Ranger in bg3 is nothing like tabletop ranger, lol.
Took a quik look with respeccing at lvl8 or so for shits and giggles and its not even remotely the same.
For all the 'fighters make better archers' things were true for the tabletop. Because fighters had the same options that a ranger did and better options in some cases. Like how some battlemaster moves also work on ranged attacks. Fighters get more ASI's or feats as well so if your build relies on feats a fighter gets there faster as well.
That said. Gloomstalker rangers have alot going for them. If you set yourself up in an area of darkness all your ranged shots have advantage. Because people cant see you, but you can see them. You effectivly have greater invisibility in that case. Adding sneak attack from a rogue to this or shadowmonk for teleporting shenanigans add to the class very nicely.
As for bg3 ranger builds id have to sit down once I reach lvl 12 to take at all the things about the class that they changed. As is, its kinda moot to make a comparison because bg3 ranger and tabletop ranger are nothing alike.
That's a single subspec of ranger, and built around multiclass and being sneaked far out. Won't be fun when dialogue selection after a battle is proximity based either. Many people roll ranger with the idea of animal companions and being a forest warden, not a sniper assassin archetype, and on that front the class is pretty weak. I mean, any martial/weapon based class multiclassed to rogue is bound to be strong because of the extra attack that rogue should not be granting for such little multiclass investment.
A core class should be good and optimal, without requiring multiclass to a stronger class category like rogues for some martials and paladin for warlock to make the core class work.
