Archer Fighters?

[The Sword 88]

The heavily armored soldier type of archer is a fairly different idea from the ranger type archer and is hard to do right now in 4e.

I would recommend using a ranger and taking the armor proficiency feats or maybe being a fighter multiclassed as a ranger to get the extra hp and all.

 

[Shalimar]

Anything but a shuriken (or a knife) for a ranged rogue is a waste of sneak attack and won't allow the character to play the striker role. Also even a ranged rogue will end up with a lot of melee powers due to lack of choice. The only real archer class is ranger. All of the Warlord attacks are melee.

 

[Bishmon]

The ranger class has virtually no 'ranger' flavor other than being forced to train in either nature or dungeoneering, so making an archer fighter is very easy -- it's just not called a fighter.

 

[Andur]

Rogue can SA with light blade, shuriken, sling, or crossbow groups...

 

[tafkamhokie]

I think this is one of those places where the 3e paradigm is getting in the way.

In 4e, a fighter is not "guy who fights," a fighter is a defender. There is just no good way to "defend" with a bow. I don't see a single fighter power that allows the use of a ranged weapon. Sure, you can use a bow, but it would be nothing but basic attacks for 30 levels.

In 4e, a rangers is not "guy who flits around the woods," a ranger is a striker. There is almost nothing specifically nature-oriented about a ranger anymore. Take your bow, take all the ranger's kick-arse ranged weapon powers, and just call yourself an archer, or artillery, or militia, or sniper, or whatever word you want to use if you don't like ranger.