Generic-Giant-Spider
Guest
They wanted to make Aragorn a class is basically the problem.The problem of Rangers in D&D has always been that it's basically a cross between a Druid and a Rogue/Thief and they've never really gotten anything truly unique to them to justify their existence gameplay wise.
They tried giving it some defining features in various editions with mild success. Such as "Oh he's the archer guy". But what about any other character that's an archer and takes archery feats? And it's pretty limiting to tie a whole class to one weapon. "Oh he's the two-weapon fighting guy." Same issue, anyone can do it with feats. "Oh you can choose one or the other." Same. "Oh he's the animal companion dude now, not the wizard." "Let's give him favored enemies and terrain." But what if we don't fight them or go there? "Oh I know let's make him a nature caster."
Every edition the focus changes a bit. And then alternate versions always come out to "fix" it for those who like it another way. Problem is, the concept of a "ranger" hasn't had a clear definition from which class features would be derived. It's way too much a mix of Rogue, Fighter, and sometimes Druid to have something of its own. And then there's the whole tradition problem: if you were to invent a unifying feature that defined the class, people would balk at it as they have gotten used to conceiving rangers a certain way, even if it varies from person to person. So now Rangers are just an amalgam of class features that have no clear unifying concept.
Personally I liked the 3.5E Scout better. Focus on mobility. But it was very much tied to that iteration of rules.
This sums up my thoughts on the Ranger class. Every time I consider playing one I end up going Rogue because they're more interesting in pretty much every way. There's nothing that is unique or gets you excited about playing a Ranger. Their angles are covered by better classes.