you make a good case that they trivialize some core class features. yet somehow rangers are still one of the highest dps classes in the currect meta. I agree with alot that you say, but it seems unlikely that they will change it much
Is that really true though...or more of a truism because it's easy to fulfill the damage potential as a Ranger?
I doubt this is really true in a setting where all full-casters can cast their best spells at every encounter (unlimited rest). Where "martial competitors" like the Battlemaster Fighter (considered in D&D Raw as a better option than Ranger both in melee and in range), has been more significantly buffed (height/flanking advantage, unlimited sleep for unlimited maneuvers, surge every battle (unlimited rest), more benefitting from jump/disengage and shove who is based in strength).
Theoretically (and I'm convinced in proper testing as well), BG3 Rangers should come out well further behind than even in D&D raw. ESPECIALLY if actually using the abilities Larian "buffed" them with ironically. This issue will be more noticeable as Rangers gain levels given they start out relatively strong, but fade quickly relative to just about every other class. Larian's homebrew does nothing to prevent this either. Then finally consider damage is pretty much all (most) Rangers bring, while Fighters generally are more versatile and can bring damage/burst damage and tanking, while casters bring damage, control and support (even tanking considering you can be buffed to the gills at nearly every encounter given unlimited rest).
