Archer Druid Subclass?

[DEFCON 1]

Yeah, putting Wildshape in the base class really constrains things.

Also, to be clear, it's not that I'm trying to build this character for a new campaign or anything. I'm just wondering if there's enough meat behind the concept to warrant a sub-class. Just because it's fun to think about those things.

If every concept that could be approximated as a multi-class eliminated the need for that sub-class, we wouldn't have very many sub-classes left.

I guess what I'm really looking for is a broader concept than "druid with bow", but something that in turn rationalizes why these druids would favor using bows. And then how would that concept be instantiated as abilities.

By the way, I think it should include blowguns, too. Shortbow, Longbow, Sling, Blowgun.

Therein lies the rub.

The thing about subclasses (other than the Champion and Battlemaster) is that it's in no way about "Hey, what ways can we change up the mechanics for this class?" and all about "What is the story of this specific person and how does the subclass exemplify that story?" And only then do they figure out creative ideas for special features for the subclass and then figure out the game mechanics needed to show those ideas off.

As soon as you say "I want to make a subclass that allows my druid to use bows more effectively" you pretty much are starting at a dead end. Because at that point you have no story for this character that warrants a subclass. If you want to be a druid, you can be a druid right now. If you want to use a bow, you can use a bow right now. There's nothing you need to have to get you what you want.

But what's actually happening is the same thing that happens to a lot of players who deep dive into the mechanics... you know what is the optimal path for playing a "game defined" druid, and using a bow isn't it. But yet the idea of just playing sub-optimally because that's the concept of this character you want to play just makes your eyeballs itch. You are in no way the first person to feel squiggly about playing a sub-optimal build when a better one exists, and you'll never be the last. And its not something we really can be blamed for for feeling that way. It is what it is.

So as a result, you start looking for ways to just make this sub-optimal build into an optimal one so you don't have to "feel bad" about playing it. Every time you pull out and fire your bow you don't have to think to yourself "You know, if I was just using X cantrip right now instead I'd be doing an additional point of damage." And for a lot of us... those niggling thoughts ruin the experience of trying to play a different build. And its why so many of us here on the boards rant and rail against the "bad design" of so many of the options the game gives us, because they can't be rationalized away by being mechanically "equal" to the best option available for any class.

"The Tempest Cleric is a better war cleric than the War Cleric is!" some people cry... because they've decided that a "war cleric" is strictly about DPR (all story aspects of what a deity of war finds important in their followers be damned), and the Tempest Cleric (or whatever other subclass domain they've white-roomed) has higher DPR and thus is actually the true "war cleric". But they then get mad that the story of what they believe to be the true "war cleric" now doesn't actually match up. "I want to be a War Cleric but I have to worship a storm deity to do so! Why can't I be a War Cleric who worships a War Deity?!?" The irony of course being that they made a completely NON-STORY decision on what being a "war cleric" means, but then after the fact get upset that the story doesn't now match. Well boo-frickin-hoo. If you want to play a War Cleric, then PLAY a War Cleric, and realize that being a war cleric is about the STORY of being a war cleric (for which the War Cleric domain will give to you by definition), and not about some arbitrary game mechanic you've decided for yourself (like the most DPR) as being the definition.

And the same holds true for your "druid with a bow" situation. What's the story you are looking at for your character that calls out being a "Druid"? Is it purely just someone who lives and is most comfortable in nature? If that's the case... then yeah, a Ranger gives you exactly what your character's story wants. A nature master exceedingly good with a bow. And if you want to call this character of yours a "druid"-- and when I say this, I mean how the people of the in-game world define the character, not the "game terminology" use of the word... then you can do so. You might have the "game terminology" term of "Ranger" on your sheet... but you can call yourself a "druid" in-game with no issues. Because its not as though the people within the game world know "game mechanics" of these identities and use them as definitions. It's not as though you'd ever walk up to a random shopkeeper and tell them you are a druid from the wilds... only to have them ask you "Really? What animal shapes do you transform into?" "Oh, I don't." "Oh, well then you're not REALLY a druid, are you? Because every single druid in the world can wildshape." No random NPC thinks that way. No one defines people or what they can and can't do that stringently.

So long story short ("Too late!")... are you a "druid" because you want the druid's actual story as defined by the game, full casting progression, wildshaping, the other mechanics of a druid, but also just have really good ranged attack game mechanics so you don't feel bad for playing that way? Then just do what others have said and do a feature swap for a minor mechanic you might want (like Smite) and call it a day. But if you want a full suite of ranged attacker options where the mechanics of archery define the character's story... then play a class whose mechanics already give you that-- the Ranger, the Battlemaster Fighter-- and then take a Background to match and call yourself "in-game" a druid all you want. Because like I said... practically no one "in-game" knows or cares what a "true druid" actually can do. And so if your "druid" can't wildshape (because you're using the Ranger chassis purely for the game mechanics)... no one is going to know, care, or be none the wiser. You can call yourself a "druid" your entire life, never once using anything that the GAME defines mechanically as a Druid.

Good gaming!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe circle of the seeker.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Therein lies the rub.

The thing about subclasses (other than the Champion and Battlemaster) is that it's in no way about "Hey, what ways can we change up the mechanics for this class?" and all about "What is the story of this specific person and how does the subclass exemplify that story?" And only then do they figure out creative ideas for special features for the subclass and then figure out the game mechanics needed to show those ideas off.

As soon as you say "I want to make a subclass that allows my druid to use bows more effectively" you pretty much are starting at a dead end. Because at that point you have no story for this character that warrants a subclass. If you want to be a druid, you can be a druid right now. If you want to use a bow, you can use a bow right now. There's nothing you need to have to get you what you want.

But what's actually happening is the same thing that happens to a lot of players who deep dive into the mechanics... you know what is the optimal path for playing a "game defined" druid, and using a bow isn't it. But yet the idea of just playing sub-optimally because that's the concept of this character you want to play just makes your eyeballs itch. You are in no way the first person to feel squiggly about playing a sub-optimal build when a better one exists, and you'll never be the last. And its not something we really can be blamed for for feeling that way. It is what it is.

So as a result, you start looking for ways to just make this sub-optimal build into an optimal one so you don't have to "feel bad" about playing it. Every time you pull out and fire your bow you don't have to think to yourself "You know, if I was just using X cantrip right now instead I'd be doing an additional point of damage." And for a lot of us... those niggling thoughts ruin the experience of trying to play a different build. And its why so many of us here on the boards rant and rail against the "bad design" of so many of the options the game gives us, because they can't be rationalized away by being mechanically "equal" to the best option available for any class.

"The Tempest Cleric is a better war cleric than the War Cleric is!" some people cry... because they've decided that a "war cleric" is strictly about DPR (all story aspects of what a deity of war finds important in their followers be damned), and the Tempest Cleric (or whatever other subclass domain they've white-roomed) has higher DPR and thus is actually the true "war cleric". But they then get mad that the story of what they believe to be the true "war cleric" now doesn't actually match up. "I want to be a War Cleric but I have to worship a storm deity to do so! Why can't I be a War Cleric who worships a War Deity?!?" The irony of course being that they made a completely NON-STORY decision on what being a "war cleric" means, but then after the fact get upset that the story doesn't now match. Well boo-frickin-hoo. If you want to play a War Cleric, then PLAY a War Cleric, and realize that being a war cleric is about the STORY of being a war cleric (for which the War Cleric domain will give to you by definition), and not about some arbitrary game mechanic you've decided for yourself (like the most DPR) as being the definition.

And the same holds true for your "druid with a bow" situation. What's the story you are looking at for your character that calls out being a "Druid"? Is it purely just someone who lives and is most comfortable in nature? If that's the case... then yeah, a Ranger gives you exactly what your character's story wants. A nature master exceedingly good with a bow. And if you want to call this character of yours a "druid"-- and when I say this, I mean how the people of the in-game world define the character, not the "game terminology" use of the word... then you can do so. You might have the "game terminology" term of "Ranger" on your sheet... but you can call yourself a "druid" in-game with no issues. Because its not as though the people within the game world know "game mechanics" of these identities and use them as definitions. It's not as though you'd ever walk up to a random shopkeeper and tell them you are a druid from the wilds... only to have them ask you "Really? What animal shapes do you transform into?" "Oh, I don't." "Oh, well then you're not REALLY a druid, are you? Because every single druid in the world can wildshape." No random NPC thinks that way. No one defines people or what they can and can't do that stringently.

So long story short ("Too late!")... are you a "druid" because you want the druid's actual story as defined by the game, full casting progression, wildshaping, the other mechanics of a druid, but also just have really good ranged attack game mechanics so you don't feel bad for playing that way? Then just do what others have said and do a feature swap for a minor mechanic you might want (like Smite) and call it a day. But if you want a full suite of ranged attacker options where the mechanics of archery define the character's story... then play a class whose mechanics already give you that-- the Ranger, the Battlemaster Fighter-- and then take a Background to match and call yourself "in-game" a druid all you want. Because like I said... practically no one "in-game" knows or cares what a "true druid" actually can do. And so if your "druid" can't wildshape (because you're using the Ranger chassis purely for the game mechanics)... no one is going to know, care, or be none the wiser. You can call yourself a "druid" your entire life, never once using anything that the GAME defines mechanically as a Druid.

Good gaming!

I largely agree with you, even though the post comes across as rather patronizing. And perhaps I'm more sanguine about where the inspiration for the concept comes from.

Why, for example, is "a druid who, for some reason, is more martial than other druids, with a tendency toward ranged weapons" or "an archer who derives his prowess from spiritual/mystical abilities, not physical superiority" inferior as a concept to "I like (so-and-so) from the (movie/book) (such-and-such) and want to play a character like (him/her)"?

Which, lets face it, is the impetus behind a LOT of character "concepts"out there.

Sure, starting with a backstory...and then figuring out what abilities would make sense with that backstory, and thus what class(es) and other choices would best instantiate it...is a great way to build a character. I like that, too. But I'm skeptical that it's actually superior to other sources of inspiration. Such an approach may the preference of some, but I defy them to explain why it's better.

I'm simply starting with the concept "What if there was one type of druid who leaned toward stalking & hunting?" That leads to "Who would they be hunting, and why?"

(On a side note, I've also tinkered with a Zen Archer subclass for the Monk, and for similar reasons: I like the idea of archers who derive their abilities from wisdom and spiritual awareness, not just athleticism.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

My apologies for that. I realize that when I use 'you' in posts like this that it sounds like I'm directly addressing the poster, when in point of fact I'm meaning it in the universal sense. But using 'you' is just easier than trying to say 'one or 'they ' when writing it.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Oh, here's an idea...a RANGER sub-class that:
- Learns Shillelagh and Druidcraft as cantrips.
- Gets access to the Druid spell list, maybe with some bonus spells known.
- Can use Wisdom instead of Dex when attacking with a bow.

Actually.. Ya I agree. A "Dridic Archer" Ranger subclass with StormBow and Thunder strike Arrow makes more since than an actual Druid that is an archer. Having an already nature based archer subclass and taking what makes them useful and interesting only weekends Rangers and makes Druid's less special by taking some of their identify away.

Tha's my opinion anyway.

 

[77IM]

An archer-druid isn't just a hunter, they are a hunter who prefers not to hunt like an animal, but like a person. The best concept I can come up with for this is: you're some kind of anti-druid who fights other druids using technology. Sometimes a druid "goes rogue" and tries to upset the balance and needs to be put down. It turns out fighting fire with fire isn't super effective; sending in moon druids and shepherd druids and so forth isn't going to work well against the rebel druid, because he knows all the same tricks. So you utilize technological methods, like weapon, armor, explosives, and alchemy, to catch the enemy off guard. Of course you're still a druid so you're not going to use anything that would itself upset the natural balance. But should you and your quarry both find yourselves in an antimagic field, you're at a distinct advantage. And maybe that's the kind of thing this class sets up.

 

[ClaytonCross]

An archer-druid isn't just a hunter, they are a hunter who prefers not to hunt like an animal, but like a person. The best concept I can come up with for this is: you're some kind of anti-druid who fights other druids using technology. Sometimes a druid "goes rogue" and tries to upset the balance and needs to be put down. It turns out fighting fire with fire isn't super effective; sending in moon druids and shepherd druids and so forth isn't going to work well against the rebel druid, because he knows all the same tricks. So you utilize technological methods, like weapon, armor, explosives, and alchemy, to catch the enemy off guard. Of course you're still a druid so you're not going to use anything that would itself upset the natural balance. But should you and your quarry both find yourselves in an antimagic field, you're at a distinct advantage. And maybe that's the kind of thing this class sets up.

Not disagreeing but you could do everything the same with "Druidic" Ranger having stronger than usual ties to nature without taking a full magic class and giving it equal or better abiltites at doing what a ranger does and making rangers obsolete. I see your point , I really do. I just think their is a reason paladins aren't full casters and a cleric with all the paladin abilities would be cool but over powered and make paladins pointless. Rangers are casters that use magic. Any attempt to give a full caster class like Druids a "smite" is always going to be broken. Even if it was 1d4 per spell slot.. a 9d4 smite would is actually better than a 4d8 paladin smite and they get SOO many more WHILE keeping all the full caster abilities. A Ranger that is designed to hunt Druids that have lost their way is VERY similar (I know its not the same) but its not broken and giving Rangers a smite ability that works like paladins AT RANGE is already supper powerful when people are claiming paladins are broken. I would HIGHLY recommend considering "Drudic Ranger" to limit spell slots and to level there ranged power the "Nature's Smite" would need to be ether less damage (1d4 per spell slot) or declared before hit so unlike paladins they would waste spell slots on miss.

 

[77IM]

I agree with you; smite on a full caster is very difficult to balance, and not necessary to this character concept.

I'm envisioning something more like the Valor bard or Bladesinger wizard: you get martial weapons and armor, Extra Attack, and a few neat tricks that play well with your existing abilities. I'm thinking you can expend a use of Wild Shape to suppress certain types of magic in the area, disrupt concentration, that sort of thing. Maybe add some spells to the spell list, like counterspell.

I actually don't like the idea of using Wis for attack and damage with a bow. That's really difficult to balance on a full caster. I think MAD works better for this, like on a Valor bard, the War cleric, and Bladesinger wizard.

And I came up with another druid concept that requires martial training: In defense of the natural balance, you frequently travel to places (the underdark, the planes) where the connection to magic is weakened. So you train with weapons and armor in order to be effective even when your connection to the primal forces has been cut off.

 

[ClaytonCross]

So if it has to be a Druid... (I still think a nature archer hunting down enemies of nature should be a Ranger subclass, but ok)

1. Armor is an issue for druids because they CAN'T were metal armor (like a Range who have medium armor proficiency already might, lol), The only thing they get from Medium Armor proficiency is Hide which is 12+ max 2 dex...AC14, With Leather they get 11+max 5 dex for 16... so Medium armor is not a good answer for you if your GM is giving out standard magic items per rolling tables or is not willing to homebrew. At best this is a player forcing extra work on their GM at worse its a Player getting Medium armor proficiency but never actually getting anything from it resulting in taking Hide thinking its an improvement to end up with lower AC... They are using a bow so there is no help from a wooden shield. I only see two ways to fix this.

First, you steel monks unarmored defense, which means taking something special from another class and I would try and avoid that, but since wisdom is the Druid caster stat it works allowing for up to AC20 while fitting with "you frequently travel to places (the underdark, the planes) where the connection to magic is weakened. So you train with weapons and armor in order to be effective even when your connection to the primal forces has been cut off" in that your training with monks. The biggest issue with this is that what your really doing is removing the one level multi-class dip of monk so this is just munchkin building through the creation of subclass instead of the multi-class toll. Your GM might hate the one level dip but its a cost for something and that lose effects the build and play. I think it needs to be there and actually the one level dip in monk fits your character story better and is something you could have fun playing out as you travel from place to place taking a dip in mink, fighter, rogue, and/or barbarian highlighting this really as background option "Corruption Hunter" that Druids, Rangers, Oath of Ancient Paladins, and maybe monks could take those being prerequisites for the back ground. Stealing is bad M'kay.

Second, you take something that exists and modify it. An approach more like
A. +proficiency to AC (Warforged Integrated Protection which has little adapaptability into something new so would liley be a direct steal of a special feature you can get by being a warforged, so be one or not.)
B. reaction abilities that give disadvantage on an attack against you (Monks Patient defenses, The old one Patron Warlock's entropic ward, Bloodhunter's blood maledict. These you can change a little but they are mostly stealing, uninteresting, and two are Magical in nature which is against your "effective even when your connection to the primal forces has been cut off". If your looking of monk features mulit-class monk and pay your 1-3 level toll.)
C. damage reduction abilities (bards cutting words and barbarian rage, again mostly stealing)
D. Combining A & B we get a +proficiency to AC on reaction ability. Defensive Duelist feat which looks good because your dex based being ranged, then you realize it only works against melee and your best melee defense is staying at range. Sure if they get to you its a nice AC on reaction but in practice I think your will find the mobility feat lets you hit or miss with a dagger and run away at +10 ft of movement without an opportunity attack even against enemies with sentinel feat or a rip of of it since it does not rely on the disengage action. Also the +10 speed from mobility is persistent so unless your fighting monks, teleporting opponents, or barbarians with the same feat your not going to have to worry about melee fighters much which will be the majority of your enemies. Ranged is a different story but then spell saves don't care what your AC is and that's maybe half of the 30% of ranged your will run into. Then again, we are talking about feats you can already take so why?
E. Spells. So this to me is where things get interesting because spells aren't so much a class feature. They are something that is in the world that players learn to use like any other armor or weapon. Sure Armor of Agythys is only on the warlock spell list but alternate spell lists for subclasses in D&D are common. The issue you have is that the "in order to be effective even when your connection to the primal forces has been cut off" prohibits all of them as an answer. You could reskin one like shield as a class feature that burns a spell slot like smite does but then your still using spell slots aka "primal forces"

In conclusion, If your going to be a ranged archer druid... I think your best defense is staying at range and making character choices in feats like mobility, races like warforged or wood elf with +5 speed, and multi-classing into other melee classes that they might want as your story dictates. If you REALLY feel they need more defense for that one in a while melee fight Shield of Faith would be the most appropriate one to add but then you have to say but...if I have no connection to magic I am no longer a Druid or a Ranger ... I am a fighter or a monk and I don't have spell slots.

2. If your not using smite or spell abilities and your fighting at ranged with a bow, extra attack seems vital as you can't use hunter's mark or anyother magical in enhancement but to that point the only classes that can really pull off and archer without magic enhancements are Monks running closer throwing three 1d10 Daggers (one off hand) 20ft the running away each turn and Fighters with extra attack eventually getting them 4 attacks in a turn with +2 to hit ranged weapons (If you take Crossbow Expert you can reload and fire without restriction and at point blank, 4 times 1d10 +dex). If you steal these from them your hurting them, but at the same time you could make monk your your nature based fighter with not metal armor add some druid spells to the subclass and it would be fine. Like I said stealing spells is pretty fair game for sub-classes.

The final conclusion is for what your asking doing and why it has not been done is that a non-magic melee druid... is a Circle of the Moon turning into an Earth elemental or Mammoth and smashing faces in. If your willing to multi-class 1 level of monk for unarmored Defense, you can be an AC17 Water Elemental, AC18 Fire Elemental or an AC20 Air Elemental and REALLY own those who would corrupt nature. I don't mention these to say "don't do your thing, do this!".. no.. do your thing. Just, really consider that the Druid has a lot going for it and your picking the ONE THING druids aren't good at of non-magical ranged combat and trying to give it to them... which is a bit of a hard sell, particularly when their are two classes designed around that your basically going to have to steel from (Three if you count the ranger even though it uses magic to enhance its archery) ... instead of making a nature based subclass on for one of them. It's do able and if you just have to make druids good at the one thing they are bad at...go ahead but I see more problems than solutions with taking a full caster and making it work in a non-magical environment. Its kind of taking the longest path to your destination and its going to be more problems than solutions the whole way. I so much easier to make a "Druidic corruption hunter" monk, ranger, or even fighter its staggering. I think this is why there is a Valor bard, the War cleric, and Bladesinger wizard. Most people will treat Circle of the Moon as the Melee druid/thank and they have magic ranged, its literately only non-magical range for them to be good at everything.

Long winded, Sorry, its who I am. I don't expect any of this has actually changed our mind or improved your direction. I was trying to help with your build and this post is me writing my thought as I worked through it. Usually I find at least an ok answer but here all I could see was problems and that lead me to why. Perhaps you will find a hole I did not, that leads you to success. Truly, Best of luck to you.

 

[ClaytonCross]

While that is true, Warlocks and Wizards are also full caster classes and yet have martial subclasses (Bladesinger, Hexblade). So it can be done.

So that sounds like a true statement until you consider that Hexblades warlocks, Bladesingers wizards, and collage of the bard can't already be Circle of the Moon turning into an Earth Elemental and smashing your face into the dirt, which is kind of the Druid melee class already their for you. The effective "Mundane Archer" of them is the Hexblade. The others still rely on magic for ranged combat.

On that note... Arch Fey Pact of the Blade warlock... is what your designing? Nature based full caster who can shoot at range with a "bow", call it a "Corruption hunter" who joined the druid order and was blessed by the ArchFey of the forest to hunt down these corrupt elements and fallen druids. Based on what you said if fits perfectly.

So to be clear they couldn't and didn't successful make wizards and Bards into archers. Before you say well there is still Warlocks... have you made a Hex blade warlock archer? I have. It relies heavily on invocations and sub-subclass flexibility that Druid's do not have. You can be an ArchFey Pact of the Blade or a Hexblade pact of the Blade but Druids have no equivalent and can't choose minor sublcass feature (invocations) to match their design. On top of that, I ended up taking the mobility feat to stay at range, crossbow expert feat so I could shoot up close and shoot twice (heavy crossbow), and its still not as powerful as my pact of the tome warlock casting eldritch blast... not even close. So you can do this, sure. I am in no way tell you "you can't" or "don't" ...I am just warning you that all the other full casters that went melee with any success, still uses spells for range. If your going melee with a druid, pick Circle of the Moon and your done. Going non-magical ranged weapon with a full caster that has range already has not be successfully implemented by any other full casters to the level that your aiming for.

Square Peg, Round whole, ...you will need a big hammer to make it work. I don't doubt you can get it in their though.