hard for me to consider their work as being well-meaning when it comes across as this lazy. I'm not saying there aren't weaknesses in the ranger as a class; there are. But they aren't really addressing them, either.
Their video is riddled with rules mistakes, statements of opinions based on how it "feels", zero hard math, and zero accounting for exploration and battlefield control. They barely spoke about the spells of the ranger class which is what makes it so powerful at levels 9 and up.
If you are looking at an older yet really good video on the ranger and PHB subclasses, check out this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0lZ4nVBJIM
And here is their newer take on Tasha's...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4nURFmXew
yeah! I got that too from the video... well I will play my new beastmaster soon, and will for sure post how it plays ... very much looking forward to playing it!
I think that they rushed the initial development of the Ranger and did not have as much time to properly test what material they did have. The ranger has the issue of not having as clear a Class fantasy as the other players handbook classes once you cover all that had been previously developed. This is directly at odds with the original development goals to not step on other classes' toes. This is pure speculation that after the issues that 4e hand with not having the same (minimum) line up as 3e had at launch they rushed the ranger in rather than spending more (needed) time on it. So that perhaps the abilities were split to make two archetype.
The very first time I read the 5e Ranger my thoughts were "why isn't everything in the Hunter subclass a part of the Ranger base class" and there is still no good reason why it shouldn't be.
Remove or tweek most of the base abilities, move stuff around a few levels, give the base Ranger everything in the Hunter class and a beast companion or Find Beast Companion spell from the start with Beastmaster getting a rework based on that foundation.
As for the video, their presentation and arguments were odd.
"This is the standard Rangery-Ranger."
"If you want to be the most Ranger you can be, the Hunter is the way to go."
These arguments make it seem that all the base Ranger is missing is combat features and that the choice of archery or two-weapon fighting is the defining characteristic of the Ranger. This perspective seems to stem from the 3.X Ranger, where WOTC ****ed up the original Ranger in that edition and had to make another rework four years later (WOTC really has had a Ranger problem for a long time).
The combat buffs to the base Ranger are certainly necessary, but that is not all the Ranger is. Thematically the base Ranger has everything a Ranger is, including combat capabilities, it is just that those base abilities are so bad in execution. A Hunter alone does not a Ranger make.
The very last public playtest version of the ranger was nothing like the final version of the PHB. I think you are correct.
It was also relatively early in the player cycle. So was the Sorcerer, and draconic ones had proficiency in heavy armor and martial weapons.
It's not that WotC didn't have enough time to playtest. They did. The issue is the ranger has always been this odd duck of a tripartite hybrid of druid, fighter, and rogue. And some people have a hard time wrapping their head around the concept.
I had similar thoughts to Korbin_Orion when initially reading the Ranger class and Hunter subclass. Instead of thinking "why isn't this in the base ranger class" I more thought "why is this subclass a thing? It's just plain boring and uninspired. If all ranger subclasses are like this in theme and mechanics, I never want to play a ranger."
Thankfully, there have been some better subclasses since the PHB release that are filled with a lot more flavor and inspiration (Gloom Stalker, Horizon Walker, Fey Wanderer, etc). I've never played a ranger before, but these subclasses and some of Tasha's CFVs for the class at least give me a slight desire to play it . . . eventually, that is.
I do think that certain parts of the Hunter subclass should just be translated to the base Ranger class, but certainly not all of it and not in the same way, and certain parts of the ranger class would have to be changed. For example: I do think that rangers should just automatically get Evasion. Monks do and Rogues do, I don't see any balance reason why the base class shouldn't get it. (I do think that Escape the Horde and Uncanny Dodge could belong to a subclass, though.)
IMO, Whirlwind Attack and Volley should just be ranger spells.
tl;dr - I partially agree with them. It would definitely need changing in order to make work, but I don't see any need for a generic, boring "Hunter" ranger. All rangers are themed as hunters, just as all paladins are themed as holy warriors.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah I barely remember skimming that one as I did not have a group to play with due to work scheduling conflicts so most of my playtest was on play-by-post. I recall some of the videos and later streams that really set theory home for me. Though I did find it kind of odd when I asked Mearls about the whole size restriction of the animal companion on beastmaster it boil down to have an near permanent 2 square x 2 square (10ft x 10ft) blocker while completely forgetting that moon druid can stay in wild shape of similar size most of the same amount of time. Also while forgetting summon spells are a thing.
I would say Volley and Whirlwind Attack are already weaker versions of Conjure Volley and Steel Wind Strike that can be used on every turn without a spell slot. They are further comparable to Conjure Barrage and Hail of Thorns.
If they were made spells without tweaks they would certainly fall behind even a level 1 Hail of Thorns. The more tweaks I imagine to balance them without adding extraordinary functionality makes them more and more similar to these various spells to where you essentially have duplicate spells without any significant variations to warrant them being separate spells.
Land's Stride is one of the few higher level Ranger abilities I think is pretty good. One is because it is grouped with an ASI, so at that level specifically it pairs well. Any higher and it would be a decent ability though disappointing if it were the sole ability at that level, and it could arguably be given at a lower level as the sole feature and stand on its own.
The other reason is how it compares with Freedom of Movement. Land's Stride is always active, is weaker in some areas than Freedom of Movement while also granting other boons. Within the Ranger class, this feature is gained 5 levels before the Ranger gets access to Freedom of Movement. Outside of Ranger, Land's Stride is gained at the same level as other full caster classes gain access to the freedom of Movement.
I bring this up because if you compare Volley and Whirlwind Attack to Conjure Volley and Steel Wind Strike, you have much weaker yet functionally similar versions of those spells but you can use them every single turn, you get them 6 levels sooner than a Ranger gets the comparable spells, and they compare in much the same way as Land's Stride and Freedom of Movement. If they were just slapped on to the base class you may have to adjust at which level, but doing something like this requires a more extensive rework of the Ranger in any case.
While they did get some things wrong in the video for sure (they admitted as much in their pinned comment), I don't think they're completely wrong on this. Important reminder is that they're looking exclusively at the combat pillar for this video series and are mostly ignoring multiclassing because it adds too many variables/hexblade makes a whole lot of subclasses in general excellent with a single level dip.
I kinda agree that Colossus Slayer could have been moved to base Ranger. I get it, Ranger is supposed to be a Druid/Fighter/Rogue mixture with a heavy emphasize on exploration in the PHB version but the problem is it fell really flat. It... kinda needed a little bit more of all three and yet also needed more of its own identity? And for being the subclass that's supposed to heavily go in on the combat side of Ranger, Hunter feels really tame and also really... lacks anything that feels like a Hunter. They've realized with expansions that the base Ranger class isn't cutting it given how good Gloom Stalker and Swarmkeeper are, and I think they had room to do a minor overhaul both to help the base Ranger and to make Hunter more interesting. They did it for Beast Master after all.
Colossus Slayer being added to base Ranger would have been an interesting way to give it a "second extra attack" without actually giving it one. Never gets any damage modifiers added to it, but its a way for Rangers to have a small bit of consistent bonus damage. Wouldn't have to be level 3 still, could make it part of the 10th level. For the actual 3rd level let Hunter get both Giant Killer and Horde Breaker, and also give them a spell list like how the newer Ranger subclasses do. Keep it trap/tracking based, it would probably be the weakest spell list of the lot but its more options.
Steel Will probably needs a buff so its an actual option instead of falling flat compared to the other two. Advantage on Saving Throws against being Frightened, Charmed, or put to Sleep is a good mix I think and all three still fit the flavour of fighting off an assault on your will.
I'd also shunt the Multiattack options to the Ranger base, those two feel like things any Ranger should be able to do. It would let them stand out a bit more martially: having baked in options for weapon AoEs even if they're suboptimal a lot of the time. Its sorta like how Fighter stands out by having more attacks, Rogue stands out with Sneak Attack, and Paladin stands out with Smite.
11th level would need to be replaced with something then, personally I would like another thing that fits the "hunter" flavour better. Tremorsense maybe? Its a media thing where hunters will put their head to the ground to try to pick up on movement (think Aragon in LotR) so I really like the idea of them gaining say 20ft of Tremorsense in combat, and then Expertise on Perception checks to try to locate the direction of a moving target that's on the ground out to X amount of range. Don't let it be pinpoint precise outside of a very close range, but them them something unique and huntery. Some sort of hook to make a player go "Oh man I gotta try that out at some point even if is just in a one shot".
Stand Against the Tide is also pretty weak by current standards and would never be picked over the other two options. Adding something in like the creature has disadvantage on trying to hit you until the end of its next turn if you activate the ability with your reaction would make it a more viable option for being a defensive tool.
Its mainly just a few parts moved around, and updating the PHB subclasses to met the modern standard for them (spell list, subpar options at level 11 and 15). There's only one out of the box tool being suggested and none of the things being moved to base Ranger break it wide open with another subclass's features.
I think if we're going to suggest how to best adjust things from the RAW, then we should understand the design philosophy.
The features at both 3rd-level and 11th-level are offensive options while the features at 7th-level and 15th-level are defensive. They also fit different themes. Let's take a quick look just at 3rd-level. Giant Killer and Horde Breaker are for tacking different kinds of foes. Does your Hunter specialize in big-game monstrosities (a valid choice for Favored Enemy) like manticores and owlbears? Or are they better at taking down packs of smaller-threat creatures, though no-less dangerous in large numbers, like goblins or wolves? Colossus Slayer is probably better against medium creatures with a decent amount of hit points, or for archers against larger targets that Horde Breaker won't be effective against. It's a sort of middle-of-the-road path.
At 7th-level, you're choosing between being a skirmisher (Escape the Horde), dodging incoming blows (Multiattack Defense), and standing your ground (Steel Will). 11th-level forces the Hunter to double down on your much early preference towards melee vs ranged combat or become more of a switch hitter. But both make you better at taking down multiple foes. And, since you're moving into Tier 3, you've outgrown your initial role. 15th-level is...a bit late, IMO, for some much earlier monk and rogue abilities of the same name. But they're all good defensive options, and the choice reflects the ranger's story; where they've been and where they're going.
So if you want to make these all into core abilities, then something else needs to be added to fill that gap. And then you need to figure out (a) when the ranger should gain access to the original Hunter features and (b) how this affects balance.