The PHB? Are you joking? I actually played a ranger when 5e came out. I lasted 2 months and suicided my character in disgust.
<snip>
Like most of the things in the game, could have been done better, yes definitely, but absolutely not as bad as some people make it out to be. Until I played the druid it was the strongest class I tried.
I have written a detailed breakdown on the Larian Ranger elsewhere where I mention the many weaknesses and few strengths of the class. Look it up if you truly are interested in a nuanced debate. Read again, I said PHB Ranger is bad, but BG3 Ranger is even worse *relative to the other classes*. That you found the Rangers strong in BG3 is due to easy advantage, that you correctly mentioned applies to everyone, but that Rangers and Warlocks are better at leveraging due to their damage increasing spells and reliance on attack rolls. This is more to do with subjective ease of play rather than objective strength though. When we talk about Rangers, we talk about the base class, not subclasses that aren't even implemented properly yet.
PHB Rangers always started out pretty decently, but quickly dropped off compared to other classes and this will be more true in BG3 for the reason mentioned (largely useless skills and cantrips and spells that are much worse than the basic alternatives) and by brokenly unbalanced rest mechanics. If you long-rest after each combat, a Fighter in effect has Action Surge every encounter, a Paladin will have smites for every round for the rest of the game, and full-casters have all their most potent spells besides potentially always being buffed to the gills. A Ranger will benefit preciously little relative to this from being able to cast Hunter's Mark more frequently!
How much use you get out of elemental resistances depends upon many factors, ie. ranged Rangers get much less targeted assuming the AC isn't low. The fewish occasions where it is undeniably useful, will it save the Ranger/party's life or help defeat the enemy faster? If not, it really is rather moot as healing is basically free in the game. Pointing at certain aspects and overrating the strength of said aspect, is ignoring that the choices are unbalanced causing many trap choices that casual players without metagaming knowledge is very likely to fall for.
Saying the implementation could have been done better, is a pretty gross understatement. I have given the rationale for all manners of flaws in the other thread. Besides, "not that bad" really isn't a bar I hope Larian sets for BG3, nor should we in EA when we provide feedback for the betterment of the game.
