Al said:
Having been at the receiving end of a whacked-out archer build (I was DM) with the aforesaid character dishing out 300+ points of damage per round, I will take up the case that archery is clearly more powerful than melee.
Your case is wanting.
General Points:
Archers can use bucklers. This gives them a significant (by high-level) AC bonus over the melee fighters.
Using a buckler causes an archer to suffer an attack penalty. Two handed weapon fighters can use bucklers as well, so there is no net benfit gained by the archer here.
Archers typically wear light armour. This gives them a greater distance, meaning that they can easily use skirmishing tactics against melee fighters- particularly if they have Manyshot.
Archers have long-range (duh). They can avoid melee combat with slow tank monsters (e.g. golems) that you do not want to engage in melee with.
Many melee fighters wear light armor as well, especially fighters who focus on things like Combat Reflexes. Plus, at high levels, most individuals should have more than enough armor modifications (like using Mithril armor) and magic items to overcome mobility problems.
Similarly, they can take out enemy spellcasters at range.
Getting into a ranged duel with a spellcaster is almost always suicide for an archer. Spellcasters simply have too many ways to avoid being targeted by an archer, or to defend themselves against his attacks, and their retaliatory attacks are usually much more devastating.
Collateral utility. Because archers tend to have better Dex, they will have better initiative and Reflex saves than meleeists. For his buffed Str, the meleeist only really gets a better carrying capacity, which goes obsolete at high levels due to Bags of Holding.
The meleeist also gets lots more damage dealing capability, and the ability to wear heavier equipment without being slowed (once you get to things like Mithril armor).
LOW LEVELS: With the melee fighter generally getting one attack/round, Rapid Shot rules supreme at the low levels. Only at the very lowest levels will the melee fighter tend to be better than the archer (levels 1/2) and at these levels, melee combat is so dangerous as to be avoided.
Cleave at this level frequently gives the melee combatant an extra attack. This is also where Combat Reflexes can be heavily exploited.
By level 3, with mighty bows and Magic Weapon starts becoming common and the tide turns.
Magic Weapon cannot be used on ammunition. Check your rules.
At level 4, the archer can get much more use out of Weapon Specialisation than the meleeist by virtue of having twice as many attacks.
Only within 30 feet, which is more than close enough for the melee opponents to close and attack him, grapple him (no AoO), disarm him (no AoO, crappy opposed roll for the archer), or sunder his bow (no AoO, crappy opposed roll, easy to chop up wooden weapon, goodbye expensive Strength bow).
MID LEVELS: The mid-levels hold an interesting turn. By the mid-levels, prestige classes begin to appear. With the Order of the Bow Initiate, the archer becomes phenomenally powerful. Close Combat Shot takes out of their major disadvantages and ranged sneak attack means that their initiative advantage translates into real damage.
Ranged sneak attack is a minor advantage, since it can't be used for flanking and is limited to 30 feet, placing the archer well within retaliatory range. Close Combat shot doesn't make an archer any less vulnerable to having his bow sundered or disarmed. He is still nonproficient with it as a melee weapon, he just doesn't draw an AoO for using it in melee.
The fighter will take, let us assume, the Weapon Master. With hefty prerequisites, he will have to delay entry or squeeze himself through the lower levels- we will assume he delays entry.
Let's assume the fighter takes a difficult and not very good PrC? Nice straw man there. The fighter can get significant benefit out of just multiclassing to barbarian, or going with a more useful PrC, like the Tempest, or the Master of Chains.
GMW becomes to show up a significant difference by levels 6-9, with the archers gaining +2 to hit and +2 to damage over the fighter. The +2 to hit negates the RS penalty, and the +2 damage per attack swings damage-dealing capacity in the archer's favour.
Only if you assume the melee fighter is not gaining similar bonuses through his magical weaponry and the use of GMW. At this point, the archer has to worry about negating the Rapid Shot penalty, while the melee fighter is adding to his unadjusted BAB with magic. Plus, GMW gives him the opportunity to add something like an elemental attribute to his weapon without losing magical plusses compared to the archer (since GMW makes his +1 Flaming Glaive a +2 Flaming Glaive just fine).
The rise of magical ascendancy through mid levels means that ranged attacks become vital, as does the plethora of high-damage short-ranged opponents in the mid-CRs and the increased frequency of flying opponents.
The rise of magical ascendancy makes controlling the battlefield more improtant, and archers don't have that ability. High damage, short ranged opponents? That is DM style more than anything else. Flying opponents? Better taken out by a melee fighter with
Fly cast on him any day.
HIGH LEVELS: At the higher levels, Rapid Shot becomes less of a factor, but with the number of enemy hit points rising, Cleave and Great Cleave become almost useless.
Cleave is
always useful. If you are fighting opponents with 100 hit points each, and you deal out, one average 60 hit points of damage per round (not even hard for even a mid level melee fighter), you are going to get an additional attack every other round, and your attacks will do more damage on a per attack basis, making that extra attack quite valuable.
However, GMW becomes a huge area of dichotomy, especially if elemental weapons are used. A +1 bow with three elemental abilities with a +1 arrow with three elemental abilities, both enhanced to +5 using GMW, have effectively a +5 to hit and +2.5+3d6 damage lead over a +1 greatsword with three elemental abilities enhanced to +5 using GMW.
Using up an additional spell slot for the archer. And an additional +4 magic weapon. Yep, giving the archer more resources is certain to make him look good. Of course, it means your analysis is crap, but you've got a nice straw man going there anyway.
Plus, which three elemental abilities are you going to stack with three other elemental abilities? I can only come up with four (flaming, frost, shocking and corrosive). You can't have a flaming bow and a flaming arrow and have it stack, like qualities do not stack, sorry.
Other than the fact that you have given the archer several throusand gold pieces worth of extra equipment, used an extra buff spell to bump him up, and gotten the rules wrong, your analysis holds up.
In order to equalise on damage alone, the fighter needs to have a Strength score of no less than 16 points greater than the archer.
Not altogether an uncommon occurence. Melee fighters with Strength scores in the high 30s are not that unusual at high levels.
Even if equalised per hit, he still receives one fewer hit. Meanwhile, the Order of the Bow Initiate has come to fruition. Within 30', not only can the OotBI gain PBS he can add his Wisdom modifier- a nice empowered buff can often guarantee another +4 to hit, ensuring even his fifth attack has a reasonable chance against most opponents.
Umm, do all of your archers have an additional 18 they can blow on Wisdom? You've got stats committed to high Dexterity, high Strength, and likely high Constitution, and you can afford an 18 Wisdom? or are you just assuming that you can add on several thousand more gold pieces worth of equipment to the archer with nothing added to the fighter?
Ranged sneak attack becomes a major factor, given the initiative dichotomy between archers and meleeists. The Weapon Master has some nice abilities, but its incremental utility for the meleeist cannot match that of the OotBI for the archer.
Ranged sneak attack remains a minor factor, as increasing numbers of opponents are immune to sneak attack damage.
Finally, the utility of long-range becomes paramount- most NPCs and significant numbers of monsters have flying capabilities, wizards can end battles with one spell and pure melee monsters dish out ridiculous quantities of damage (e.g. the tarrasque). Indeed, against almost any type of high-level opponent, the archer fares better than the meleeist save specific anti-archer builds.
With the tens of thousands of gold pieces he has saved over the archer, the melee guy can afford boots of flying and other mobility based magic items. This makes your "flying opponents" argument somewhat moot. He can also afford a +5 cloak of resistance, making him much better at saves than your archer.
Once you actually equalize their equipment cost to a reaosnable level, the archer comes off looking not so powerful.
At nearly every level, the archer character is of greater mechanical power than the melee fighter. The only time that the melee fighter can hope to match the archer is at the lowest levels- beyond that, he is rapidly made redundant.
Only if you give the archer several thousand gold pieces worth of extra equipment, buff him up with spells more, and get the rules wrong. Plus you need to have opponents who don't attack the archer's main weakness (the fact that it is ridiculously easy to get the bow out of his hands). Once you do all those things, sure, an archer looks pretty good.
