D&D 5E Ranger on a Warlock frame?

[Wiseblood]

One of the odd things about rangers is that the abilities they get negate certain obstacles. It does so without a check. I feel that this is a disservice to the concept of rangers being at their best in the wilderness. Forgive the hyperbole but it would be like not having to fight enemies because you have a fighter in the party. ( and they automatically handled it )

I think the mechanics of the warlock might make more sense for the ranger class. Features being:
*spell recovery on a short rest
*reskinned invocations that grant ranger-y boons like favored enemy bonus or (insert spell effect here) when in terrain.
*some invocations would not need any change at all (beast speech)

What do you think?

 

[Krachek]

Long time ago ranger was a sub class of fighter.
using a full caster frame is pushing it another step farther.

 

[Olrox17]

I wouldn't mind the warlock's chassis being used for the ranger, with some modifications:

• No Mystic Arcanum equivalent. The ranger has no business casting high level magic
• D10 hit die, extra attack, and decent armor proficiency
• not just reskinned warlock invocations, but a slew of custom made ranger-y abilities. Fourth edition ranger powers could easily be mined for ideas.

 

[Wiseblood]

Long time ago ranger was a sub class of fighter.
using a full caster frame is pushing it another step farther.

Agreed. The warlock is kind of a corner case with just a few slots. To bring it (ranger concept) back in line with it’s old power level slot level could be tweaked. Also as mentioned by Olrox17 d10 hp and removal of arcanum would be in order.

In place of arcanum would be something more in line with the ranger as a wilderness warrior.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

not just reskinned warlock invocations, but a slew of custom made ranger-y abilities. Fourth edition ranger powers could easily be mined for ideas.

I went through 4E material extensively looking for inspiration for my own ranger rewrite, and was frustrated at how little there was to mine from it. 4E utility powers are really... specific.

 

[Olrox17]

I went through 4E material extensively looking for inspiration for my own ranger rewrite, and was frustrated at how little there was to mine from it. 4E utility powers are really... specific.

Haven't played 4e in some time, but I remember the ranger got at least a couple splatbooks of expansions, plus extra stuff in dragon articles.
Also, I remember that at some point Wotc made another class, the Seeker, that was basically a ranger with magic (the default 4e ranger was purely martial). Could be worth checking out.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Haven't played 4e in some time, but I remember the ranger got at least a couple splatbooks of expansions, plus extra stuff in dragon articles.
Also, I remember that at some point Wotc made another class, the Seeker, that was basically a ranger with magic (the default 4e ranger was purely martial). Could be worth checking out.

Don't let me dissuade you from looking for yourself, but I did check all that and wasn't happy. 4E's emphasis was heavily on combat options. The ranger class identity worked in that edition, but in a 5E environment, it doesn't make sense to load it up with all the bow and dual-wielding tricks and have the fighter say "Do I mean nothing to you?" So I was looking instead for cool things to do in the wilderness, and there's just not a lot of big ideas on that front.

 

[Olrox17]

Don't let me dissuade you from looking for yourself, but I did check all that and wasn't happy. 4E's emphasis was heavily on combat options. The ranger class identity worked in that edition, but in a 5E environment, it doesn't make sense to load it up with all the bow and dual-wielding tricks and have the fighter say "Do I mean nothing to you?" So I was looking instead for cool things to do in the wilderness, and there's just not a lot of big ideas on that front.

Well, considering that my memory on the matter isn't exactly fresh, you're probably right.
4e also had skill powers, utility powers linked to skills rather than class. I remember some of those being interesting.

 

[Fenris-77]

If you used the Hexblade as the template to maintain some of the combat ability I think this could work really well. At least for the more magical flavors of Ranger. I like it for the same reason I like the Warlock as a chassis for the Warlord.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

The warlock is probably my favorite class, and I really wish the ranger was my favorite class, so I like this approach.

I think the core D&D experience handwaves a lot of exploration, and there's some fundamental flaws to the skill system, too. Together, these make it hard to create a ranger that engages with the exploration pillar without trivializing it. That said, a ranger should at least engage in a fun and flavorful way with what D&D does well: combat. The PHB ranger, sadly, does not do that. It's a weak fighter that relies on spells to keep DPR competitive.

So where am I going with this? I spent a lot of time trying to write a variant ranger. I never quite cracked it. It's hard! The WotC designers have my sympathies. But where I ended up with the ranger was similar to the warlock. Essentially, the available "patrons" were beast master, nature/primal spellcaster, and martial hunter/warrior. The "pacts" were basically your fighting style plus a modified favored enemy. And the "invocations" were knacks/skill powers like healing, tracking, trapsetting, etc.

In the abstract, I really like the above approach, but it's a hella lotta work to design.