I wouldn't go so far as to say that one shouldn't sacrifice PK viability for one's RP... how else would we get another faerie zerk? But that's a more personal balancing act and has to do primarily with player preference... personally I hate playing a combo that I know I'm going to get constantly stomped as, but some people don't mind it at all.
But on the specific question regarding whether or not knowledge of areas, equipment, etc. should be considered OOC... I'm pretty solidly on the side that it shouldn't, unless you're RPing something that very specifically should NOT have that knowledge (for example, playing a character that's from outside Aabahran would make ignorance of the locale entirely sensible, though not necessary).
I really think beastmasters need something. After doing a bit of PK at 50 with a feral beastmaster, I knew I would have been MUCH better off as either of the other lores. The beasts are only helpful against mages, and most mages have something to kill them in almost no time, even if they have sanc. Damage reduction or being able to call a decent third pet(not a raven) would be a start for that path.
I disagree with you there Corpsestomp. I personally think feral beastmaster is easily one of the strongest ranger combinations available. With the feral perks and 3 lvl 51 pets, you deal damage out fast. No caster will really be able to do much and your 103 in all defenses makes a melee fight not hard to succeed in at all.
...and your 103 in all defenses makes a melee fight not hard to succeed in at all.
I would argue that against a fire giant warrior wielding a fire lance 
That would be a hard fight, but not impossible.
I would argue that against a fire giant warrior wielding a fire lance
every class has one or two banes...pointing out th emost obvious one doesnt refute his comment.
Trick is right, Imo.
your fire giant warrior, dissolves to an invoker spamming ice storm....
The caster has to stay in combat long enough for those spells to kill the pets. A caster can not deal with the output to stand there and watch your pets die. Pets aren't nearly as easy to kill as you're making them out to be. The damage output you are throwing will be more than enough to deal with fireball/steel wall/fire shield/sharpmetal/blades, etc.
In my opinion, one of the strongest classes vs a ranger is a paladin - flamestrike easily blinds even level 50 or 51 pets, polearm is a staple paladin weapon and one of two that rangers don't have, and paladins have the melee defense to ignore the pets and the curatives/melee to outlast the ranger. The only real weakness of a paladin is the vulnerability to laglock, which a ranger can't really take advantage of.
With casters... it depends on the caster you're fighting. A bmg will usually wreck rangers, a necro depends heavily on who is using better pet management, and vs an invoker depends a lot on whether firestorm blinds the pets and if the invoker's blind.
This being said... as someone who has never pinned a ranger, I do have the feeling that beastmasters are a little bit weaker than the others, simply because the extra raven at 50 means almost nothing (lack of ranger expertise: if they can have an extra mammoth/leopard/etc. and I'm just wrong, ignore this). Even the classes that can't reliably block the extra melee damage don't suffer much due to how weak it is, and (I'm pretty sure this is a beastmaster trait, but correct me if I'm wrong) the area scan is only useful if you're already outdamaging your opponent (I'd be happy to wager that the time it takes a beastmaster to use and take advantage of this ability gives the opponent enough time to counter the advantage through movement/healing/recalling - something I would not necessarily apply to the tracker's hunting abilities).
Rangers can be strong and rangers can be weak depending on who plays them.
The same goes with warriors, paladins, vampires, dark knights, blademasters and basicly ANY class.
I should really give up...
