The average fighter is usually either a blitzer or a tank, in both cases focusing heavily on melee weaponry that they can use feats such as cleave, great cleave, and other handy tactical feats with which to smite their enemies. There are useful feats for ranged characters, but on average their utility is comparably limited when compared to other feats. Remember, too, that most of the feats designed are for use with long and short bows, not with crossbows, making them less usable in a ranged character build.
The Barbarian can use ranged weapons but really it's only going to be as a backup and even then it's not really a great weapon for them to use as most of their class features are better suited to melee combat, not ranged.
The Ranger is about a 50/50 shot but they aren't really the best example in my opinion because not counting the new spells for them there isn't much of an incentive to go ranged, the ranged weapons listed tend to pale in comparison to the melee ones that are used for average two weapon fighting.
The new classes introduced, not counting spell-chuckers, really only provide a good ranged character in the scout, most of the others being set up as melee masters. I'm not saying that they need to make ranged characters gods but it's annoying when I feel like I'm doing a bad build if I'm using a ranged weapon as my primary and I'm not a scout or rogue.
In regards to weapons there are multitudes of different melee weapons, some with reach and some without, exotic weapons granting all sorts of useful special abilities. The best of the exotic weapons can create incredibly powerful combat builds based around one or two feats. Whereas the best bows only crit on a 20 and you still need a good strength mod to use them, crossbows are a little better but then you need extra feats to make them more practical. This wouldn't even be so bad if it wasn't necessary to constantly procure larger and larger amounts of ammunition, ammunition that can't be recovered and can be stopped with low to mid level spells with ease.
The next problem is in regards to prestige classes, almost all combat oriented prestige classes focus exclusively on melee combat. This wouldn't be so bad if the ranged prestige classes were comparable in power, or gave better abilities. But consider that an Arcane Archers death arrow is ridiculously easy to save against and the fact that most of the ranged prestige classes that have at least some use are race specific and it gets hard to make a good ranged character build. Add in the fact that almost all ranged prestige classes give nothing to crossbow wielders and it gets even more discouraging. I realize that we can't all be the great character but I would like it if Wizards either produced a more archer-like class or made more workable ranged prestige classes.
Now compare this to an enemy coming to engage you from across a distance. Depending on the distance, the archer can already damage or even kill the melee character before he gets to swing his weapon once.
Second, an archer can retreat (In D&D this often means by flight) so that the archer can attack the melee character while the melee character cannot attack back. Even if the melee character has a bow as well, he in turn lacks the ranged expertise of the archer so this is not a fair fight either.
And last but not least, an archer character runs less risk of dying when fighting, because he is not on the forefront getting hit by that giant's greathammer. Less risk means less reward, powerwise also.
This ends up costing:
For the sake of numbers, ranged weapons are just bad, compared to being mobile with melee weapons. The only way to increase your damage output is through burning precious feats(aside from Fighter, or Ranger, you've only got 7/20 levels) or spending gold on enhancements.
By the time you've gotten enough feats/cash to make your ranged weapons worth a damn, your companions are dealing twice as much damage(not even accounting for multiple attacks/round), and you're just another guy for the Pit Fiend to eat.
Trying fire-fighting a Wizard/Sorc with a Ranger. Most of your training goes into using the weapon, but not really keeping defenses. A smart Sorc has Windwall, or any variety of anti-attack spells handy, and your arrows are just clutter in the room. Those effects last rounds, and while you're reloading, you're struck by a Fireball or three, taking damage even if you beat the saves.
Seems that bows and crossbows are around simply for nostalgia's sake (and roleplay, of course), not to actually be used in a situation where the party lives or dies.
A well-made archer character certainly can turn out plenty of damage (though perhaps not that on a par with a dedicated two-handed weapon warrior) - but I think that the strengths of the ranged character are flexibility and safety.
Because ammunition is so easily interchangeable, you can have a small number of a wide variety of different ammunition, which makes it far easier for your character to respond appropriately to any threat the party faces; the equivalent for most fighters is the "golf-bag" of weapons. Elemental damage, special materials, and alignment properties can all be available to an archer while a melee combatant struggles to afford more than two of these.
Safety is obvious - you are further away, which means you're also out of range of many of the hazards of D&D: horrible monsters that try to eat you, area affects directed at the party, even traps and ambushes in the right conditions. Because you don't need to be where you deal damage, you can also provide support to other party members at a moment's notice, without moving yourself. If the full-plated fighter is off battling the dragon, when suddenly kobold rogues leap out and ambush the wizard, you are far better placed to pick off the flanking allies amongst the kobolds than the fighter, who would have to draw attacks from the dragon to get back, and could take several rounds to do so with reduced speed.
Finally, being at arm's length and with a ready shot also let you do other things outside of combat. You can deliver several things via a projectile, such as Light or Silence spells, or even just handwritten notes.
There are several advantages to being a ranged combatant - and I would say that several of them are denied even to those classes you mention (the rogue and the scout) because their abilities only function at point-blank range.
You mention prestige classes. I think that the majority of martial prestige classes that work equally well for either melee or ranged fighters, with a little imagination. Without my books to hand I can't pick any out for fear they refer specifically to melee weapons, but the Dwarven Defender, for example, has the potential to make a fine ranged combatant.
I don't see the array of melee weapons versus the small number of ranged weapons as especially unbalancing. Each melee weapon requires specialisation of its own, which precludes the use of many of the others; it is the variety of choice in the field, and not the flexibility of that field, which these weapons provide, while the flexibility for a ranged combatant comes from their ammunition and not the weapon.
As a fighter, with a longbow one can take the standard weapon focus/specialization skills, and improved critical. Also, the rapid shot and many shot feats provide the ability to fire an astounding number of arrows every turn. With a bow, a fighter can make more attacks in a full attack action than any melee character. But it is not only bows that gain the capacity to dish out massive amounts of attacks in one turn. If your DM is willing to work with you to develop a new weapon, consider asking to allow for a magically reloading crossbow. Apply this to the hand crossbow, and with two weapon fighting and two hand crossbows, and the rapid shot feat, the number of attacks per round that a character can make is simply ridiculous.
In a final note, the most useful part about a ranged weapon is that it is ranged. While you fight, you are not getting hit back (hopefully). So, assuming you disagree with me on the rapid firing capacity of bows, you can still accept a little less damage potential for the ability to have far less danger of being hurt in melee than a fighter with a sword.
Yay bows :D
I do agree about Prestige Classes, they have not been given quite the same power boost. I feel part of the reason for this is that at heart, ranged attacks simply are too powerful. In real life the real weapons used now are all ranged. The ability to attack from a distance is simply so powerful all by itself. Even in game, intelligent use of ranged attacks means that effectively they will destroy opponents, and that is with the advantages given to melee fighters.
Their one weakness is the extra cost it takes to keep ranged attackers supplied with appropriate ammo. But in a treasure and magic rich game, the only real defense against ranged attackers is another ranged attacker. Classic examples of the power of the ranged attackers are fast, flying ranged attackers. The only way to beat them is by the use of a ranged attack, usually magical.
I have noticed a distinct turning away from useful ranged weapons in D&D,
Compared to what edition? In 2nd edition, bows always got exactly 2 attacks per round. That was pretty powerful at first level, but it became weak as melee characters got better at melee. Not to mention the old melee magic trilogy:
Girdle of Storm Giant Strength
Ring of Vampiric Regeneration
magic 2-handed sword (any)
These three items made any melee fighter a virtual M1A1 Abrams. The girdle automatically made you as strong as the strongest giant, even if your strength was 1 when you donned it. And the Vampiric ring gave you half the damage you dealt in melee back, so that strength also healed you. Who needs a cleric? 2E was a great game, but 3E & 3.5 E are much better.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if 4th simply took the fighter class more war-gameish and had the following base fighting classes:
Infantry - heavy armor, damage resistance, d12 HP
Archer - Ranger-like skills, cold-arrow type spells, maybe some bardic abilities, d8 HP
Cavalry - Gets mount, Paladin becomes a prestige class, d10 HP
Swashbuckler - rogue-ish, skill intensive, unarmored defense bonuses, d8 HP
as the base fighting classes. But I see why Wizard's didn't do that with 3E. It just isn't in the traditional spirit of D&D. D&D has fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue. And the fighter generally uses a big sword. Don't expect that to change anytime soon.
In the games that I have played the only time that I see anyone really going heavily into a ranged character is if they're a rogue (sneak attack at a distance) or a scout. The Scout is probably the only semi-combat class that I know of that gives you a decent chance with ranged weaponry.
Though I actually haven't seen Scout pop up that much in the games I've been in, I can see how Skirmish can be handy... on the other hand, you have to keep moving to get Skirmish, which means you aren't getting full-round attacks (see below).
As for ranged sneak attacks, meh. To get a sneak attack at range you still have to be within 30', which means your victim can generally close to melee the next round. Additionally, it often is not easy to get sneak attacks at range; to get a melee sneak attack, you just have to be flanking. To get a ranged sneak attack, your opponent pretty much has to be flatfooted, meaning you have achieved surprise (which gives you a single shot in the surprise round) and/or won initiative (one full round of shots) or have some kind of ability that makes your opponents flat-footed (e.g. greater invisibility, which is not necessarily something you want to build an entire character toward).
The average fighter is usually either a blitzer or a tank, in both cases focusing heavily on melee weaponry that they can use feats such as cleave, great cleave, and other handy tactical feats with which to smite their enemies. There are useful feats for ranged characters, but on average their utility is comparably limited when compared to other feats.
It's true that generally you need some viable melee characters, just because many foes you will face are going to try and engage you in melee. On the other hand, one of the primary powers of ranged attacks is simple:
Full-round attacks.
Very often, a melee fighter must move and attack, and has a limited number of actions where he can just stand toe-to-toe with his enemies and unleash round after round of full-round attacks. Since an archer (say) is attacking at range, almost from round 1 he can be unleashing full-rounds since he probably doesn't have to move in order to attack.
An archer can "flurry" with his full-round attack due to Rapid Shot, has an easier time breaking various DR flavors thanks to being able to stock a variety of ammo, and can leverage ammo use to get different special attacks as well (e.g. starting at moderate levels, why not carry a few +1 bane arrows against particularly nasty types of creatures).
Thanks to Complete Warrior (assuming you use this supplement in your campaign), your archer can also do things like Disarm from a distance.
In terms of utility, an archer is always handy -- a skilled archer can still fire into your standard melee grunt-fest just fine, but is also highly valuable against distant foes who are hard to reach (e.g. because striking from ambush, or flying, etc.) Because of their ability to get full-round attacks nearly constantly, an archer can be your best source of single-target damage output.
Remember, too, that most of the feats designed are for use with long and short bows, not with crossbows, making them less usable in a ranged character build.
If you really want to go crossbow, you can use Rapid Reload to speed things up. But let's be honest -- a crossbow isn't designed to be as good as a longbow, it's a simple weapon. It's like saying that melee character builds aren't really designed to take advantage of the club and spear instead of greatsword. Sure, you can, but you're better off with martial (and sometimes, exotic) weaponry.
The Barbarian can use ranged weapons but really it's only going to be as a backup and even then it's not really a great weapon for them to use as most of their class features are better suited to melee combat, not ranged.
I don't think anyone is going to dispute that barbarians are generally melee machines. Still, with Brutal Throw from Complete Adventurer, Strength can be used for thrown weapon ranged attacks. Yeah, OK, thrown weapons can't really compete with bows generally (at least, without the right prestige class), but it's something.
The Ranger is about a 50/50 shot but they aren't really the best example in my opinion because not counting the new spells for them there isn't much of an incentive to go ranged, the ranged weapons listed tend to pale in comparison to the melee ones that are used for average two weapon fighting.
Why not go ranged? The most common TWF weapons in my experience are paired shortswords, at d6 19-20/x2, versus composite longbow at d8 x3. You can get off more full attack actions with a bow than dual-wielding, and only have to invest in a single weapon. Favored enemy damage bonuses, unlike sneak attack damage, doesn't have a range limit. With a d8 hit points and light armor, standing in the front line and staying put to deliver full-round attacks to get the benefit of TWF (and thus, soaking up attacks) may not be your best bet.
If you want to pile on the archery feats and even bump up your damage with Weapon Specialization, fighter archers can do just fine leading up to an archery PrC. And the canonical archer, if you listen to the folks over in Character Optimization, is the cleric archer -- with the right race/domains/buff spells, you are an archery god.
In regards to weapons there are multitudes of different melee weapons, some with reach and some without, exotic weapons granting all sorts of useful special abilities.
True, but as previously mentioned having different flavors of magical ammo means you can accomplish different things with archery too. Maybe you won't have the same battlefield tactical control as a melee monster, but you can pump out damage (and the odd special effect from a magical arrow) like nobody's business.
The best of the exotic weapons can create incredibly powerful combat builds based around one or two feats.
I'm assuming you mean spiked chain, which has 10' reach and 5' reach and is finessable and trips and disarms and does your laundry and makes your coffee and irons your cat. Yeah, OK, it's a ridiculously utilitarian weapon, but you still have to get up in your enemy's face (or at least within 10', modulo size increases) to use it -- whereas with a bow, if you can see your enemy, you can probably shoot him.
Whereas the best bows only crit on a 20 and you still need a good strength mod to use them, crossbows are a little better but then you need extra feats to make them more practical.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Your crit range is 20/x3. A few melee weapons have a better natural crit range (20/x4, 18-20/x2), but they are generally down a damage die as a result. Most melee weapons tend to have a crit range of 20/x3 or 19-20/x2, right in line with bows.
Generally you need a good strength mod to do well in melee, so this is hardly a shortcoming of bows!
Crossbows are pretty much strictly inferior to bows, due to fire rate considerations alone (you can blow a feat to redress this, but still). They don't apply STR penalties, true, but you can't take advantage of a STR bonus either.
This wouldn't even be so bad if it wasn't necessary to constantly procure larger and larger amounts of ammunition, ammunition that can't be recovered and can be stopped with low to mid level spells with ease.
Mundane ammo, I should point out... you don't need magic arrows because arrows fired from a magic bow are considered magical for the purpose of breaking DR (and as of 3.5, their enhancement bonuses overlap, not stack, with the bow). Normal boring ammo is cheap and easily carried in a quiver of Ehlonna; unusual ammo is for breaking DR (silver, cold iron, adamant, holy, etc.) or special effects (e.g. bane arrows).
Protection from arrows should not worry PC archers -- it only gives DR/magic, which means as soon as you get a +1 bow all your missiles sail straight through. Wind wall can be more of a problem, of course... but how many of your foes stock this spell? Even if they do, it doesn't do very much against anyone who is not an archer, doesn't keep you from firing at them from above once you can fly (something any PC archer will want to be able to do sooner than later in D&D anyway), and it keeps them stationary if they want to continue to benefit from their defense (which means your spellcaster buddies can often punish them with area-of-effect spells).
The next problem is in regards to prestige classes, almost all combat oriented prestige classes focus exclusively on melee combat.
Many warrior-type PrCs are "rounding-out" PrCs that tend to aim for skills or magical abilities to complement one's fighting style, regardless of what it is. True, there are a number of deliberately melee-style classes (e.g. Frenzied Berserker), but Order of the Bow Initiate isn't exactly terrible.
Could there be more ranged prestige classes? OK, probably, yeah. On the other hand, ranged warriors tend to be damage-pumpers, not so much tactical fighters, so there are only so many ways you can directly boost that. The aforementioned "rounding-out" PrCs (e.g. picking up limited spellcasting) can add some abilities to this one-dimensional aim, of course.
Add in the fact that almost all ranged prestige classes give nothing to crossbow wielders and it gets even more discouraging.
Well, they are crossbows, they aren't as good statistically. How many spear-focused melee PrCs are there? If you want to use crossbows with ranged prestige classes, you basically are looking at light crossbow and Rapid Reload, and there you go.
Probably more frustrating is that, outside of Master Thrower PrC or whatever, there is little reason to try to make a thrown-weapon ranged specialist when just about every one of your feats can/would work better using a bow. (Better range, only have to enchant one bow instead of a collection of throwing weapons, not so worried about someone picking up your nice, well-enchanted throwing weapon and throwing it back at you, no need for Quick Draw, etc. etc.)
A ranged character with a projectile weapon can put enchantments on their bow, and have them apply to any ammunition they use. With an assortment of arrows they can therefore defeat pretty much any DR while getting the full benefit of their weapon enchantment.
Arcane archers get automatic magical enchantments to hit and damage on normal arrows, therefore they can concentrate on putting special abilities on their bows rather than simply magical enhancement. For the same price as the barbarian's +3 keen greatsword, the arcane archer can have a +1 keen, flaming, acidic composite longbow, and still get that +3 to hit and damage from his arrows (assuming appropriate level, etc). Death arrows don't work very often, but they are free to make, and it isn't like most other save or die abilities have a high chance of success either.
Crossbows aren't all that useful for fighter types, but they work well for strength challenged races and classes, do pretty good damage for a simple weapon and most people play that you can fire a crossbow prone, but not a bow, so you can get a +4 to your AC vs. ranged attacks while firing it, making it useful when all combat is at a distance.
I think the main reason you see less fighter types doing ranged combat is that their usual role of fighter types in the party is to tank, and that isn't what ranged specialists are good at. If someone else is able to tank, they can work pretty well. An advantage of the ranged specialist is they can be effective while hanging back with the spellcasters, and therefore be on hand if the opponents get through to attack them.
If you wish to be a ranged attack character I think the 1st step is to sit down with your GM and ask "will a ranged combat PC work in this campaign". As has been noted D&D is a melee focused game, and always has been. While ranged attack PCs can work under 3.5 they do need your GMs cooperation. - better line of sight/visibility situations, allow recovery of ammo, reward the PCs for using tactical sense to benefit from ranged advantages, etcetera.
A ranged fighter can be a very powerful part of a party, but they're also the most vulnerable to been shutdown by GM actions (accidental as well as deliberate).
Stephen
1) Party Composition
Every party needs some way to deal with melee opponents. Most typically this is done by the party having members who can melee themselves. In a combat encounter these melee party members have the job of either killing the enemy or keeping them occupied so that they cannot or will not attack any non-melee party members. Generally it is best to have more than one melee combatant since the party will usually be facing multiple foes. It is generally very difficult for one single character to be able to contain an entire group of opponents.
In a four man party consisting of a Cleric, a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Wizard it is usually a given that the Wizard is not going to be able to be a melee contributor. The arcane caster is usually casting spells from a distance. The Rogue is fragile. He will either be an archer or he will be a melee support character ... meaning that even though he is in hand to hand combat that he needs someone else to help him either as a flanker or a distracter. In this kind of party only the Cleric and Fighter can really be expected to carry the primary melee combatant role.
Given this the entire party is penalized if the Cleric or Fighter takes the ranged attacker role since it leaves the group with only one primary melee specialist.
It’s less of a problem in a 5+ man group. At that point you can have the major bases covered and a more specialized character or ranged attacker can shine. Adding an archer style Ranger to the above 4 man party would give the group a reasonable secondary healer and ranged support. Furthermore if the party were flanked the Ranger could drop his bow and become a melee combatant potentially letting the Wizard reposition himself for more ranged attacks.
So my analysis is that, it is not that archers are “useless” to a party, but rather than most groups are simply not big enough to afford to support one.
2) Mechanics
The current game mechanics give a big boost to melee combatants. Just starting with Str being added to melee damage by default & that it’s bonus is multiplied on some weapons means that the melee folks are going to start out ahead on raw damage dealt in many cases. With some of the tactical feats like Shock Trooper and Leap Attack even single attack chargers can vastly out damage a full attack archer in a lot of circumstances.
By and large it is also easier for a melee character to get bonuses to damage than it is for an archer. The rules for Str damage on bows is limiting for several reasons.
First it makes archers MAD. They need both Dex and Str to be effective while melee types only need Str.
Second the static nature of the bow’s bonus damage from Str means that the archer will not benefit at all if a party spellcaster boosts his Str or the group finds a Str item in the middle of an adventure. However the melee character will suddenly have a bonus to both hit and damage in either case.
Even if the archer takes advantage of a Str boosting item the rules prevent him from using his bow if his Str is too low. Say in an anti-magic zone or if he is hit with a Str drain of any sort. The melee character might be less effective in both situations but he isn’t going to be totally unable to use his main weapon the way an archer can be affected.
In many cases bonus damage, like that of sneak attack is better on a melee attack than on a ranged attack. The melee sneak attacker can easily get his bonus with a partner but the archer sneak attacker is strictly limited to catching his foes flat footed. This sort of thing gives the iconic rogue more reason to choose melee over archery. This is one of the things that I really like about the scout. Archery is an equally viable tactic with melee for them in terms of getting bonus damage.
Several folks have pointed out that archers typically avoid much of the damage melee types soak up by default. However this comes at a price. They also cannot tie down folks the way a melee character can ... and again this is due to mechanics. The melee character is able to take an Attack of Opportunity should a foe try to move away or past him improperly. Additionally a melee foe will have a ready party target simply standing in front of him that he can attack in turn. Thus the enemy has a certain incentive to not disengage since he is in a position to attack someone and in that he will likely be hurt if he tries to target someone else.
The Archer’s foe has no such restrictions. They are being attacked from a distance and will suffer no consequences if they move. In fact it becomes advantageous for them to move. Just moving into melee with anyone can be a challenge for an archer without precise shot given the mechanical penalty for firing into melee. Further if the enemy can close with the party archer it is the ranged character who will be at a disadvantage, since he will be forced to take an AoO when firing the bow, drop the bow in favor of a melee weapon which he is likely not as skilled with, or spend precious resources on spells like Arrowmind.
So, while an Archer might conserve party healing resources by taking less damage, he can’t act strategically to control the flow of combat the way a melee character can.
Bottom line: Archers can be very useful to a party but mechanics and typical party makeup tend to steer folks away from this choice.
And for the record, the character I am playing next session in an archer. ;) Of course we have a 6 man party with 4 melee characters already. :p
Second, the Cleric Archer is workable without a single Archer feat. Ok, you spend one of your domains on War (choose a god with Longbow as favored weapon), but the other feats [mainly divine metamagic (persistent) and its prereqs] and the spell combos (Divine Might, Divine Favor, etc.) are also beneficial to melee, so you are still flexible--much more flexible than most other melee or Archer builds.
The other benefits of Archers have been mentioned: Range. Range and Range again. Do you want to melee a Dragon or the Tarrasque? Most folks don’t. 20 Orcs running at you may draw 3-4 rounds of full fire onto them, maybe more (if less, you should run anyway). Of course there are builds with high amounts of melee attacks, but Archers have an easier time of achieving that.
Ranger 3/Fighter2/Deepwood Sniper2/Cragtop Archer 5/Peerless Archer 8 is a good solid build. It has enough feats to pull this off, and some nice abilities like the improved criticals, the improved range, ranged sneak attack and threaten. Grab a nice bow (get the splitting enhancement, can’t remember where that was though).
Can a melee character out damage you? Certainly, but then he has problems against flying enemies, enemies that aren’t easy to reach, he has a harder time of getting cover himself (another pro of the Archer, not every enemy can ignore cover when shooting back). An Archer is perfect for supporting melee once he has precise shot and for covering retreats. An Archer is perfect for fighting enemies you don’t want to or can’t melee and the arrows allow him to get a good amount of special material and/or bane weapons.
It’s not stronger, but its not weaker either. Both have pros and cons. What’s the biggest pro of melee? IMO, flavor. Making the killing blow of a dragon with a Greatsword is cooler than killing him with just another arrow.
In every game, enemies only really lasted until the minotaur got into combat. I mean, STR mod of +7..., I just realized we've all overlooked how she's been adding double strength to her melee damage instead of 1.5 STR. Still. 1d12+12, plus anything from power attack. Owchies.
Only recently have I been doing decently; my bow is 1d8+1 19-20x3, and makes them make a DC17 will save or be terrified, and my quiver adds +1d6 electrical damage. Last night, I bagged a mage with a headshot, and sniped like 4 Draconians (favored enemy) from range.
But, I suppose a ranged fighter has his place: sniping mages, and trying to precise shot any flankers.
Crossbows, it is sad but true, generally suck as a primary weapon, but that is OK unless you have your heart set on playing a crossbow-wielder. But in that case your RP-driven choice probably should override the numerical disadvantages.
The trick, I have found, to playing an effective ranged character is to be a decently-built melee fighter who splits their feats between ranged and melee options. Your job is to put large amounts of ammunition into the air as an enemy approaches, and then to be a decent backup to the tanks when the threat closes.
So yeah, I agree that there is a bit of a dearth of powerful archery-based PrCs and high-level feats. But bows themselves are decent weapons, and a pure archer really shouldn't expect to go toe-to-toe, blow-for-blow with a melee-oriented combatant. It's just not the job of the weapon, or the class.
It’s not stronger, but it’s not weaker either. Both have pros and cons. What’s the biggest pro of melee? IMO, flavor. Making the killing blow of a dragon with a Greatsword is cooler than killing him with just another arrow.
Try telling that to the people of Laketown.
Anyway, let's hear it for Fighters, eh? Setting aside some feats that require an astronomical Dexterity, Fighters can spend fewer than half their feats on ranged fighting and be comparable even to the Ranger of the group. Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus, and Improved Critical help make up for a lower Dexterity. A Human Ranger would be 9th level before he could catch up to those - at the cost of more than half his feats. For the Fighter to get Many Shot and Improved Precise shot would require a big investment in Dexterity, it's true, but even the Ranger is probably going to want to maximize that ability. Meanwhile, the Fighter can be making himself good in melee.
I don't mean to turn this into a pro-Fighter thread, I just want to point out that there is a way to be good enough at ranged fighting for the times when it's useful, while also being good at melee fighting for all the other times. One doesn't have to be specialized or "the best" to be effective at something.
Weapon Focus
Weapons Spec
Rapid Shot
Precise Shot
Point Blank Shot
Ranged Precision (OBI Feat)
With all of that and with the stats below at short range (about 6 sqrs) I can do a max of about 22 Hit Points to a target and, if I role a Crit, I can do 60 Hit Points. So to me my archer is very useful.
My group has seven players in it. One of them is an archer. She can lay down precise firepower against any target on the battlefield. She can't out damage the Bastard Sword wielding human. She can't out damage the fireball from the Sorc. She picks her targets wisely, often times picking off wounded frontline creatures or putting the hurt on enemy spellcasters in the rear.
Aside from that, I have a standard range of feats for balance (made under first 3e and then into 3.5): Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting, Expertise, Improved Initiative. I also took Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Far Shot and finally Woodland Archer Tactical feat from Races of the Wild. The +4 you gain after a miss from the Adjust for Range makes this invaluable.
I've got Boots of Speed which add another attack, to a total of 5. I'm fighting with a basic +3 Mighty Composite Longbow and +1 arrows (enchanted from an ever-full quiver I got a few levels ago). +15/+10/+5/+15/+15 on normal attacks and another +4 on any attack after a miss.
I'm usually hitting on at least 3 attacks for 1d8+4 not counting crits (12-36 points a round). Add in Favored Enemy damage and Favored Enemy Strike and you add another 3-18 points + whatever bonus you have the enemy at... so 24-66 points on those 3 hits for my first favored enemy.
It's not 'Fighter with a greatsword hitting 4 times doing 60 points of damage a round' level damage, but considering the other points brought up by others above (out of general danger being the most beneficial), it's nothing to scoff at. And fighting the leveled orcs we've been fighting (my 1st favored enemy), I've done over 80 points in a round on occasion.
There are a noticeable lack of decent 'Ranged' prestige classes for your standard straight ahead Human Ranger though. Arcane Archer requires you take a level of Sorcerer or Wizard or the like... Wildrunner require you're an Elf or Half-Elf... as does Darkwood Stalker... Order of the Bow Initiate has the nice 'Ranged Precision' ability but requires that you're within 30' until 10th level... you might as well take levels in Rogue for Sneak attack and get the skill points with it.
Okay I've said my piece. If anyone can think of another good prestige class for a Ranger, please let me know.
:-)
Dan
Take 20 guys with melee weapons vs a 6 player party, and 20 guys with ranged weapons. Which is more likely to generate fatalities? Those 20 guys with ranged attacks are more likely to find a soft target and flatten him dead. And someone who gets a +3 bow and arrows with +1 flaming, shocking, bane, whatever will potentially do a lot more damage against a wider variety of targets.
But the problem with archery does seem to be the size of the battlemat. Take, oh, an encounter with Centaurs. Give them large sized Strength composite bows and the Far Shot feat. Give them a decent bard to Inspire them. Now from the Centaurs point of view, they want to be in a dispersed formation on flat terrain some 300' or so from the party, taking a -2 penalty to hit. As long as they can get some hits, they are happy. Make them 1st level fighters, or CR 4, and Weapon Focus bow instead of Weapon Focus hoof, gives them +3 for hit dice, -1 size, +2 for Dex, +1 masterwork bow, +1 weapon focus, +1 BAB for fighter level, +2 for Inspire, or +9 to hit, +7 after range considerations. Figure they kill outright any target with less that AC 25.
Or take kobolds fighting from rocky cover. Sure, you could attempt to close uphill through loose rock. What is the armor check mod for your Balance rolls? Closing 100' through difficult terrain can't be fun either, but somehow it is always relatively easy for the players to close to melee.
But it doesn't work the other way. In all too many campaigns monsters just show up at 60' range, or even 30' range. Not enough for the archery to be useful. And they often surround the party in night fights or random encounters, so a running fight would be impossible. Even if you could persuade the 20' movement tanks to try that tactic. Now party members could try to charge into melee, losing their Dex bonus. I think a lot of people forget what Running does to their AC.
Another part of it is that everybody has fanatic morale. Everybody fights at full capacity until they are dead. Noone flinches at coming into range of Dead-Eye Dick Ranger's famous bow. Cover isn't used anywhere near as much as it should be, in my opinion.
At Agincourt and other places, the archers disordered the charge. People had to fall back and reorganize, several times. That doesn't happen in AD&D. The charge is always pressed home because the mechanics favor doing so.
You take Elf and War domain, that gives you 2 great archery feat (Weapon Focus (Longbow) and Precise Shot), and I could use True Strike once per day as a domain spell. With a +20 to strike, I could shoot at a target 1400 feet away with a good chance of success at 3rd level. (Take out the Archmage while he's casting!). Once per day, you shoot better than Robin Hood, while blindfolded.
Aren't you missing something really big here? NAMELY THE ARCANE ARCHER PRESTIGE CLASS? Sure you have to be a multi-class elf, but at 10th level the ability the ability to automatically create a slaying arrow isn't really anything to scoff at. Picture this: A group of high level adventurers are tramping around a dungeon when they come face to face with something powerful like, say, a black dragon. The arcane archer whips out an arrow of dragon slaying (conveniently supplied by his/her prestige class) arrow hit, dragon fails fortitude save, POOF! no more dragon. Face it people, this is D&D. Nothing is underpowered. And if it is, they make something so it isn't.
Except for the fact that, as mentioned, that dragon would make the save on a 1 if it's appropriate CR for the party. If its not then the group could still wipe it out without the arrow. The problem is that the arrows DC is so low that most of what it would make the most sense to use it on isn't there. Also, the lack of casting progression is a bit of a problem as well, I'd really rather go without the casting levels because they really seem to provide very little overall unless you go bard/arcane archer. The slaying arrow works poorly at best and is a waste at worst. The other problem with ranged weapons was mentioned before, most combats are on the ground at 60 feet. The new feats in PHB2 actually make a few things that would make me interested in trying a ranged character. But that's another issue, the point that you're trying to make doesn't work well. The Arcane Archer ends up weaker compared to most of the others in the group because of the following.
1) Lack of caster progression means that most will just dip if they want to get it quickly (earliest is their 8th level as Arcane Archer) which leaves with only a few spells, most of them not being that great as their duration is going to be rather low.
2) The BaB of the character won't be too horrible, but the shift still feels sorta silly to me.
3) MAD also plays a bit of a role, the elf now has to have a good Dex, Strength, and Intelligence or Charisma score to ensure that they can be effective, also their AC is going to be a bit nuked unless they plan to never cast spells after taking that one level.
4) Most of their abilities, while interesting, are once per day wonders, I can do the same things with a ranger and do them far more often. I will concede that the magic arrow ability is useful but it isn't really enough for me to be willing to throw away 9 levels.
5) The abilities aren't even that great for when they're gained. The death arrow you mentioned doesn't arrive until level 17 at the earliest, and the DC is a flat 20. A wizard of the same level assuming money spent well can have a DC pre featage of about 36 and that's for spells like Disjunction, Meteor Swarm, spells that really do something. The things that would warrant the use of an arrow like that, big enemies and the like, are most likely going to be able to save against it, so that slaying arrow isn't really doing much overall.
6) The class is elf only. If all, or even most, of the abilities were worthwhile and interesting and tempting to play I might consider playing an elf. As it is I consider elves to be mediocre overall due to the fact that a dwarf is better at their favored class than they are and that most of the prestige classes made for them either end up blatantly overpowered or poorly designed.
7) There are underpowered classes and designs, the problem is that many of them are that way because of the way that the game is designed and how it is played. The average monsters are these huge ground pounders, the group is generally better off doing their charging warriors and having the casters do their thing. The distance in battle usually renders archery moot, the battles often occur on flat terrain with comparatively little cover and within 60 feet. Even those who have pointed to the use of a ranged character concede that you need to split between the melee and ranged to remain effective. My original point was that if you're just a baseline human ranged combat isn't usually as useful to you long haul as melee is unless you're a caster or have something like sneak attack.
Also, as mentioned before I am looking forward to PHB2 because some of their designs look like things I've been waiting for a long time and I do very much intend to buy.
What I like is the Order of the Bow Initiate from Sword and Fist. I don’t know if the new OOTBI has it, but close combat shot? That getting into melee thing isn’t a problem. And free shot? When any of your allies can make an AoO, so can you, so invest in combat reflexes.
Sorry, but I have to jump on the fighter bang-wagon here. Sure, the ranger gets spells, a pet and feats for free. But, he may have favoured enemy--that extra damage helps. But he doesn’t always get it. Unlike weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater weapon focus and so on. The fighter gets those bonuses all the time and has so many feats he can do both at the same time. They are not as good as the ones with the pure focus, but can still do both.
I figure that 3 rounds out of 4, he is hiding or getting into position, then shooting and 5' move behind cover, followed by Dimension Door out. By himself, he could devastate a large army. But what is the rest of the party doing? They are exposed to fire, unless they decided to stay home that day. So that Dim door sniper whose huge advantage is range, stealth, and mobility is rendered useless because instead of the enemy always wasting firepower on deserted sniper posts, they have the rest of the party to shoot at.
It is similar to the problems of Stealth gods. Sure they could sneak around the edge of the enemy encampment, whittling the guards down. But it takes time to go from guard post to guard post--time in which the other PCs get bored and decide they want to do something, anything, even if it is stupid. Or it is time in which the GM decides the other PCs need to be involved, and so he throws something at them which completely defeats the purpose of attempting stealth and splitting the party in any case.
You could have a party which could engage in a running, shooting battle through the woods, except that Sir-Tanks-A-Lot moves so slow and makes so much noise that he gives away the location of the party. Or you could have a melee specialist who just won't _let_ the ranged specialist shine, and turns the battle from a type that the ranged specialist dominates, to one in which the ranged specialist is just doing much less damage per turn than the melee specialist.
But to a ranged specialist like the Dim Door Sniper, it isn't about maximizing the damage dealt per turn, but maximizing the ratio of "Damage we deal per turn to the damage they deal per turn", and drawing the battle out in time.
There are certain types of engagements where a Dim Door Sniper and other ranged specialists could aid their parties _far_ more than a melee specialist could. But the ranged specialist can't prevent the melee specialist from turning the battle into one in which maximizing damage per turn rules, which relegates the ranged specialist to sidekick-dom.
D&D assumes a 'standard' diamond arrowhead that inflicts a dangerous but easily treated wound. There are other options available to the skilled archer. All would cost extra to make, but would be worth the cost to the average adventurer. I would suggest the following to any would-be Robin Hood's out there ...
Broadhead arrows are similar, but are barbed. It takes a DC10+ damage heal check to remove a broadhead arrow from a wound without inflicting an extra 1d6 damage.
Bodkin arrows are designed to drill through armor, with long, needle-points. A bodkin arrow will gain up to a +3 to hit bonus against armored ACs (but not touch ACs, so against ordinary leather armor the bonus would be only +2). It will inflict damage one dice type below normal (so it inflicts 1d4 for a shortbow, 1d6 for a longbow, 1d8 for a greatbow), but the critical multiplier will be increased by one because this arrow can literally skewer you. Bodkin heads were attached with beeswax, so they come away in the wound and have to be removed with a heal check, DC 10. In actual fact bodkins came in slightly different types for best effect against mail or plate, but I have simplified them here.
Swallow Tail arrows have long, trailing barbs. Against metal armor (or very tough hide, an AC of 4+ from natural armor would be appropriate) these barbs break off, and the arrow acts as a normal arrow. Against less well armored enemies, the barbs delivered slashing wounds, increasing the damage by one dice type and increasing the critical chance by one, so a longbow loosing a swallow tail against a charging knight's horse would inflict 1d10 damage with a critical of 19-20/x3; it was not the bodkin arrows that killed the French knights at Agincourt, it was the swallow tail arrows killing their horses. Like the barbed arrow, the swallow tail requires a dc 10+damage heal check to remove without inflicting another 1d6 damage if it strikes a poorly armored target.
Hope this helps make the humble archer a slightly more attractive option for some players .... :D
Archers can be good with a battlefield control wizard. It is amazing what you can shut down with web or even grease and some arrows. Of course, this only works if you have a wizard who is willing to be the party's solution to melee combat, and you are basically just finishing a defeated opponent.
Archers can be good with mobility. An archer with a flying mount can kill almost any melee threat without taking damage himself. However, if you have other party members who are landbound, then your enemies will just attack them. It is not too bad if they entire party has a means of flight, but once again you are demanding that the other players change to make your character effective.
I also have to echo the idea that much of this depends on the DM. In most games I have played, foes have started within easy charging distance of each other. If an archer can have even a single round in which to get attacks in while his opponents try to run across the battlefield, it can be a huge difference.
Next round he leans out and makes a full attack--and the orc can't retaliate, because cover negates AoOs. (My artificer used this fact to great advantage in my last game.) The orc steps around the pillar and attacks--well, it's no worse than being a melee character. Deadeye takes a 5-foot step around the pillar and pulls his full attack again... and so on.
The orc can try to disarm/sunder/grapple him without provoking an AoO, true, but we're discounting the rest of the party and assuming Dick didn't blow him away in two full attacks. If the melee tanks can bottle up anyone who would otherwise charge Dick's position, he's in a fantastic position. As others have noted, he can address any problem enemies--casters, buffers, ranged attackers, and melee monsters--with complete impunity, with little fear of counterattack. This is a lesson I learned in Star Wars d20 -- if you're holding a ranged weapon, cover is your very best friend in the whole wide world!
D&D is stacked (some might say, "imbalanced") towards melee weapons because that's where the romanticism is. Many armies in history lived and died by their ranged weapons, but most legends about individual heroes revolve around swords and swordsmen. From King Arthur and Excalibur to the duel between Musashi Miyamoto and Kojiro Sasaki, storytellers are more drawn to swords than bows. There are exceptions, of course, but if anything, they prove the rule.
Second, it's called Dungeons and Dragons for a reason. While the game has matured into a more complete role-playing experience (in some gaming groups, anyway), parties nevertheless expect to romp through caves, haunted houses, old castles and other "dungeons". Furthermore, adventurers expect to encounter their worst enemies in these places. In such enclosed areas, ranged weapons often lose their advantages. Is it cliche? Perhaps. But it's fun, and besides, the number of bug-eyed slimy critters in dungeons will tend to outnumber those in Pleasantville (um, at least in my campaigns). So the inherent advantage of melee weapons will remain a "fact of life" in D&D for the foreseeable future.
To sum up, for better or for worse, the design is deliberate. More rules are dedicated towards swordplay because that's where the stories are, and the action is. The damage vs. range observations are correct; one nasty gash by a broadsword does far more damage than most arrows (which are very dependent on hit location), but in many cases an archer can make a pincushion of a swordsman before the first swing. However, D&D is biased towards melee combat. Whether that impedes the fun of any fans of ranged weaponry is the subject of another debate.
I agree the arcane archer is an amazing class, but mainly if you work toward it from the start.
What I like is the Order of the Bow Initiate from Sword and Fist. I don’t know if the new OOTBI has it, but close combat shot? That getting into melee thing isn’t a problem. And free shot? When any of your allies can make an AoO, so can you, so invest in combat reflexes.
Sorry, but I have to jump on the fighter bang-wagon here. Sure, the ranger gets spells, a pet and feats for free. But, he may have favoured enemy--that extra damage helps. But he doesn’t always get it. Unlike weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater weapon focus and so on. The fighter gets those bonuses all the time and has so many feats he can do both at the same time. They are not as good as the ones with the pure focus, but can still do both.
Going Arcane Archer totally trumps the Weapon Focus, Grtr Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Grtr Weapon Specialization fighter archer track. The fighter gets +2 to attack and +4 to damage, whereas the Arcane Archer gets +5 to attack and damage (from the magic arrow ability), and he gets them all the time against all enemies, just like the fighter. To be the absolute best archer (as an Arcane Archer), the fighter track is better than the ranger track. You get one more feat before taking AA, and that gives you Weapon Specialization, an extra +2 to damage, and you get a few more hit points (an average of +6 HP). However, you're giving up favored enemies (1st & 2nd), Track, Wild Empathy, Endurance, Animal Companion, 24 skills, and 1st level Ranger spells (Longstrider was written up by WotC R&D as one of THE most powerful 1st level spells.) That's a lot to give up for +2 damage.
Someone else wrote that Arcane Archer has a stat problem in that you need high Dex, Str, and Int/Cha (depending on the spellcasting class you choose). Not really. Arcane Archer takes up 10 character levels, and getting to +6 BAB takes up 6 more, so there's not many levels left for your spellcasting class. Admittedly, you could go only to 4th level ftr/rgr and 4th level wiz/sor before taking AA. Even that track get you to a maximum of 6th level in your spellcasting class, only enough for 3rd level spells. In other words, you will NEVER be able to cast higher than 3rd level spells (until you go Epic) as a
maxed Arcane Archer. You only need a 16 in your spell stat to get all available bonus spells, and only a 13 to cast 3rd level spells. So, a high Int/Cha is hardly a necessity. (My future AA has a 15 Int.)
Imbue Arrow is a key tactical ability for Arcane Archers, which nobody seems to have mentioned. Being able to cast spells with limited range, like Grease for example, at bow ranges can really help a party fight. Same with spells such as Summon Nature's Ally, Daze, Ghost Sound, Obscuring Mist, Hypnotism, Charm Person, Burning Hands, Color Spray, and other short range spells. The Arcane Archer may not get the kills, but he'll get credit for making the encounter a whole lot easier.
And, as someone pointed out, with Rapid Shot and Manyshot, plus the normal progression of attacks, by the time you get to +5 arrows, you are unleashing a minimum of 16 arrows per full attack round, all with +5 to damage (plus any Str bonus from your bow). One thing the previous mentioner didn't mention was all the minuses you get to your attacks from using those feats, so (without actually crunching the numbers again), the effective attacks are about +10/+5/+0/+10, but that's loosing 4 arrows with each attack. That's a lot of crit potential, even without Improved Crit feat (which any self respecting Arcane Archer will have by that level). Now throw in some Boots of Speed or some other Haste effect, and you have another volley of 4 arrows at +10. Even if only 1/4 of the arrows land, that's 5 hits, all at +5 (+7 in the case of my future AA due to Str bonus bow). That's 25 points of damage, and you haven't even rolled your 5d8 yet or tallied up the crits! While it may not be the 80 points of damage a 17th level fighter can dish out, that's still a very effective archer.
I do agree, however, that some of the cool things AA's can do, such as Phase Arrow, are weak because they are limited to once per day. So I can fire one arrow at that nasty bad guy hiding inside his fortified bunker. It ain't gonna help much. That should be fixed. Maybe I'll talk to my DM about it.
as someone pointed out, with Rapid Shot and Manyshot, plus the normal progression of attacks, by the time you get to +5 arrows, you are unleashing a minimum of 16 arrows per full attack round, all with +5 to damage (plus any Str bonus from your bow).
I'm not sure that this is correct. According to the rules and FAQ Many Shot is a Standard Action and therefore cannot be substituted for every attack in a full round action.
Assuming a 17th level elven AA (Ftr 6, Wiz 1, AA 10) with say 24 dex you'd be looking at the following attack options:
BAB: +16/+11/+6/+1
Range: +24/+19/+14/+9
Rapid Shot: +22/+17/+12/+7/+22
Manyshot: +20 (2 arrows) +18 (3 arrows) +16 (4 arrows)
In addition, Manyshot only allows a critical on the first arrow in the Manyshot set. So, if you want to move and shoot one target use Manyshot as it gives you up to 4 times as many arrows, otherwise stand and take the full attack with rapid shot for 5 shots and 5 critical chances.
I believe that you can use imbue arrow with Manyshot as it is a standard action but I may be wrong on that. My reasoning is that imbue plus attack is a standard action and Manyshot is used as a standard action. That imbue would of course only affect the first arrow of the Manyshot set.
Remember also that no matter how many arrows you fire with Manyshot, you only roll to hit once, if you hit, all hit, if you miss, all miss. This is very interesting when you consider combining it with something like 'True Strike'.
I agreed with pretty much all your other wisdom though, esp the imbue arrow affect, quite a lot of mischief value there.
The biggest handicap I've seen to range attack builds is actually GM driven. The bulk of combats I've seen have visibility ranges of less than 60'. At this range the Archer gets at best one round of fire and then he's in melee.
I think that's the biggest problem, yes. Part of it the nature of the environments adventurers find themselves in. Underground and in cities, it makes sense for combat to start up close.
The key strategies in ranged weaponry are twofold:
1. Invulnerability. If you have a ranged attack and the enemy does not, then if you limit the engagement to only ranged weaponry, you will win without risking anything (except your arrow count). This can be accomplished in several manners. The simplest manner is to simply engage the enemy on a relatively flat plane at such a distance that no amount of movement is going to get them to your space without getting killed. There are other ways, of course, sometimes involving terrain (interposing difficult terrain is a godsend for ranged attackers), but commonly involving magic. Any effect that hinders movement will do. Entangle is the best value for spell slot, of course, but something as simple as grease can be remarkably effective.
Even being relatively invulnerable is excellent. For example, in engaging an enemy who majors in ranged warfare, cover and concealment as ridiculously effective defensive weapons. Leomund's Tiny Hut, for example, effectively grants your entire party total concealment, while allowing them to remain effective ranged combatants.
2. Concentration of firepower. Melee characters are limited in two ways: there are only so many ways and means to engage an enemy, and not all characters can survive melee combat. Any enemy that grossly outreaches or is capable of outmaneuvering you is better taken with ranged combat. In contrast to melee combat, nearly every character has some sort of effective ranged weaponry, and most of these can be brought to bear on a single target with little to no effort. That means that you whittle down the enemy firepower faster.
This is particularly effective at taking out soft low-hp targets such as Wizards and Arcane-like monsters like Ogre Mages and Mindflayers. Such targets know the power of ranged firepower to take them out almost instantly, so they assiduously guard against it (and woe to the Wizard PC who does not). More than guarding against a melee combatant, a shielding row of zombies or mooks often serve to give enemy arcanes at least soft cover from deadly archer fire. Once a decently designed, leveled enemy archer gets the bead on an arcane, he's as good as toast.
It's no coincidence that spells like Protection from Arrows and Wind Wall are such relatively low level Wizard spells - he'll need some kind of protection of the sort just to survive in some campaigns.
Ranged weaponry is also not contrary to melee combat. Even the most specialized melee Fighter can still wield a composite longbow, and the cost is trivial. Throw in some prepared flame arrows and greater magic weapon and you can generate some seriously acceptable firepower on the fly.
Indeed, I think that ranged weaponry has to be toned down as much as it is just to give melee combatants a chance in the wilderness. Of course, it goes without saying that melee combat will dominate any confrontation in a 10x10 foot room, but aside from maintaining balance, that's just reasonable.
Ranger 3/Fighter2/Deepwood Sniper2/Cragtop Archer 5/Peerless Archer 8 is a good solid build. It has enough feats to pull this off, and some nice abilities like the improved criticals, the improved range, ranged sneak attack and threaten. Grab a nice bow (get the splitting enhancement, can’t remember where that was though).
I've seen twice something like this in my campaigns. Oh, well, it rocked. The one character had added a great deal of rogue into this, and with a ring of greater invisibility was amazingly dangerous - the enemies can rarely pinpoint you when you are invisible, slowly moving and in 30 ft of them.
It could work even quite good and simpler with scout too. Probably manyshot too. The other character had some bard levels, was half-fey (HE LOVED irresistible dance), had a legendary wolf for cohort (someone should keep the opponent in melee) and an amazing bow. Hm, and explosives, but that was another story.
For melee they had the cleric and the wolf to tank (Cleric had the previous version of brambles on a keen darkwood rapier :P Oh, thank goth, they nerfed brambles in Spell Compendium). They often had a paladin around too. Nice team. Bard, rogue, incredible amounts of damage from ranged combatants, a cleric, a wolf with amazing tripping abilities to keep opponents down, a paladin to smite big nasties. In effect two of the four players were ranged combatants, and the cleric could work as one too (with flame strike). This proved very convenient in cases where they had some distance between them and the opponent - they just had to keep the paladin patient - but they are amazing in close quarters too.
Admittedly, my character was mostly of use outdoors due to range and being a mounted archer, but since that's where 75% of our adventures took place, it was fine. A high dexterity, mounted combat, rapid shot, etc... I stocked up on all the feats I could get my hands on over time and was by far the most lethal character in the group. Not only that, but I only got hit twice in my career. This is mostly because I simply wasn't in range of our enemies while the rest of the group were engaged in melee combat, I was riding in circles filling the beasties with arrows! A ranged character has an advantage over a melee fighter against flying foes too, don't forget.