Well I cant really say too much about the thread topic. I just dont play Ranger, its one of the classes that dont appeal to me.
---
But I can make the very global observation that Rangers are a mix of Warrior, some Rogue, some Druid, and some uniquely Ranger-y stuff. So its not really that surprising that a Ranger cannot have the battle power of a pure Fighter, or for that matter Barbarian, to a degree also Paladin. Even Paladins are more focused into warrior than Ranger, since the later also has stealth and the wilderness theme, on topc of the druidic magic, while Paladin really just mixes combat and some clerical magic (and I guess Turn Undead but I wouldnt say thats in any way compareable to having a general feature like Stealth).
---
That said, IMHO D&D5 Fighter is hopelessly overpowered anyway. If you complain another class is not as good, well, thats unsurprising. For comparison:
In AD&D, all that Fighter had over Ranger and Paladin was that they leveled faster and could put 5 points into a weapon, while the later two could only put 2 points into a weapon. And if a Fighter would put 5 points into a weapon, well they would gain another 1/2 attack. Fighter, Ranger and Paladin all gained an extra 1/2 attack on level 7 and 13, and gained an extra 1/2 attack for 2 points in a weapon. So the difference was in the end 3 attacks for a Fighter with 5 points into a weapon, against 2 1/2 attacks from Ranger or Paladin. Another price Fighter had to pay was less weapon type choices than the later, since they wouldnt get more weapon skillpoints (4 at level 1, +1 every 3 levels).
In D&D3, warrior classes would get up to 4 attacks on level 20, priests and tricksters would gain 3 at level 20, and the arcane spellcasters would gain 2 at level 20. Fighters would simply get more feats, and would get a special feat only available to them for additional weapon damage.
But now in D&D5 everyone gets one attack per round (now called turn), Warriors (and certain other classes) gain a second attack on level 5, but Fighters gain a third attack on level 11 and would also get a fourth on level 17 if Larian would have implemented that level in BG3. Massive advantage for Fighters and totally overpowered, and the situation is much worse than in AD&D and D&D3.
D&D5 has many elegant solutions, but giving Fighters such an extreme advantage really wasnt one of them.
---
About the sidetopic that developed in this thread, I prefer Minsc as Barbarian, and Jaheira as pure Druid.
Lets face it, if Barbarian would have been initially available when the original Baldur's Gate came out, Minsc would have been made a Barbarian. Barbarian was first available in the second game though.
And I'm sorry, but D&D5 just offers absolutely nothing that can be actually compared to an AD&D Fighter/Druid; the later had a TON of different properties over a pure AD&D Druid. Making Jaheira Fighter(n)/Druid(m) just doesnt work at all. To even get the second attack you'd have to make her a level 5 Fighter, after which her Druid would be riddiculously mediocre. She also wouldnt get heavy armor unless you would start her as Fighter, which is also not a good idea.
So at most I'd give Jaheira a single level of Cleric (Life, Tempest or War Domain) so she can wear heavy armor (and, for Tempest or War, use any weapon) and some other extras (which dont really fit Jaheira but whatever). As Druid subclass it seems popular to pick Circle of Moon and shapeshift a lot with her, which actually gives her a quite decent amount of combat and tanking ability.
For the record I had big fun with Jaheira as Shaman (in the EEs) or as human Ranger(n)/Cleric (in the original games; in the EEs a Ranger/Cleric no longer gets the highlevel Druid spells as well). Going human Fighter(n)/Druid or Shapeshifter (Druid subclass) would also be interesting options for her. So maybe I'm just more open to the idea to change her around in the first place.
---
