Many melee fighters have high Dexterity, and nothing keeps them from using things like Gloves of Dexterity. The biggest bonus with heavier armor is that even when he is denied his Dexterity bonus, the heavier armor wearer still has a large proportion of his AC available. The Dexterity based fighter is vulnerable under those circumstances.
Fair enough. However, it is somewhat disingenous to assert that the melee fighter can have a high Dex, whilst the archer *cannot* (for some obscure reason) have a comparable Str. This is slight double standards, is it not?
As for AC when being denied Dex bonus, this is a fair criticism. However, conversely, against touch attacks and incorporeal attacks, the heavier armoured character with less Dex is going to suffer. At that high levels, it's probably about even in terms of frequency of Dex denial vs. touch attacks. Note, of course, that higher Dex meaning higher initiative also tends to go some way to solving the problem of being flatfooted.
A fighter based character getting in a one-on-one duel against a high level arcane caster is probably dead meat no matter what tactic he chooses. High level casters have too many options in a one-on-one encounter for an individual fighter to be able to keep up.
Not the case against archers, actually. A 12th level wizard with Con 18 (reasonable with buffs) has an average 75 or so hit points. The 12th level archer, given Bracers of Archery, +4 bow and arrows (GMW) with two elemental abilities, Weapon Specialisation, Point-Blank and Rapid Shot and two lots of OotBI ranged sneak attack can easily dish out more than this amount of damage in one round. Beyond 30', of course, it becomes harder, but given a mighty Str 18 bow (if the meleeist can have Gloves of Dex, why can the archer not have a Girdle of Giant Strength; anyway, 18 Str matches the wizard's 18 Con), the archer is still dealing d8+12+2d6(elemental) damage per hit, for an average of 23.5 damage per hit. With four attacks, this also enables the archer to inflict sufficient damage to take out of the wizard.
The meleeist, by contrast, finds it extremely difficult. If he has Power Critical, a high crit weapon, rage, a high Str bonus, a double-handed weapon and a smattering of Power Attack, he may be able to charge in and take out the wizard- but he can only do this once per day. No one can assert that a 12th level fighter can deal 75 damage on a single non-critical attack.
Heavier armor, and possibly a heavy shield allow the melee combatant to retain his AC at a high level evn while flat-footed or otherwise denied his Dexterity bonus
(see above)
It can, but the melee combatant is usually better in a grapple than the archer, since he is designed for close combat
Since grappling means that melee man is restricted to light weapons or unarmed combat, the advantage he has in grappling is marginal. If the archer has the foresight to pick up Weapon Finesse (Shortsword) to prepare for the worst, the archer and the meleeist are actually comparable grapplers. Incidentally, if the bow is only held in one hand (as you later assume for purposes of disarming) then the archer's spiked gauntlet can be used to make the attack of opportunity.
Basically, on the opposed roll, the archer gets his BAB, his Strength bonus, and the Large weapon bonus. Against, for example, a greatsword or glaive wielder, he is at a huge disadvantage.
Again, if the bow is held in only one hand, then the archer can use his spiked gauntlet for an attack of opportunity. If not, then the odds are levelled somewhat in terms of disarming. Nevertheless, I am happy to concede the point about disarming the bow. As I have said before, in a one-on-one arena style combat, the meleeist will probably have the advantage over the archer.
The problem is that you don't need to be a sunder focused character to hack a bow apart. Given the lack of AoO that your sunder attempt will draw, the weakness of the archer's opposed roll in melee, and the flimsiness of the bow, to sunder a bow you don't need Power Attack, Sunder, and Improved Sunder to make your sunder attack effective as you do against a melee weapon armed individual.
Given that your meleeist in question has Strength in the 30s by high level and Power Attack, he can sunder nearly anyone's weapon. Even a +5 greatsword only has 15 hardness and 15 hit points. Raging barbarian-man, with his tidy 38 strength and +5 two-handed weapon can easily dish out 30 damage/hit.
However, I take the point. Again, in a one-on-one arena combat, the meleeist wins. I concede this.
Nah, it is mediocre at best. The feat prerequisites are all over the place, and the benefits are too modest. Several other PrCs are a lot better. Master of Chains, Tempest (negating the penalties for two weapon fighting makes it quite effective), Frenzied Berserker and so on.
I think it's a matter of opinion. Master of Chains requires an obscure weapon (magical Spiked Chains are phenomenally rare), stiff prereqs and has modest benefits. The Tempest, as with any two-weapon fighter, has damage merely comparable with a two-handed wielder- his combined base damage is likely to be comparable to the two-hander's base damage; his Str bonus is identical and only magic puts his slightly in front. Moreover, the favourite melee tactics practised above (sunder, disarm) become very difficult for the Tempest. It is slightly unreasonable to slip fluidly between a greatsword-wielder and a Tempest/Master of Chains. Frenzied Berserker, admittedly, provides some benefit, if the fighter take out time to multiclass, meet the prereqs (NB Devastating Attack means he can sunder melee weapons as well!) and then the benefits are somewhat one-track.
He can, at a cost of BAB, hit points, and the fact that he would be tied to light armor to use many of his abilites as a rogue. It makes him a less effective fighter. (Note that losing BAB makes him even more vulnerable to disarms and sunders).
To be fair, I said he could 'add utility'. The plethora of skills, many of which work nicely with the archer's high Dex, adds utility. Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion and better Reflex saves don't hurt either. Light armour is a restriction, but given the archer's Dex, he will likely to be using light armour anyway. With regard to BAB loss, this is hardly crippling. Three levels of rogue tucks under the archer's belt a host of nice boosts (18 extra skill points over the fighter, 2d6 sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge, traps, ) in exchange for a mere 1 point of BAB and a few less HPs.
You have been assuming lots of extra equipment: bracers of archery, an extra +4 weapon, Gautnlets of Dexterity and a Belt of Strength, plus a periapt of Wisdom (or 5th level spell slots to replicate these) and so on. That's a lot of extra equipment added to the archer.
Given that you assume a Belt of Strength and Gauntlets of Dexterity for the meleeist, I gave the archer Bracers of Archery to match your mithril heavy armour with a bit to spare. In exchange for the Periapt of Wisdom and additional +4 weapon, I will bump up your +1 three elements weapon to a +1 holy four elements weapon. I'll let it be enchanted with GMW (for +5 holy four elements). However, the archer is, after GMW and stacking, effectively using +10 holy four elements. Given an effective +7 weapon costs 98000 and a +6 Periapt and two +4s cost 10000, we'll cancel this from the bit spare from the mithril heavy armour/Bracers of Archery. The archer will then spend 9000 on a Pearl of Power, the difference between a +5 cloak of resistance and +4 cloak of resistance, meaning that the meleeist has three save points better than the archer. But hang on: the Periapt of Wisdom adds those three save points back (to Will saves, the fighter's Achilles' heel). So everything's equalised and the archer still has +7 to hit (includes Zen Archery, 18 Wis) and +5 to damage over the fighter, not to mention an extra attack (RS penalty already deducted).
Their psionic powers are of limited use in combat, and are equally as effective against meleeists and archers.
Do your interior combats frequently take place in areas where you have a 105 foot range unobstructed view?
In all fairness, most encounters with flying creatures happen outdoors, IMC at least!
And so on. The problem is that most encounters don't occur in arenas where an archer can set up a hundred feet away and plink
True up to a point. Wilderness encounters can be reasonably common as well. It's dependent on campaign style, so probably best not to get bogged down in this. Nevertheless, even indoors, the archer can often stay toward the back and let the meleeists dish it out. That's not to say that the meleeist is dispensable- he makes a good meat-shield for the archer; but in terms of damage inflicted and general utility, the archer is still superior.
The first round of combat is rarely "critical". It is not nearly as critical as you seem to think.
Wrong at all levels where magic-using enemies are concerned. Sleep at 1st level can turn an encounter in a single spell; as can Hold Person; as can Suggestion; as can Polymorph; as can Dominate; as can Disintegrate; as can Otto's Irresistable Dance; as can Time Stop. For spellcasters, getting off a spell before they are pummelled or shot to pieces in almost always critical. Rogues rely on the first round in the encounter to dish out major sneak attack damage before they get locked into combat fully. In an all-fighter match, the first round has less significance, but this is probably not a representative encounter.
Besides, many opponents at high level should be other characters, and they usually have effective ranged attacks.
Sure. Who's going to dominate at a ranged exchange?
Add a few levels of barbarian (as any self-respecting half-orc would) and rage a couple times per day, that bumps you up to 38. If the PC started with a base of 20 (not that unusual in a point buy situation, for example), he maxes out at 20th level at a 40 Strength.
A base of 20 is certainly not commonplace unless the point-buy is really quite whacked out, and nor is the regular use of five wishes on any given PC the norm!
Most of those creatures should have a fair amount of equipment as treasure, many of them will have Fortitifcation armor or bracers (a very smart move for a high level creature).
Perhaps amongst PCs, though even these are phenomenally expensive and prone to targeted dispels/Mordenkainen's Disjunction. Amongst monsters and NPCs, I think that this practise is probably less common- most NPC type monsters have their equipment listed, and the treasure is generally (IMC) rolled randomly.
Of course, many of the classic opponents for high level parties are entirely immune to sneak attack damage: liches, vampiric wizards and so on.
On undead casters, see my comments on arcanists and archer, above. On undead meleeists, all the more reason to stay away. Call me a coward, but I find meleeing with a vampire fighter distinctly unappealing.
Monsters should have access to Greater Magic Weapon about as much as characters
For spellcasting monsters, sure. Not all monsters can cast spells.
Essentially, I am happy to admit that in a one-on-one type combat, when the meleeist of uncertain nature (a greatsword-wielder for purposes of disarm, a Tempest for purposes of PrC?) can bring tactics like disarm and sunder to bear, he will probably win. Nevertheless, over the course of an average campaign, the archer will tend to give the party more utility than the meleeist.
