I'm up in the air about this.
There is more wrong with 5e then just Warlock, and Ranger. Take for instance (not applicable in game or I haven't noticed. not paying attention to it matter of fact.) It takes half your movement to stand in 5e. for a level one halfling thats around 10 feet, fiifteen for humans. Later as you level up the difference can be from that starting 10 ft. to over 30 for certain characters with certain feet at level 4. Then it continues to go up depending on feats and such. At one time it was costing one of my characters twice the movement of a rogue to simply stand up.
This is just one instance where me as a DM, and the DM who runs a game I'm playing in has here it comes House Ruled. Yes house rules are even stated as optional ways to run the game if a DM (in this case Larian Studios) deems them necassary for what ever reason. In this case some of 5e rules as stated in the handbooks may not fit in with what Larian wishes. Yes I really dislike that I can't have a 6 intelligent Fighter with a strength of 18, because of the caps that larian has put in place currently. Again this is similair to a House Rule.
Much of my limited yet thorough play through has felt like the standard rules, and my standard plays in pen and paper. None have felt to out of whack (except the familair/animal companion list) from any other times I've played a pen and paper. Beastmaster Rangers are still useless (this do to fact they don't get any combat animals currently). I am unsure as to what is wrong with warlocks (I've yet to play them on pen and paper, and haven't thoroughly looked through them ig. add to this I've seen no statement as to what OP felt is wrong with them.)
I did play a Warlock on this game and when I hit was destroying pretty much everything on ship, and doing some nasty damage after that. I was only using my Eldritch blast.
Clerics in game are imo odd and the one thing I've noticed is seperate from 5e rules. This being in the Domains that each god has, every god has the same ones. This may change, I'm hoping it does, but this might also be to lessen the confusion of those that don't play 5e. Again my opinion.
I don't mean to seem to be ragging on people. just wanted to point out that 5e books state House Rules are okay, so OP himself just invalidated himself by what he said. to sum it up. 5e handbooks states House Rules are fine. Larians changing of some things can be viewed as House Rule, which is fine with 5e.
It would be better if he states which things he has a problem with, and why. So Larian can add it to the data their collecting In Example I have a problem with the way your handling Ranger beastmaster and their animal companions. You are currently using the same noncombat familairs that wizards and others use.
Now Larian knows which rules he has problems with, and why. Other players can chip in then Larian has a greater amount of feedback then an abstract you should stick to the rules, which in voided by the House Rule itself.
