Most Over/Underrated Class?

[Chaosticket]

I don't remember the Ranger getting bashed in 3.5. It was consider as weaker in core than the Barbarian and maybe the Fighter, but certainly not the worst, or even the second worst class. Those positions were occupied by the Monk and the Paladin.

And out of core, it had much more support than the Fighter.

If you look at class tier list, the Ranger is always in the middle for 3.5.

Of course it was weak compared to the many gish and CoDzilla builds.

And for the 5E Ranger, most people among the "haters" admit it's rather good in damage output. It's his other stuffs we're bashing.
I always like the Ranger as a concept. Personally, i don't hate the Ranger, i hate what has been done to him.

I do. In 2nd edition the Ranger was a worse Fighter that leveled up slower for basically no gain. Favored Enemy? Minor bonus.
3rd-3.5, Compared to a Fighter it has less proficiencies, less hit points, narrow selection of conditional bonus feats that specifically forced you to stick to Light Armor, and a Animal Companion that you acquired later than a Druid and leveled up half as fast. So you ended up a bad combination of Fighter/Druid.

5th edition its the same problem. The Fighter is so much better in 5e. Action Surge is very good because who doesnt like a Free Turn once per Short Rests or twice at level 17?

5e Ranger has a very limited Spells Known list, no cantrips, Empty levels, and many abilities have little mechanical use. So basically the same problem as always.

In 5th edition a Fighter uniquely learns 3 and 4 Attacks without any condition. Ranger has to learn Quick Quiver. It can only be used twice a day, only works with Ranged Attacks, requires Concentration for 1 minute duration

The nail in the coffin is that the level 10+ Bard class can use Magical Secrets to pick unique Ranger spells at a much lower level than a Ranger can, while still have more Spells Known, more slots, and better abilities. a Valor Bard can replace the whole Ranger class.