Martial Ranged vs Martial Melee?

[Gwazi Magnum]

Basically what do you guys find to be better?

Archers or melee units?
Why do you find one better than the other?

[KnotKnormal]

Personally I Prefer to play as archers. They have the distinct advantage to be away from combat and still deal damage. This being said I find there are less abilities, equipment, and Feats, that lend themselves to turning your humble archer into a sniper or AOE Bad@ss.

[Flickerdart]

Archery in 3.5 suffers from a ton of glaring problems, which mostly boil down to "encounters rarely take place at long range" and "it's tough to make powerful single attacks". Melee just goes two-handed Power Attack and charges; everything on top is basically candy.

[Eldariel]

Basically what do you guys find to be better?

Archers or melee units?
Why do you find one better than the other?

3.5, Melee does more damage. Archers are obviously more versatile but hard to build efficiently. Optimally you have options on both ranges tho. That's hard after the first ~6 levels without being a Cleric, a Bard or something though. Level 1-5 tho, the answer is "both".

PF, Archers generally outperform melee. Melee doesn't have significant damage advantages thanks to "Power Attack" for ranged weapons and the actual PA not being as multiplicable and being limited to a static number compared to 3.5.


Ultimately, you can make either do more than enough though.

[Bullet06320]

I prefer ranged personaly, being able to reach and kill your enemy before he can kill you is always better, but if the enemy gets up close and personl, well, the stronger harder hitting guys win

[Silva Stormrage]

Melee in general is better but you can build competent archers (Soul Bow + Shiba Protector can be hilariously fun)

[Gwazi Magnum]

So generally what I'm getting here is that...

Ranged = Safer, more range, more flexibility
Melee = More damage, easier

How well does ranged hold up in melee though?
Also how well do melee character do in ranged? Can they ever fight well in it, or is it simply get close again ASAP?

[Kelb_Panthera]

As long as he picks up power attack an archer will do passably well in melee though he'll still want to avoid it as much as possible. A meleer that can't reach his foes has a lot of trouble. A bow and selection of magic and special material arrows will allow him to contribute, but he'll want to close ASAP.

The above assumes that the weapon is the character's primary damage source. Precision damage doesn't care how you deliver it.

[Eldariel]

The above assumes that the weapon is the character's primary damage source. Precision damage doesn't care how you deliver it.

But it does have range limitations making it impractical with ranged weapons unless you have Sniper's Shot persisted.

[Slipperychicken]

I like ranged, when my party decides to do their job and stand between opponents and myself. When my halfling archer has to pull tank duty because the fighter got scared of being at 1/2 health... that's not very fun.

I don't like the ludicrous number of feats it takes just to be competent at archery. You pretty much have to either be a human (or other bonus feat race) and/or have levels in fighter if you want to be good at archery at low levels. The difference is especially notable in PF where a melee character doesn't need much more than Power Attack, but a ranged one needs Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Manyshot, and a seemingly-endless list of feats just to keep up in damage.

I don't like the idea that combat maneuvers like Sunder and Disarm are virtually impossible with ranged weapons. Fire wooden arrows to kill a golem made of Adamantium? "Sure!", the system replies. "That makes perfect sense! Just take a penalty and you're fine." Fire the same arrows to break someone's iron sword? "No can do, that's not realistic". Even the exceptions it gives are so bad that you might as well not bother.

[lsfreak]

But it does have range limitations making it impractical with ranged weapons unless you have Sniper's Shot persisted.

And the biggest form of precision damage (sneak) is a lot harder to trigger at range than in melee since you can't flank at range. That means either being reliably invisibility, or HiPS and a high enough Hide check you can be stabbing someone in the face and they still can't find you.

Skirmish may be easier to trigger at range comparing to melee, but it's harder to trigger and be useful at the same time, relying on one of a handful of tricks to do both at once.


I don't like the ludicrous number of feats it takes just to be competent at archery.
This is a big reason why a melee martial character won't be very good at range. Ranged simply requires too heavy an investment to do decent damage. The main exception will be precision damage, where there's significant overlap because the damage output is a class feature and not based on feats or PrC ability, but even then, it's generally limited to a single type of build for each (Travel Devotion-based skirmish, HiPS + insane hide checks for sneak). If Power Attack let you use a ranged weapon, a lot of the differences in "pick-up proficiency" would vanish.

[Pickford]

Gwazi_Magnum:

Basically what do you guys find to be better?

Archers or melee units?
Why do you find one better than the other?

Reality favors Science...and Archers. If you're playing an Archer it behooves the character to start fights at range, which frankly is their benefit (if they never reach you, you win).

You could always stab people in the face with arrows as improvised weapons (ala Legolas) which would give you the str bonus and allow you to AoO people.

Slipperychicken:

I don't like the ludicrous number of feats it takes just to be competent at archery.

If the enemy can't shoot back, it seems like it's always a good idea to start at range until either they close to melee or start plinking back. No feats are actually necessary (unless you're trying to be the best archer ever, or whatever).

Side note: Ranged Disarm suffers no penalties...

[Kuulvheysoon]

You could always stab people in the face with arrows as improvised weapons (ala Legolas) which would give you the str bonus and allow you to AoO people.

I find it hilarious that you think it's no issue to use an improvised weapon in melee, but think that it's useless to even try to use a ranged weapon with a non-proficiency penalty. Just saying.

[Vhaidara]

I personally prefer to go for both when possible, and always have at least an element of both (everyone has a sword and a bow).

If I'm using weapons I tend to go for melee because archery in 3.5, frankly, sucks. It seems to be effective at 0-30ft (precision damage, try for multiple attacks) or at 300+ (Cragtop archer from Races of Stone, fire at line of sight no penalty).
If I'm stuck at 0-30, I see minimal reason to bother with ranged attacks, and my group doesn't have a big enough board for the silly sniping (which almost got my gnome shot into the sun)

My most recent character uses a variant of the Versatile Fighter feat form Drow of the Underdark, which counts as TWF when you wield a rapier and a hand crossbow, and you don't provoke AoO for using a hand crossbow in melee.

Also, @Slipperychicken, there's a set of feats in Complete Warrior: Ranged Disarm (no penalties involved), Ranged Sunder (I don't think any penalties involved), and Ranged Pin (stick someone to the wall by an arrow)

[Pickford]

I find it hilarious that you think it's no issue to use an improvised weapon in melee, but think that it's useless to even try to use a ranged weapon with a non-proficiency penalty. Just saying.

You obviously didn't understand my position on the matter. I think someone who has a non-proficiency penalty AND no feats geared towards ranged combat will never be anywhere as good as someone who specializes. I never said it was 'useless'.

edit: ranged pin works with thrown weapons too, so that's kind of fun.