Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Ranger favored enemies feel a bit underwhelming

Sorry, I know that the above quote is from the separate thread about hex, but thought querying the ranger aspects would be better done here!

TomReneth, you say “They 'fixed' those features in BG3 by making Rangers better at being Rogues than Rogues are” which makes me think I’m doing Ranger wrong. Though admittedly I’ve only played one, he certainly wasn’t as good a Rogue as Astarion. Okay, the fact he could hide as a bonus action and attack with advantage in the same round at low levels was probably OTT, but he couldn’t sneak attack and while he could have taken Sleight of Hand (though didn’t) I don’t think he got options for Skill Expertise. And then the rogue subclasses take things still further in different directions.

It is certainly possible to play what we have of BG3 with a ranger instead of a rogue - and I’m all for that, as I enjoy playing with different party configurations - but I still think I’d find Rogues better at traditional rogue stuff, with the Ranger having an overlapping but different set of skills.

Perhaps you were just exaggerating for effect, but I’m particularly interested as I’m planning a run with an Urban Tracker/Bounty Hunter ranger who I do want to have a bit of a rogue-y flavour!

I will concede PfEG will actually likely end up being very useful. Just judging by story hints I have a feeling there will be many fiends/infernals in our characters future. Though I do still wish there was a little something else there during your characters progression more for flavor than anything else.

problem is you need concentration for hunters mark and all the other ranger stuff so the value is low and like i said you can get the item and move that cocentaration to anyone that maybe doesnt need it as desperately to do damage. if you could use hunters mark without it sure as is it's meh even in best of circumstances.

If you're not generally outperforming a Rogue as a Ranger inn BG3, then you're probably not playing very optimally or you're just not paying enough attention to what the Ranger actually did. Here are some dmg numbers for a Rogue vs a Hunter Ranger with Colossus Slayer. I'm assuming a base 65% accuracy for the sake of simplifying the comparison, which means advantage is 87,75%.

Rogue
BA attack: +1d6 = 2,275 // Advantage: 3,07125
Lvl 1: 1d6 + 3 + 1d6 = 6,5 // Advantage: 8,775
Lvl 3: 1d6 + 3 + 2d6 = 8,775 // Advantage: 11,84625
Lvl 5: 1d6 + 4 + 3d6 = 11,7 // Advantage: 15,795

This is weaker than Rogues in tabletop, because in tabletop we can Sneak Attack on the bonus action attack too. But not in BG3.

Ranger:
Lvl 2: 2d6 + 6 = 8,45
Lvl 3: ((2d6 + 6)x0,65 + 1d8x0.8775) = 12,35
Lvl 5: ((3d6 + 12)x0,65 + 1d8x0.95) = 18,925

I've rounded the numbers for Colossus Slayer down a bit to simplify the math, but the trend is pretty clear. Even without Hunter's Mark or advantage, a regular Hunter Ranger with Colossus Slayer and two-weapon fighting is keeping pace or outperforming a Rogue at the levels we have available. And it is much easier to use multiattack + Colossus Slayer since they don't have the requirements Sneak Attack does. When we factor in BA hide for Ranger, then archery + Colossus Slayer becomes a major factor too.

Add in that Expertise is not a very strong mechanic early on (+2 bonus to two skills) and the ease with which we can use Guidance (+2,5 avg on any skill on any character. Shadowheart has it, and everyone can put on an amulet found super early to cast it), the benefits of the Rogue starts to look rather shaky. Furthermore, Rogues are normally a 4 skill class, but because Sleight of Hand now determines Thieves' Tools (not the case in tabletop), we're forced to use one of those skills to get what should be normal proficiencies for Rogues. We're essentially a 3 skill Rogue. Rangers, contrarily, is now a 4 skill class and can be a 5 skill class with Urban Tracker, where you pick up Thieves' Tools proficiency through Sleight of Hand.

Then consider that while Rogues are stuck with a dexterity build, Rangers can actually go strength if they so choose for powerful abilities like Polearm Master or Great Weapon Master.

And we haven't even begun to look at spellcasting yet, where Rangers generally outshine Arcane Trickster Rogues. BG3 even lets us take advantage of more niche Ranger utility spells, like Speak With Animals, unlocking additional ways of handling situations without combat. Want to deal with spellcasters? Silence. More dmg? Hunter's Mark. Etc.

In the 5e system, Rangers tend to scale poorly after lvl 5, but they have a really good early game. And if they're still planning on adding multiclassing for the full release, then a Ranger 5 -> Rogue is probably going to be one of the strongest dex characters we can make. If they fix the way Sneak Attack works, at least.

Rogues aren't "bad", but Larian made the Ranger very good at being a Rogue and that is proving a bit problematic.


Generally speaking, Rangers are fine for dmg lvl 2-10 with just multiattack and Colossus Slayer (Blastlock, which is often considered the benchmark to meet, is at 7,8 and 16,9 at lvl 2 and 5, so just compare that to the numbers above). Hunter's Mark is a really nice bonus if you're looking to wear down something big, but it isn't very important in most fights and can actually reduce your dmg output if you have to constantly use your BA to reapply it instead of making a BA attack (dual wield, hand crossbows or polearm master). PfEG, on the other hand, is a spell can is relevant at all levels when dealing with creatures like abberrations (Mind Flayers), undead or fiends (like devils), because they not only impose disadvantage on all attack rolls, but protect you from fear and charm. In EA alone we're dealing with aberrations, undead, fey and fiends, which PfEG helps against.

A lot of people seem to talk about D&D as just a damage game, but defensive features have a great deal of potential. Less time spent worrying about your survival is more time to spend on damage dealing or other useful tasks.

Sorry, I still don’t get it! I get that a ranger can be more effective in various ways than a rogue, but don’t understand why that constitutes being a better rogue than a rogue. The ways in which a ranger plays in and out of combat have some similarities with a rogue but still feel to me quite different, with different strengths and weaknesses.

Is your argument that the defining feature of a rogue is DEX DPS with a variety of skills, and ranger can be a better DEX DPS than a rogue and can get quite a few skills with the right picks too (that can be rogue-like if you decide to go that way)? Or am I still missing something?

Combat is a part of it, but it does Rogue better than Rogue in BG3 because you get more skill proficiencies, have additional non-combat solutions through spells like Speak With Animal, can get a huge +10 to stealth with Pass Without Trace for the party and Guidance is so easily available that the Expertise bonus just kinda disappears into the background. Expertise isn't a very strong feature at low level, because it depends on your proficiency bonus and it is only 2 skills.

this is exactly why it doesn't need to be weighted down with concentration even more... anyway a passive that lets you have hunters mark concentration + a normal spell concetration would go a long way to making the class more fun to play and that's what really matters in the end at least to me.

All i can say is this is a video game you are confusing things.

There are huge differences i literally had like 10 speak to animals potions and that was after talking to every animal in EA. enough for full game i reckon... So that spell you mentioned doesn't do anything at all and it's useless if anything it would be a huge waste of spell same as +10 steath. We have vision cones i don't even need sneak stat most of the time... So picking those two and then finding out that i can do that any time with a potion or items just isn't fun in my opinion. Choices and skills like that should matter more.

And it's like that for most things related to everything. i would say unlearn table top dnd for bg 3. Again video game...huge diffrence. i think this is why this thread was made.

Okay, with you. Thanks for your patience .

My own take on this, as a non-PnP player not otherwise familiar with 5e, is that yes we can make a sneaky hunter-type ranger who is good enough to open all the locks and disarm traps we come across in EA. To me this feels like a valid ranger archetype, and building in this way means compromising to some degree on the other things a ranger might be, such as a heroic Aragorn-(or Drizzt?)-alike or a nature buff. Particularly as we don’t have multiclassing I think it’s great we can make this kind of ranger. And even if we do get multiclassing, I think I actually prefer focusing on using backgrounds and emphasising areas where classes overlap to give one class the flavour of another over taking levels in another class, especially given we’re not expecting all that many levels even in the full game.

None of which, I realise, gets at what I think is your biggest problem. I do agree that rogues could justifiably be grumpy that the right build of ranger can do everything they can (well enough, if not always quite as well as them), plus other stuff too. For me, though, this is something I’d like to see addressed by balancing tweaks and careful consideration of how rogues vs sneaky rangers progress from level 5 to 11 or whatever it ends up being, rather than by revising the BG3 approach to rangers.

To conclude with a desperate, if possibly doomed, attempt to make all this seem on topic … the main thing I enjoy about the fact that we can pick FE/NE options at character creation is that it, along with the Background, helps me come up with a story for my ranger that brings them to life. The specific benefits of these picks might be tiny in themselves, but I enjoy thinking of ways to build on and take advantage of them to make distinct kinds of ranger, including sneaky trap/lock handling ones!

Then you can pick up other powerful spells, like Flog Cloud, Ensnaring Strike (which is buffed by Bounty Hunter), Silence, Spike Growth and Barkskin (16 AC + dex).

Rangers have always been a powerhouse class at lvl 2-5, with a strong combat foundations and a great deal of flexibility. Hunter never even needed Hunter's Mark until higher levels to scale their damage high enough, so it's just not a big deal to not spend concentration on it most of the time. Their lvl 1 features are kinda terrible in the PHB and needed to be looked at, but making the Ranger better at skills than Rogues was not the right answer, since they're already better at combat and magic. At low levels, more proficiencies tend to be better than expertise.

It's not about whether or not it matched tabletop, it's about game balance. Rangers didn't need to largely invalidate Rogues. They didn't need to be given more customizeable and powerful features than most other warrior classes when they weren't even weak to begin with. The thing that Rangers need is better scaling after level 5.



No problem

It's not that the Ranger is able to overlap that is the problem. The right background in tabletop also gives access to the thief role for Rangers (and anyone else). It's that they made it so that Rangers have more skills, more additional features like PFEG and Find Familiar, and made Guidance omnipresent together that just pushes the Rogue right to the side, because the only measurement on skill checks that matter is "good enough". The Ranger didn't need all these features at lvl 1. What the Ranger needs is better scaling from lvl 6 onwards. And BA Hide needs to be Rogue exclusive.

Fair I guess, though this might be better explored on a thread about issues of originality, balance, flavor, and function that rogues face generally. I'm not sure how the topic of rangers pushing rogues to the side came up, but I don't know how relevant that is to what I'm trying to say.
Which is that in the current implementation of favored enemy, with the exception of ranger knight and bounty hunter(because they introduce meaningful passives that alter general style of play), are underwhelming in both flavor and function. If they are going to have a favored enemy feature, I would like it to more meaningfully change the rangers kit to provide some mechanical uniqueness to each option. The minor buffs in different skill proficiency don't actually do a ton to add to character flavor or function where as I think changing how certain abilities function depending on favored enemy or what spells can be accessed during character progression would add more depth to each favored enemy option and therefore to the ranger class as a whole.

I agree it’s a bit of a digression, but I thought there was enough overlap to make it worth discussing in the same thread rather than creating a new one about rangers that could end up covering similar points (and while we’ve been comparing with rogues to help judge the overall balance, it is about rangers rather than rogues). Happy to take it elsewhere, but I do think it’s linked it’s helped clarify the rationale for TomReneth’s view that the starting abilities rangers get as a result of choosing a FE might in some lights be considered too much rather than too little.

In contrast my position, I think, is that they’re at the right sort of level to add flavour and some situational benefit without being too much. But I’m going to think more on his last response and give a more considered reply, and I can easily do that in another thread if you want to keep this one tightly focused on your point about favoured enemies.

I’m not saying it couldn’t be better, but I’m actually pretty happy that the starting FE abilities aren’t underwhelming, but are about right for low level rangers. Depending on other choices you make about your ranger they may or may not be useful (e.g. I can’t see that True Strike is going to be particularly helpful if you don’t have two-weapon fighting at level 2, particularly if/once hand crossbows are fixed), but I think they all have use cases and I find working out what they might be fun.

I also think the approach currently strikes the right balance between giving your character a flavour while not railroading you into a specific vision of a ranger driven by your FE. You can decide to double down on the suggested character histories and seek synergies with your FE by picking related spells and so on as you level up, or treat them as in the past only and forge your own different path. I can see the temptation of having your favoured enemy affect more than it currently does, but I worry it would be too inflexible.

The FE skill proficiencies are all INT based, so I agree that rangers aren’t likely to be great at these even with a two point bonus, but they give a bit of a boost that makes your ranger slightly better at conversation and environmental checks that align with their FE which I think is good for flavour without being too much. Rangers aren’t meant to be skill monkeys, and other classes would get jealous!

That said, I will be interested to see what Larian has planned for FE improvements at higher levels (6 and 14 if they align with 5e, I think, and if we get that far). Will they let us pick additional FEs from the current list (presumably minus the skill proficiency bonuses, and with different explanations) or have new things we can pick? On consideration, I’d prefer it if we had the option either to diversify and pick a new FE bonus that increases the breadth of our ranger’s skills OR one that builds on our previously selected FE(s) (I agree relevant spells not available to rangers who hadn’t got that FE could be a good thing to offer here).

That’s all about FEs of course. Slightly off topic again, but the Natural Explorer bonuses do seem more unbalanced to me. I don’t find the Wasteland Wanderer options compelling, though perhaps they’re more tempting for power gamers. But it’s fun that every ranger (even non beast masters) can get a pet via Beast Tamer, and I think familiars are situationally useful and give flavour without being balance breaking, though I suppose the ability could afford to be made per short or long rest rather than infinite. And yes, a ranger can get an extra class proficiency by picking Urban Tracker for Sleight of Hand, but they need to sacrifice the chance of a familiar - or elemental resistance - to do it. That’s not something a ranger is likely to want to do unless they’re very definitely going to be a rogue-replacement in their party and possibly not even then, given they could choose Urchin or Charlatan background instead and still get their pet/hardiness, but it’s nice that we can decide to go more all in on a rogue-like ranger. Again, I don’t think we know what Larian are planning for their home brew, but I believe 5e lets rangers pick new NEs at levels 6 & 10, so I can see some of the ones that are less tempting at level 1 being more interesting later in the game. Or perhaps we’ll get some more options in the full release!

This I largely agree with. I think the Bounty Hunter, for example, is a good indication of how these features could be implemented well. I would like to remove the skill proficiency bonus, because it makes Rangers a 4 skill class when they are balanced around being a 3 skill class, but the idea that you get a special benefit when using the Ensnaring Strike spell is a cool way to give it flavor and impact.

Let's write some potential features that adresses the actual design problems Rangers have (too few spells, mostly useless flavor features) at lower levels, but that doesn't go outside the normal abilities a Ranger would have:

Bounty Hunter: You add the Ensnaring Strike spell to your spellbook. It does not count towards the number of Ranger spells you know and you cannot exchange it for another spell. You can cast Ensnaring Strike once per long rest without expending a spellslot, and normally with spellslots after that. Enemies have disadvantage on their saving throw when they are hit by an Ensnaring Strike cast by you.

Beast Tamer: You add the Speak With Animals spell to your spellbook. It does not count towards the number of Ranger spells you know and you cannot exchange it for another spell. You can cast it as a ritual (free, out of combat). You have advantage on dialogue checks when interacting with animals.

Monster Slayer (default in character creation): You add the Hunter's Mark spell to your spellbook. It does not count towards the number of Ranger spells you know and you cannot exchange it for another spell. You can cast it once per long rest without expending a spellslot, and normally with spellslots after than. You have advantage on saving throws to maintain concentration on Hunter's Mark.

Interesting. I’m not saying I wouldn’t want these skills, but I think they (or at least the bounty hunter and monster slayer ones) are quite a bit more powerful - or at least generally useful - than the FE options Larian have given us. A free Hunters Mark or Ensnaring Strike per rest at level one feels like it is going to make a lot more difference to a ranger than the spells in the current FE list, even with the INT based skill proficiencies they currently come bundled with. Even at subsequent levels when the ranger could potentially learn them anyway, an extra HM or ES each day feels significant given limited ranger spell slots.

To me they feel a bit much, given I didn’t feel my ranger was struggling at low levels, though I’d hope that it’s the sort of thing Larian might consider for FE improvements at level 6 if they carry on the theme of their home brew. But that’s just my instinct. They’re probably not enough to break balance in practice.

They are more useful than some of the current options because they capitalize on the Ranger's role as a half-caster, but less problematic since they stay within the normal selection of abilities a Ranger has. Keeper of the Veil giving us PFEG in a Mind Flayer themed story is a big deal, as is getting Find Familiar for free with the status effects they inflict.

It is worth noting that this is just my perception of ranger not having seen what they unlock as the game goes on. It is kind of easy to see lvl 5 as the late game. If each FE gets some sort of unique progression at lvl 6 or 7 (sort of how draconic sorcs are supposed to get stuff based on their dragon ancestor at lvl 6) that would address many of my concerns. Hopefully that is the plan.

Though I do hope that the initial bonuses for sanctified stalker and mage breaker especially can be rethought a bit. As has been discussed, true strike and sacred flame cantrip aren't super useful or meaningful to the kit. Unlike other FEs which are incredibly meaningful (heavy armor ranger is kind of a game changer for example). Many good potential alternatives.

I agree. The way Larian manage progression for their homebrew will be the making or breaking of it, and it’s hard to make a judgement without more info.


While more, or slightly tweaked, options could be great, I think it would be possible to make a viable and fun ranger using any of the existing FE options. Sure, some might be better than others when it comes down to raw damage or even general combat potential but as I’m a roleplayer rather than power gamer I don’t really mind that as long as I’m not dying or missing all the time, and if I can do decent damage I don’t mind if there are alternatives that could do more!

As I’ve mentioned, what I particularly like about the Larian approach so far is the inspiration it gives me for my rangers, and that it encourages me to explore their different abilities and create various distinctive characters, potentially with flavours of other classes without full-on multiclassing (if the latter is even going to be possible).

I can see that’s less of a benefit for experienced DnD players who would no doubt be able to come up with more interesting ranger concepts in their sleep, and for whom my thinking about what I can do with the ranger abilities is probably unsophisticated and old hat - and I’m sure in some cases just plain mistaken - but it’s still really handy for me as someone who only plays the odd single-player RPG as a place to start from!

To illustrate, if we take the existing FE options:

• Bounty Hunter: Archetypal ranger or stealthy hunter? Probably with a bow or rapier, with the boost to their signature Ensnaring Strike ability and the Investigation skill proficiency which is a thematically appropriate class skill, but nice to get for “free” given it would often be hard to prioritise as it’s INT based rather than synergising with one of the key ranger stats. The more general utility of this FE option to rangers is balanced by the fact that the Ensnaring Strike option is only likely to start becoming useful at level 2 when you get the spell, and it’s probably going to encourage a build that doesn’t focus on the other ranger signature, Hunter’s Mark, which would be in competition with Ensnaring Strike for concentration and spell slots.
• Mage Breaker: Suggests interesting backstory for RP, with an Arcana proficiency that rangers wouldn’t normally have access to. INT based so they’re not going to be great at it anyway, but good enough to give a different flavour. True Strike isn’t great and I agree this FE is a candidate for some improvement, but it’s fun to think about whether it could be leveraged. It’s a cantrip so at least no spell slot worry. And while generally two normal attacks would be better than one with advantage, conversely one normal attack might be better than two with disadvantage (is it given to Mage Breakers because it might therefore be useful against a Blurred opponent?). Could a ranger with Two Weapon fighting use it to cast and then offhand attack in the same round so they don’t need to maintain concentration in the interim? Might it be useful for a ranger who wanted to increase the chance of one of their scarce spells hitting and was willing to expend a turn to do it?
• Protector of the Veil: Has great RP potential given the way the plot of the game seems to be going, and Arcana proficiency like the Mage Hunter. Protection from Evil and Good once a day could be handy given the antagonists we seem to be facing and gives the ranger a slight cleric or paladin vibe that can be played up with other character choices. As it uses concentration the ranger is not going to be able to use Ensnaring Strike or Hunter’s Mark at the same time, so this is going to encourage a build that doesn’t rely on those abilities.
• Ranger Knight: With heavy armour to lug around (and which negates DEX bonus to AC), this is probably going to encourage a strength based ranger. It will certainly be extremely useful for any ranger who wants to prioritise high AC and doesn’t care about being sneaky (setting aside the dodgy stealth mechanics of the game currently, anyway), and saves them having to take the Heavily Armored feat, so makes sense it doesn’t also come with an active ability. History proficiency is a nice touch that rangers wouldn’t normally get, also INT based so rangers again aren’t going to be great at it, but it’s enough to add flavour, eg more successful lore checks related to history (particularly later in the game when proficiency bonuses increase).
• Sanctified Stalker: Like Mage Breaker, a potentially interesting back story with an appropriate skill proficiency that rangers don’t normally get: Religion in this case. A ranger with a hint of cleric or druid, perhaps? And they probably are going to have to prioritise WIS more than your average ranger if they’re going to get any benefit from that Radiant Flame cantrip. I agree it’s still pretty underwhelming in EA, though as discussed in this thread will improve later and could still be situationally useful. And if you’re going to pump more into WIS anyway, you might as well look for other ways your ranger could benefit from this. At the moment, that looks mainly to be by being a better healer (given the bonus to HP healed) and use of abilities for which a higher spell save DC would be helpful.

Anyway, apologies for going on far longer than I intended, but I hope that brings to life what I mean about how the FE options have helped me think about the potential of the class in a way that I, as a 5e novice, otherwise probably would not have.

And that’s even without going into the natural explorer options, which could potentially add a familiar, lockpicking/trap disarming skill, or elemental resistance to any of the above!

So much better Favored Enemy/Natural Explorer than what we have currently! Wasteland Wanderer (Natural Explorer) should be given a similar treatment. The acknowledged problem with 5e Ranger is that many of the features are overly specialized and lack versatility. Larian must not have gotten that memo and make similar or worse design mistakes, so here's my take that should be more flexible, more immersive "world logic", and without a trap choice (cold):

Wasteland Wanderer: You add the Absorb Elements spell to your spellbook. It does not count towards the number of Ranger spells you know and you cannot exchange it for another spell. You can cast it once per long rest without expending a spellslot, and normally with spellslots after that. You gain Advantage on your first attack on the turn after using a reaction to absorb elements. Also works with ranged weapons.

Absorb Elements: Reaction to gain resistance vs acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage for 1 turn.
http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/spell:absorb-elements

An interesting take, but also one I could hardly disagree with more. Whereas you seem to consider the features good because they provide roleplaying avenues, I consider these unneeded and unwanted roleplaying crutches that are covered in a myriad of ways, from backgrounds, skills, feats, subclasses, and most of all by the player's own imagination. Too many roleplaying fluff features is, I believe, universally recognized as part of the core problems 5e Rangers suffer from alongside too many situational and overly specialized features. Larian has acknowledged issues with the 5e Ranger (which is why their homebrew deviates so radically), but has clearly failed to understand it.

Hunter's Mark is a staple spell as it makes the Ranger's (primarily a damage dealing class) damage somewhat relevant and anything that is offered as an alternative for that concentration should be seen in this light. The Bounty Hunter comes close as it buffs an alternative while D&D will likely remove concentration aspect from Hunter's Mark in the upcoming new PHB edition (speaking to its importance to the class) and free the Ranger from having to choose between decent damage and versatility. You don't really incentivise an exciting alternative playstyle as much as you incentivise counter-synergic/antagonistic gameplay - unless the player has a good deal of metagaming knowledge.

Larian's Ranger homebrew is unbalanced on top of this and offers really bad "trap" choices like True Strike which is universally considered a horrible cantrip and more so for Hunter's Mark reliant Rangers. Where's Larian homebrew when it is called for? Sacred Flame is another trap choice - pitiful on a martial class. Protection from E/G is decent, but not when competing with Hunter's Mark. At the very least offer a free casting. The proficiencies are barely passable for Rangers as they are not thematic/obscure and Intelligence-based which is considered a dump-stat for Rangers. The Ranger Knight is clearly a stronger choice than most/all others given how much Larian has buffed Strength gameplay through their Shove and Jump mechanics, and having this appear to be the best choice is doubly problematic as it is a mismatch with what Rangers are supposed to be thematically. It's like making the "Armored Hulk" the best Rogue "subclass". Besides there are better subclasses (eg Oath of Ancients) that cover this kind of style anyway - so it doesn't really offer anything new. At least change recommended ability to Strength if you pick this so players new to D&D doesn't waste their points on Dex (another potential trap).

I actually don't mind the extra proficiency because it covers what's usually a dump stat. It's a nice little flavor feature that doesn't really break balance in any way as the bonus is pretty minor and it's skill proficiencies for non-combat stuff anyway.

I would disagree about the ranger knight being a trap choice they are actually quite good with high dex because of rapiers. Rangers also get a good number of non-concentration utility spells like longstider that rock on melee martial classes. Ranger Knight I personally like because it is incredibly versatile with good AC and survivability due to heavy armor, high ranged and melee damage (assuming you use a finesse weapon) potential because of high dexterity and hunters mark, and utility casting of things like fog cloud or pass without trace when you need it. I like this FE the most because it heightens the fantastic versatility rangers generally possesses.

The bounty hunter kit is the other one I really like for the opposite reason because it heightens a more specialized approach around ensnaring/entrapping.

Because ranger knight is such a versatility kit my hope is that the other FEs act more like the bounty hunter and specialize the kit a bit more like thieves can't does.