The capstone for 2014 ranger is not linked in any way to the level 1 ability. I don't to get use out of the favored enemy to get use out of the 2014 ranger. This is an amazing example of false equivalence. The 2024 ranger has its first level and 20th level ability linked. The 2014 and tasha's rangers don't. The level 1 ability is ok for level 1. The 20th level ability should be good for level 20. The 1st level ability that loses relevance after level 9 should not be linked to the capstone at level 20. The level 20 feature on 2014 isn't "attached" to anything. That is why it works without concentration.
Also remember that favored enemy in 2014 doesn't actually do anything for fighting your favored enemy. It gives you a language, which many things could speak, gives you the ability to track that enemy AND gives you the ability to recall information on that enemy. That can be relevant even if you aren't fighting them, and if you are in a campaign with a DM I would think they could communicate the types of enemies that will be relevant and toss those favored enemies at you from time to time.
We are literally having this discussion on a website with all the rules on it, for free. It would be trivial for you to click on the Game Rules tab at the top of the page (or along the right side menu on mobile), go to Classes, click on Ranger, click on Class Features, and read what the 2014 Ranger's features actually do. Please come back once you've done that.
I am happy to admit when I am wrong. This makes the changes much less of an issue than I thought it was. When I originally read the 20th level ability in 2014 I missed the "favored" word in the text I just read "enemies". The lack of capitals is really bad for clarity in the 2014, but I feel that issue is well known. Still think they dropped the ball on what COULD have been done with 2024, but I am happy to admit that with more spells prepared and 2 more expertise it is still slightly better. Probably still going to see rangers multi-class out after 5-9 levels to get either more martial abilities or better spell casting simply because of how underwhelming those higher level features are. Probably going to depend on subclass.
I'm just glad that when I go on Youtube, or even Reddit of all places, I'm not the only one who sees the Ranger as still a bad class overall with the lack of customization and lack of thematics. I will admit that I was wrong when it came to the number of class features that solely affect Hunter's Mark (it was 4 out of 20, not 5), but that still doesn't change the fact that no other class in the game does that, and the Rogue and Bard do it better. The Ranger is just in a bad place, and instead of making it versatile, they just wanted damage to be on par with the Rogue while leveling up. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's in poor taste because of how much you have to give up when using a bonus action AND concentration. Hell, with the Beast Master subclass, you can't even apply Hunter's Mark and have your beast attack in the same turn. I'm not gonna sit here and say the class can't be used, but it only holds up to other classes when you use a specific spell. Like I've said before, that's just like if the Warlock had a 5th of their class features either about Eldritch Blast or Hex, or if the Paladin had a 5th all about the new Divine Smite which is also a spell now. They are just behind if you choose to build away from Hunter's Mark, which is sad.
they get 6 free castings a day we can tell bc they get 2 at 2nd level and in the 2014 vs 2024 post they did at 17th level they mention you have 6 free castings now. its prob growing like PB does
PB/LR free castings of HM seems reasonable but again, we don't know for sure. Assuming that's the number however, that represents a pretty massive increase in spells/day for the Ranger at levels 1-8 over 2014, and even factoring in Primal Awareness you still get more castings per day as a 2024 Ranger.
I kind of hope it’s not PB, or it makes a 1-level dip into ranger really nice. Personally, with class features, I prefer a distinct column in the character progression chart. Even if it just mimics PB., or something that just says, this increases at level 5,9, etc. Single class characters should be better at their class’s thing than multiclassers.
I'm just glad that when I go on Youtube, or even Reddit of all places, I'm not the only one who sees the Ranger as still a bad class overall with the lack of customization and lack of thematics. I will admit that I was wrong when it came to the number of class features that solely affect Hunter's Mark (it was 4 out of 20, not 5), but that still doesn't change the fact that no other class in the game does that, and the Rogue and Bard do it better. The Ranger is just in a bad place, and instead of making it versatile, they just wanted damage to be on par with the Rogue while leveling up. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's in poor taste because of how much you have to give up when using a bonus action AND concentration. Hell, with the Beast Master subclass, you can't even apply Hunter's Mark and have your beast attack in the same turn. I'm not gonna sit here and say the class can't be used, but it only holds up to other classes when you use a specific spell. Like I've said before, that's just like if the Warlock had a 5th of their class features either about Eldritch Blast or Hex, or if the Paladin had a 5th all about the new Divine Smite which is also a spell now. They are just behind if you choose to build away from Hunter's Mark, which is sad.
I believe we have demonstrated that the 2024 ranger is more customizable and versatile than the 2014 ranger is already. Since you are leveraging the expertise of YouTube and Reddit commenters, can you break it down, line by line, why you think the rogue and bard 'do it better'? Bear in mind (pun!) that the ranger is a gish and the rogue and the bard base classes are not.
If you are a beast master and are agonizing about eking out every possible point of damage, you will find creative ways to have HM already up before you send your pet into combat. Just as 'life will find a way', so too will optimizers. Most players though, are not going to rip their hair out over 1 round of setting up combat. Some rogues have to endure not getting sneak until an ally can close the distance on an enemy. Some warlocks sit on their spells because they worry about the next encounter coming before they can recover their spell slots. Some barbarians miss because their modifier to hit doesn't quite offset their GWM. Some wizards don't apply Mage Armor until they are already under attack. All great tragedies, to be sure.
The beast master can handle missing out on sending their pet in for one turn or applying HM and it would never be a problem unless a DM (or ranger player) tried to make it one.
I never said 2024 isn't more customizable. Please, for the love of God, stop assuming that I believe certain things when I've made clear that I don't. Just because the new class is better doesn't mean it's good.
I never said 2024 isn't more customizable. Please, for the love of God, stop assuming that I believe certain things when I've made clear that I don't. Just because the new class is better doesn't mean it's good.
Fine. A slight edit to my question then: can you explain why the 2024 ranger is not good without using vague statements or discussing matters of 'taste'? Bonus points if you can manage it without raising from the dead all the points that I and several others have already buried with unbiased analysis.
I'm just glad that when I go on Youtube, or even Reddit of all places, I'm not the only one who sees the Ranger as still a bad class overall with the lack of customization and lack of thematics.
What you're seeing on those sites are a whole lot of kneejerk reactionaries basing their opinions on a high-level preview video rather than the printed text. If you find that somehow persuasive, that's your prerogative - but personally speaking, I prefer math.
I kind of hope it’s not PB, or it makes a 1-level dip into ranger really nice. Personally, with class features, I prefer a distinct column in the character progression chart. Even if it just mimics PB., or something that just says, this increases at level 5,9, etc. Single class characters should be better at their class’s thing than multiclassers.
I get that but honestly I don't mind either. Yeah, something like a Monk might be able to make good use of the free casts if they keep scaling up in quantity, but that's not much different than a Bard being able to benefit from a Warlock dip for Eldritch Blasts. And unlike the Ranger, the monk won't have the built in protection of their concentration on it at higher levels, and fewer resources to recast it with.
I have. Many times. The versatility form the Ranger comes from spells and Expertise, both of which are done by two other classes. The Rogue gets Reliable Talent, and the Bard is a full caster with a wider spell list, and can even get Hunter's Mark if they wanted. The Rangers identity is in Expertise, spellcasting, and the specific spell HM, like I've said, multiple times. It a good class if you want damage that can keep up with others. It's not a good Class because if you deviate away from HM, then you're objectively weaker than every other class at your core.
Yea, I prefer math, as I number crunch a lot, and the fact is that the new Ranger, while being able to do more damage than the old one and can keep up with the likes of Rogue, it's still not good when it comes to versatility and theme.
I have. Many times. The versatility form the Ranger comes from spells and Expertise, both of which are done by two other classes. The Rogue gets Reliable Talent, and the Bard is a full caster with a wider spell list, and can even get Hunter's Mark if they wanted. The Rangers identity is in Expertise, spellcasting, and the specific spell HM, like I've said, multiple times. It a good class if you want damage that can keep up with others. It's not a good Class because if you deviate away from HM, then you're objectively weaker than every other class at your core.
"A bard can also be good at this" is not the indictment you think it is. The entire concept behind the bard is stealing other classes' lunch. That doesn't make the Ranger bad or even not the best option for many parties, especially since they have a reason to pump Wis that the Bard lacks and don't need specific subclasses to fill roles like frontliner or ranged damage dealer.
And I'm not saying that damage is the only metric that matters either - but if you can't figure out how to contribute in the other two pillars with three base proficiencies from the game's third-widest list, three expertises, and a boatload of utility spells, then I'm sorry, you're just not trying hard enough. That's not the designers' fault; git gud.
Yea, I prefer math, as I number crunch a lot, and the fact is that the new Ranger, while being able to do more damage than the old one and can keep up with the likes of Rogue, it's still not good when it comes to versatility and theme.
What thematic elements do you associate with Ranger that it's not good at?
I have. Many times. The versatility form the Ranger comes from spells and Expertise, both of which are done by two other classes. The Rogue gets Reliable Talent, and the Bard is a full caster with a wider spell list, and can even get Hunter's Mark if they wanted. The Rangers identity is in Expertise, spellcasting, and the specific spell HM, like I've said, multiple times. It a good class if you want damage that can keep up with others. It's not a good Class because if you deviate away from HM, then you're objectively weaker than every other class at your core.
Maybe you love math but you did struggle to communicate your ideas clearly. Now you are speaking about Expertise, but the question I asked was in response to this exact statement:
I will admit that I was wrong when it came to the number of class features that solely affect Hunter's Mark (it was 4 out of 20, not 5), but that still doesn't change the fact that no other class in the game does that, and the Rogue and Bard do it better.
You were talking about why Hunter's Mark makes it a bad class, not Expertise. Please focus. Further, you have failed to even address why Expertise makes the ranger a bad class at all. Just because the rogue gets Reliable Talent, does not mean the ranger is bad. The ranger has spells. Just because the bard gets Expertise and a greater degree of Spellcasting does not make the ranger bad, because the ranger gets a higher level of martial prowess.
As I said, the ranger is a gish. You are trying to compare a gish to polarized classes and then flipping the table for it not being exactly equal to any of these other classes in one specific feature. Of course you are going to see that individual traits are going to come up short when compared to classes that are dedicated to them. You are not looking at all these features in concert with each other. The ranger does exactly what the devs set out to do, based on the information we have been given so far; it is a highly mobile, hardy member of the Expert Group, that can perform both in the battlefield and out, that can deliver from a martial standpoint and in spellcasting. It takes a fair share from both lanes and as a member of the Expert Group, also is an expert in the third lane of skill checks. Neither the rogue or the bard can do that as well without serious investment and subclass considerations.
So I ask again, how is the ranger failing to meet a definition of what makes a 'good' class? Better yet, what is your definition of what makes a good class, because it seems to be a rather anomalous definition you are using that changes depending on what class you are using for reference.
Bruh, it's not a "git gud" issue, they are literally weaker. It's fine if you want players to find ways to shine when they are presented with fewer class abilities, but saying anything akin to "skill issue" shows where the problem lies.
Like I've said...many times...in many responses...
The Ranger isn't good because you HAVE to use a specific spell or you miss out on a 5th of the class as a whole...I do not, for the life of me, understand how people don't read that clear English sentence and understand. They are stuck in a niche that requires them to use a specific spell or they are inherently weaker than other classes.
Also, I never said Expertise makes the Ranger bad. Stop putting words in my mouth, like I've also asked a couple times now. Read my replies instead of assuming things. Holy shit.
What I am excited to see for both the Paladin and the Ranger is the 3rd + level spells that are now going to be exclusively on their lists. With the bard changes these spells are the real 13th and 17th level features of these classes and could make a world of difference for these classes at high levels.
As for the bard vs ranger vs rogue argument.
Rogues get better skills, but DON'T get spell casting
Bards get better Spells, but DON'T get weapon mastery and a good number of other martial features.
Rangers get casting, martial fighting AND skills. It is kind of ironic that I feel the Ranger is just as much a jack of all trades if not more than either the rogue or the bard.
Bruh, it's not a "git gud" issue, they are literally weaker. It's fine if you want players to find ways to shine when they are presented with fewer class abilities, but saying anything akin to "skill issue" shows where the problem lies.
"Literally weaker" than what?
Bards? Magically that's expected and intended, everything else is debatable. 2014 Rangers? Resoundingly and objectively false. Tasha Rangers? These are closer together, but the 2024 Ranger still comes out ahead overall, as demonstrated above by multiple posters including Erik_Soong and myself.
And I'm sorry, being incapable of using three expertises and multiple utility spells/rituals (swappable on long rest) to be better at exploration and social challenges is indeed a skill rather than a design issue. There's no shame in it, it's a game with a lot of moving parts. People here will be happy to provide advice and suggestions to bridge that gap, myself included.
They are stuck in a niche that requires them to use a specific spell or they are inherently weaker than other classes.
Putting aside that this is still false (there are multiple concentration spells on the Ranger list stronger than HM, like Conjure Animals - both versions - Conjure Woodland Beings, Swift Quiver, Spike Growth, Guardian of Nature etc) - even if it were true, that's not unique design to the ranger either. A Warlock who never uses Eldritch Blast will be objectively weaker than what that does, because the class is balanced around having the best offensive cantrip in the game to compensate for their paucity of spell slots relative to other full casters. Similarly, Paladins are balanced around needing to use Smite spells. The designers are allowed to assume that a certain spell will be the baseline of your class when designing it; even if you have the choice to go in a different direction that doesn't and shouldn't change their approach.
Bruh, it's not a "git gud" issue, they are literally weaker. It's fine if you want players to find ways to shine when they are presented with fewer class abilities, but saying anything akin to "skill issue" shows where the problem lies.
"Literally weaker" than what?
Bards? Magically that's expected and intended, everything else is debatable. 2014 Rangers? Resoundingly and objectively false. Tasha Rangers? These are closer together, but the 2024 Ranger still comes out ahead overall, as demonstrated above by multiple posters including Erik_Soong and myself.
And I'm sorry, being incapable of using three expertises and multiple utility spells/rituals (swappable on long rest) to be better at exploration and social challenges is indeed a skill rather than a design issue. There's no shame in it, it's a game with a lot of moving parts. People here will be happy to provide advice and suggestions to bridge that gap, myself included.
They are stuck in a niche that requires them to use a specific spell or they are inherently weaker than other classes.
Putting aside that this is still false (there are multiple concentration spells on the Ranger list stronger than HM, like Conjure Animals - both versions - Conjure Woodland Beings, Swift Quiver, Spike Growth, Guardian of Nature etc) - even if it were true, that's not unique design to the ranger either. A Warlock who never uses Eldritch Blast will be objectively weaker than what that does, because the class is balanced around having the best offensive cantrip in the game to compensate for their paucity of spell slots relative to other full casters. Similarly, Paladins are balanced around needing to use Smite spells. The designers are allowed to assume that a certain spell will be the baseline of your class when designing it; even if you have the choice to go in a different direction that doesn't and shouldn't change their approach.
i meant alot of their EB invocations have been changes to any cantrip now
i meant alot of their EB invocations have been changes to any cantrip now
The class is still balanced around Eldritch Blast being the primary cantrip choice. Because while it's nice that other cantrips can be boosted by things like Agonizing Blast now, none of them give you multiple attacks as you level i.e. adding your ability modifier multiple times, so EB is still the optimal choice. And because of that, that's what WotC needs to assume most people will take, and design around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am happy to admit when I am wrong. This makes the changes much less of an issue than I thought it was. When I originally read the 20th level ability in 2014 I missed the "favored" word in the text I just read "enemies". The lack of capitals is really bad for clarity in the 2014, but I feel that issue is well known. Still think they dropped the ball on what COULD have been done with 2024, but I am happy to admit that with more spells prepared and 2 more expertise it is still slightly better. Probably still going to see rangers multi-class out after 5-9 levels to get either more martial abilities or better spell casting simply because of how underwhelming those higher level features are. Probably going to depend on subclass.
I'm just glad that when I go on Youtube, or even Reddit of all places, I'm not the only one who sees the Ranger as still a bad class overall with the lack of customization and lack of thematics. I will admit that I was wrong when it came to the number of class features that solely affect Hunter's Mark (it was 4 out of 20, not 5), but that still doesn't change the fact that no other class in the game does that, and the Rogue and Bard do it better. The Ranger is just in a bad place, and instead of making it versatile, they just wanted damage to be on par with the Rogue while leveling up. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's in poor taste because of how much you have to give up when using a bonus action AND concentration. Hell, with the Beast Master subclass, you can't even apply Hunter's Mark and have your beast attack in the same turn. I'm not gonna sit here and say the class can't be used, but it only holds up to other classes when you use a specific spell. Like I've said before, that's just like if the Warlock had a 5th of their class features either about Eldritch Blast or Hex, or if the Paladin had a 5th all about the new Divine Smite which is also a spell now. They are just behind if you choose to build away from Hunter's Mark, which is sad.
I kind of hope it’s not PB, or it makes a 1-level dip into ranger really nice. Personally, with class features, I prefer a distinct column in the character progression chart. Even if it just mimics PB., or something that just says, this increases at level 5,9, etc. Single class characters should be better at their class’s thing than multiclassers.
funniest thing I've ever read
anyway carry on
Considering the vast majority of players don't use dndbeyond, it makes sense that more opinions are heard elsewhere lmao
I believe we have demonstrated that the 2024 ranger is more customizable and versatile than the 2014 ranger is already. Since you are leveraging the expertise of YouTube and Reddit commenters, can you break it down, line by line, why you think the rogue and bard 'do it better'? Bear in mind (pun!) that the ranger is a gish and the rogue and the bard base classes are not.
If you are a beast master and are agonizing about eking out every possible point of damage, you will find creative ways to have HM already up before you send your pet into combat. Just as 'life will find a way', so too will optimizers. Most players though, are not going to rip their hair out over 1 round of setting up combat. Some rogues have to endure not getting sneak until an ally can close the distance on an enemy. Some warlocks sit on their spells because they worry about the next encounter coming before they can recover their spell slots. Some barbarians miss because their modifier to hit doesn't quite offset their GWM. Some wizards don't apply Mage Armor until they are already under attack. All great tragedies, to be sure.
The beast master can handle missing out on sending their pet in for one turn or applying HM and it would never be a problem unless a DM (or ranger player) tried to make it one.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I never said 2024 isn't more customizable. Please, for the love of God, stop assuming that I believe certain things when I've made clear that I don't. Just because the new class is better doesn't mean it's good.
Fine. A slight edit to my question then: can you explain why the 2024 ranger is not good without using vague statements or discussing matters of 'taste'? Bonus points if you can manage it without raising from the dead all the points that I and several others have already buried with unbiased analysis.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
What you're seeing on those sites are a whole lot of kneejerk reactionaries basing their opinions on a high-level preview video rather than the printed text. If you find that somehow persuasive, that's your prerogative - but personally speaking, I prefer math.
I get that but honestly I don't mind either. Yeah, something like a Monk might be able to make good use of the free casts if they keep scaling up in quantity, but that's not much different than a Bard being able to benefit from a Warlock dip for Eldritch Blasts. And unlike the Ranger, the monk won't have the built in protection of their concentration on it at higher levels, and fewer resources to recast it with.
I have. Many times. The versatility form the Ranger comes from spells and Expertise, both of which are done by two other classes. The Rogue gets Reliable Talent, and the Bard is a full caster with a wider spell list, and can even get Hunter's Mark if they wanted. The Rangers identity is in Expertise, spellcasting, and the specific spell HM, like I've said, multiple times. It a good class if you want damage that can keep up with others. It's not a good Class because if you deviate away from HM, then you're objectively weaker than every other class at your core.
Yea, I prefer math, as I number crunch a lot, and the fact is that the new Ranger, while being able to do more damage than the old one and can keep up with the likes of Rogue, it's still not good when it comes to versatility and theme.
"A bard can also be good at this" is not the indictment you think it is. The entire concept behind the bard is stealing other classes' lunch. That doesn't make the Ranger bad or even not the best option for many parties, especially since they have a reason to pump Wis that the Bard lacks and don't need specific subclasses to fill roles like frontliner or ranged damage dealer.
And I'm not saying that damage is the only metric that matters either - but if you can't figure out how to contribute in the other two pillars with three base proficiencies from the game's third-widest list, three expertises, and a boatload of utility spells, then I'm sorry, you're just not trying hard enough. That's not the designers' fault; git gud.
What thematic elements do you associate with Ranger that it's not good at?
Maybe you love math but you did struggle to communicate your ideas clearly. Now you are speaking about Expertise, but the question I asked was in response to this exact statement:
You were talking about why Hunter's Mark makes it a bad class, not Expertise. Please focus. Further, you have failed to even address why Expertise makes the ranger a bad class at all. Just because the rogue gets Reliable Talent, does not mean the ranger is bad. The ranger has spells. Just because the bard gets Expertise and a greater degree of Spellcasting does not make the ranger bad, because the ranger gets a higher level of martial prowess.
As I said, the ranger is a gish. You are trying to compare a gish to polarized classes and then flipping the table for it not being exactly equal to any of these other classes in one specific feature. Of course you are going to see that individual traits are going to come up short when compared to classes that are dedicated to them. You are not looking at all these features in concert with each other. The ranger does exactly what the devs set out to do, based on the information we have been given so far; it is a highly mobile, hardy member of the Expert Group, that can perform both in the battlefield and out, that can deliver from a martial standpoint and in spellcasting. It takes a fair share from both lanes and as a member of the Expert Group, also is an expert in the third lane of skill checks. Neither the rogue or the bard can do that as well without serious investment and subclass considerations.
So I ask again, how is the ranger failing to meet a definition of what makes a 'good' class? Better yet, what is your definition of what makes a good class, because it seems to be a rather anomalous definition you are using that changes depending on what class you are using for reference.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Bruh, it's not a "git gud" issue, they are literally weaker. It's fine if you want players to find ways to shine when they are presented with fewer class abilities, but saying anything akin to "skill issue" shows where the problem lies.
Like I've said...many times...in many responses...
The Ranger isn't good because you HAVE to use a specific spell or you miss out on a 5th of the class as a whole...I do not, for the life of me, understand how people don't read that clear English sentence and understand. They are stuck in a niche that requires them to use a specific spell or they are inherently weaker than other classes.
Also, I never said Expertise makes the Ranger bad. Stop putting words in my mouth, like I've also asked a couple times now. Read my replies instead of assuming things. Holy shit.
What I am excited to see for both the Paladin and the Ranger is the 3rd + level spells that are now going to be exclusively on their lists. With the bard changes these spells are the real 13th and 17th level features of these classes and could make a world of difference for these classes at high levels.
As for the bard vs ranger vs rogue argument.
Rogues get better skills, but DON'T get spell casting
Bards get better Spells, but DON'T get weapon mastery and a good number of other martial features.
Rangers get casting, martial fighting AND skills. It is kind of ironic that I feel the Ranger is just as much a jack of all trades if not more than either the rogue or the bard.
"Literally weaker" than what?
Bards? Magically that's expected and intended, everything else is debatable.
2014 Rangers? Resoundingly and objectively false.
Tasha Rangers? These are closer together, but the 2024 Ranger still comes out ahead overall, as demonstrated above by multiple posters including Erik_Soong and myself.
And I'm sorry, being incapable of using three expertises and multiple utility spells/rituals (swappable on long rest) to be better at exploration and social challenges is indeed a skill rather than a design issue. There's no shame in it, it's a game with a lot of moving parts. People here will be happy to provide advice and suggestions to bridge that gap, myself included.
Putting aside that this is still false (there are multiple concentration spells on the Ranger list stronger than HM, like Conjure Animals - both versions - Conjure Woodland Beings, Swift Quiver, Spike Growth, Guardian of Nature etc) - even if it were true, that's not unique design to the ranger either. A Warlock who never uses Eldritch Blast will be objectively weaker than what that does, because the class is balanced around having the best offensive cantrip in the game to compensate for their paucity of spell slots relative to other full casters. Similarly, Paladins are balanced around needing to use Smite spells. The designers are allowed to assume that a certain spell will be the baseline of your class when designing it; even if you have the choice to go in a different direction that doesn't and shouldn't change their approach.
i meant alot of their EB invocations have been changes to any cantrip now
The class is still balanced around Eldritch Blast being the primary cantrip choice. Because while it's nice that other cantrips can be boosted by things like Agonizing Blast now, none of them give you multiple attacks as you level i.e. adding your ability modifier multiple times, so EB is still the optimal choice. And because of that, that's what WotC needs to assume most people will take, and design around.