paladins are far from being weak and they literally bypass most monsters.

No the problem comes from alignments and oaths !

The short answer is that paladins are considered lawful stupid by the masses due to the old editions who enforced major weaknesses onto the paladin.

The long answer... Would be people refuse to role play the ultimate good. Prefering to play a more neutral game. Paladins are known to be extreme and as such are all white or all black and nothing in between. Now take a look at the oaths of a paladin and you get so much restrictions on your roleplay that in the end its better to be something else then being restricted.

Exemple:

A paladin dwarf of redemption believe in second chances. He wants to give benefit of the doubt to the small warlock kid who was tutelage by a powerfull wizard villain who was mad by power over childs. Fine by him... The child hasnt shown anything bad up to this point. Unfortunately... The others do not think like that... They think... Hes a fiend pact warlock... He is evil ! He deserve to die. Now that paladin is in a dilemma... By killing the kid he goes against his oath. By going against the group he will not be able to follow them anymore or worse get killed by them if it comes to combat. Here the group his all good. But good doesnt mean you all have the same goodness in your heart. The druid hates fiends and wants to remove them from civilisation. Of course he wants the kid gone because hes corrupt. The cleric of life has the same mentality because he was badly treated by fiends before. Though he thinks killing the kid is a bit extreme hes ok with it. The rest have to be convinced.

See the problems paladins have to manage while in a group. Its that their oath may entirely restrict them to play against the group. This is why paladins are greater leaders then soldiers. Because as soldiers they are bound to a code that others may not like or adhere to.

For those wanting to know... The group finally convinced the druid and cleric of leaving the warlock kid to the paladin care. But this situation has exploded again a few sessions later.

I don't think Paladin is a bad class. In fact, one of the most broken characters I ever made was a Paladin/Bard/Warlock multiclass. At level 15 it outperformed another player's level 16 min-maxed fighter/barbarian build in mostly martial combat, thanks to crazy saves, smite damage, hexblade being broken, and incredible sustainability potential. Paladin auras are amazing support abilities, and I can say that I love having a paladin in a party of three or more members; it's a no brainer. The limitation, perhaps, is that paladins don't work well together. Since their auras (of the same kind) probably don't stack unless your DM is very lenient, the only benefit is from different aura types. Even though they're not great spell casters, they take the crazy amount of dice rogues get with sneak attacks and toss it into non-stealth oriented, less strategic gameplay (more spell slot management and lower dice counts, sure, but still very strong). So, perhaps to answer the question of this thread, paladin's aren't useless, just critically underrated.

Paladins aren't underrated. They're generally considered to be one of the two strongest classes in the game, at least by unofficial surveys conducted on various dnd forums, including this one (the other class being the wizard). Many people I've encountered in actual games consider the same.  But that's not really relevant, I think, because of something another said here

Someone said, at the top of this thread, most people choose things based on what kind of story they want to tell, rather than the mechanics. So, there's something about the story behind the paladin and its subclasses that's drawing the decision, and not the mechanics.  I personally maintain my original stance, that the lack of new stories from new subclasses is responsible. But it could be something as simple as the Knight In Shining Armor archetype isn't as popular anymore. Or, no offense to the OP, it could be as simple as observation bias.

Quote from Mephista >>

Paladins aren't underrated. They're generally considered to be one of the two strongest classes in the game, at least by unofficial surveys conducted on various dnd forums, including this one (the other class being the wizard). Many people I've encountered in actual games consider the same.  But that's not really relevant, I think, because of something another said here

Someone said, at the top of this thread, most people choose things based on what kind of story they want to tell, rather than the mechanics. So, there's something about the story behind the paladin and its subclasses that's drawing the decision, and not the mechanics.  I personally maintain my original stance, that the lack of new stories from new subclasses is responsible. But it could be something as simple as the Knight In Shining Armor archetype isn't as popular anymore. Or, no offense to the OP, it could be as simple as observation bias.

Most heretics people I talk to say the paladin is “boring” and “too restrictive.” This is all because of the oaths that every paladin (except Oathbreaker and Treachery) must abide by. They all say it restricts role play, and it’s understandable as to why they’d say that. Every Oath gives a distinct modus operandi.

Devotion is all about protecting the weak, being a savior for the common folk, and being a paragon of society

Ancients is all about protecting the smiles of the world, without the need for any honorable lawfulness, happiness is more important!

Vengeance is all about destroying the evil in the world, basically being The Punisher.

Redemption is Ghandi, if he had a huge suit of armor.

and Conquest is every warlord ever, with more black.

What’s unappealing to many is that they see these tenants as a “strait jacket” of sorts. In my opinion, they’re looking at it the wrong way. It doesn’t restrict roleplay, it opens more opportunities for it. A character concept I can think right now is that maybe your character resents their Oath, but has to abide to them anyway (maybe they want to protect people, and this was the best way to do it). I try and preach this message to many, but they never believe me, and it’s painful, it physically hurts. 

 The obvious choice for a very bad class is ranger.
most of its class features are pretty much useless mechanics.

and everyone seems to agree it really need changes.
but aside from that i think all classes have their own things going. i dont think there are bad classes, i think there are bad levels in all classes, but there is no real bad choices.
even rangers have great archetypes choices to make. and if played well even beast master is a great archetype.

Quote from DnDPaladin>>

 The obvious choice for a very bad class is ranger.
most of its class features are pretty much useless mechanics.

and everyone seems to agree it really need changes.

Ranger's fine. It's the Beast Master subclass that could use some changes.

Ranger is actually pretty good. I wrote out my experiences with Ranger in that beastmaster blog post thing on the front page, and I think the core features actually worked well. Could use a few tweaks here and there - I don't think I've ever seen Primeval Awareness used, and I'm not a fan of Favored Enemy / Terrain being hit or miss depending on the campaign (wrong choices get annoying very fast), but overall the Ranger class is very solid. 

And when Favored Enemy/Terrain do apply, they're VERY good.  Better than Expertise.  Take a look at Out of the Abyss. Few realize this, but Ranger is AMAZING during that story.  Take Underdark as your favored terrain. You effectively now have Expertise in all your WIS-based skills as well as Knowledge (nature) and (history) checks, assuming proficency, for the entire campaign. Favored enemy is a bit trickier, since there's so many options, but most of the most relevant info can be handled by (elf/drow) and (fiend) as favored enemies, and some flexibility therein. In Princes of the Apocalypse, Ranger gets to show off if you take (human) (elemental) for favored enemy, and (grassland) (mountain) cover all terrain you'll be exploring. Well, maybe forest, but overwhelmingly mountains (includes caves!) and plains. We can do this for every adventure.

These features do require a bit of meta game knowledge to use, and its not very forgiving for switching out, learning new ones, or in the wrong order. That makes the Ranger difficult to use if you don't talk with the GM about what the best options before hand. But that doesn't change the viability of the Ranger during these stories. Perhaps Adventure League, where the stories as well as DMs you follow can change, and thus the environment and opponents, but I'm sure there's some kind of meta in AL that lets you pick the most common options there as well. 

Inquisitive, instead of just pointing out part of a post, you should read it entirely, i said that even rangers had great features when it came to archetypes.

@Mephista
I pretty much got the same mechanics.. i think the problem with ranger beastmaster is that people dont do the maths, the same way people dont think druid wildshape is bad because they think they become the beast while in reality they keep a lot of their own stats. I actually played a beast master and while i agree the pet HP Maximum is the biggest problem it has... i will safely say that the damage it does if you choose the right pet from the get go is a bigger deal then people give it credit.

No my problem with ranger is that favored terrain does nothing really. its almost always a miss. Favored Enemies gives you knowledge, but depending on the DM and what he is willling to give its literally a mechanic that is biased because it entirely depends on the DM fiat. and when you reach level 8 or 12... you start easily feeling that you should multiclass into something else to gain anything else. and if you do that, you end up with a poor animal thats nothing great in combat. much like trinket in critical role after Vex started multiclassing.

all these adds up and make the class pretty bad compared to the other classes.
Mainly because its mechanics that are DM fiat based and thats bullshit.

Quote from DnDPaladin>>

Inquisitive, instead of just pointing out part of a post, you should read it entirely, i said that even rangers had great features when it came to archetypes.

I read your post. You called Ranger the obvious choice for a very bad class. I disagreed.

all these adds up and make the class pretty bad compared to the other classes.
Mainly because its mechanics that are DM fiat based and thats bullshit.

Paladin - I just listed my own play experience where Favored Terrain was not useless, nor a miss, and how to use it.  There are numerous examples of times when dealing with traps in published adventures that information checks come up, and the bonus from Favored Enemy is relevant. You need to get help from the DM to pick relevant figures, admittedly, but its highly useful for most skill checks that come up in game as pass/fail. 

Personally, I like the post-level 8 Ranger features. Hide In Plain Sight and Vanish are two of my favorites. Feral Senses comes online late, but blind sight powers are never bad. I'm in love with Swift Quiver as a spell option.  And my experience with high level games (ie level 20) has shown that at this point, you're almost always going to be consistently fighting your favored enemy (usually involving fiends). So, at level 20, that's basically giving you the ability to turn a miss into a hit, once per round, and if you already hit with all your attacks, the last one gets just a bit of extra damage.

And blaming beastmaster on "people don't do the math" is just wrong. Lots of people have done actual play and found the beast lacking, unwieldy,and fragile. 

I don't know how to explain this other than "You are mistaken." Have you any actual experience with any of this, or you just arm chair lecturing? 

Ranger is an odd class. I recently had a player asking for input on a build and he had taken a 1 level dip in Ranger, which baffled me. What do you get from level-1 ranger? A single skill proficiency? maybe some weapon proficiencies? Advantage to track one group of enemies and an easier time traveling? Take Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Rogue or Bard. Its weird that Ranger doesn't have any combat benefit at level-1. I see Ranger as a Fighter with a cool, lone-wolf image that has moderate spell casting. The image isn't mechanical. Either the spell casting or the Archetype should start at level-1.

It should (like other classes) have combat features as well as non-combat features from the start. Even if Favored enemy were a benefit in combat it would compare.

Of course this is just level 1. At level 2 you can cast spells. At level 3 you get your archetype. Then it compares to other classes.

Quote from BDaddLy>>

Its weird that Ranger doesn't have any combat benefit at level-1. I see Ranger as a Fighter with a cool, lone-wolf image that has moderate spell casting. The image isn't mechanical. Either the spell casting or the Archetype should start at level-1.

It's not that weird when you consider Rangers are focused around the exploration pillar of the game. Compare with Rogues; they don't get Cunning Action until 2nd level. Their most significant 1st level class feature is actually Expertise.

@inquisitivecoder at this point i'm gonna stop arguing with you, because you clearly just argue for the sake of being devils advocate about things that literally millions of people agreed are problems with the ranger...

Fact of the matter... literally said by jeremy crawford and mike mearls creators of this 5th edition game...
the first 3 levels are the class features the core abilities of the class... so go ahead look at what classes gains and compare them...

favored terrain and favored enemies are the actual core class feature of the ranger.
while fighting style is also a core class, it only ask you 1 thing... ranged or melee ? while every single other classes gets much more options out of fighting styles.

so yeah saying favored terrain and enemies aren't core class features only shows that "you" don't think so while the creators themselves actually said they were.

but hey to each its own.... i still think the ranger is cool, but lacks a lot of features compared to the other classes.

In combat they have sneak attack. Sneak attack, fighting style, rage, martial arts, lay on hands, spellcasting, otherworldly patron; I can compare and contrast these features in combat. Every other class at level 1 has combat features available. And while several classes have spell casting they each have different spells. So I can't point to any other class and say this class is objectively better in this area.

Ranger is objectively worse than other classes in combat. And while Ranger may focus on exploration it's still comparable to other classes even in that area. You may argue that Ranger is better than rogue there, but it is subjective and situational.

Also while Fighter, for instance, may be objectively worse at 'Exploration' than Ranger it still compares easily to other classes. Barbarian for instance is equally bad. Of course that's not counting health and armor as aspects of exploration.

Anyway it is weird because it is unlike other options.

DnDPally? Are you still here? I'll be pretty surprised the day you stop arguing...

@Mephista Nope, they are not unhappy with only the beastmaster, if you read the surveys correctly... they also think the favored terrain and enemies are doing literally nothing. they both are core class features yet feel like fluff to everyone. that said, of course they like hunter, it literally does as much damage as a rogue with sneak attack. and i can tell you, the rogue / Ranger hunter in my group was doing literally 75% of the party damage to my enemies in our first campaign. OP archetype, doesn't make an entire class worth it though. as in you wouldn't just lose 3 levels just to get the first hunter archetype and get literally nothing out of the first 2 levels.

oh wow...
you say i get things incorrectly, and yet, you never even once thought for yourself that perhaps you are the one seeing things differently... you know be open minded when it comes to opinions... because yes, these are just opinions, including your own. and i never ever said or used the word wrong. i always used the term missunderstanding... but hey your choice of words, not mine. as for the choices... Which Ranger would ever fight with a shield and a sword when they cannot cast any spells with both their hands having something in it ? you do realise you need a free hand to cast right ? the ranger isn't a tanking class and while you could argue that having a shield gives him more AC. it also gives him much less DPS which is what the class is all about since none of its mechanics helps other things then knowledge and survival in the wilds. Dueling could have a point, that's for sure... but it doesn't help you in DPS because you lose 1 attack. and it doesn't help you get more damage if you use a shield... because again you cant cast a spell without any free hands. but you are right about there being 4 choices... two of which nobody ever really uses except those who wants to have flaws on purpose.

and before you even go further then this in that part ofd the argument...
i have to ask you... what part of the surveys didn't you think was telling WOTC  that the ranger was the least played class in the entirety of the classes ?
because to me, the last class on the list, would qualify as a bad class since pretty much everyone want everything else then ranger.
and then again, putting words into my mouth by saying ranger is bad, which i totally do not think it is. and i've made that clear in my own post since the get go.
I do think the ranger core class features favored enemies and favored terrain needs a boost, much like what they did in the revised ranger which i think is great.

Quote from DnDPaladin>>

oh wow...
you say i get things incorrectly, and yet, you never even once thought for yourself that perhaps you are the one seeing things differently...

Could be because 9/10 times half the people on this forum disagree with your opinions, and you never have any hard facts; it's "my group this..." and "...all the min/max forums..." that.

The devs already said most of the dissatisfaction with the Ranger comes from the Beast Master subclass and that's where they're focusing their efforts. It's in the Dragon Talk Sage Advice segment on playtesting. No point in debating that further.