Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7483870" data-attributes="member: 7006">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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Good gaming!</blockquote>

Verification