Debate: Melee/Unarmed combat Versus Ranged Combat?

[Orm]

both...

Right now I´m playing a rogue/sniper who prefers the bow, but if needed he can cause some pain with his rapier and dagger.

I had also lots of fun playing a wiz wielding a two-bladed sword or a fighter with flails (in computer RPGs).

Orm

 

[The_Gneech]

I prefer melee, but I usually actually use ranged because it's so much more effective. And engaging in melee gets you stat-drained from mummy rot or vermin poison or crap like that.

-The Gneech

 

[BlackMoria]

Blockader7 wrote:

The problem is certain situations would hinder the front-line archers. For example, in tight corridors or very close combat or adverse weather conditions such as fog or spells that hamper vision.

Hmm. The problem is certain situations would hinder the front-line melee fighters. For example, charging archers across an area of caltrops, hidden pitfalls, or tanglefoot wire. Closing with an enemy who is up a height raining arrows down upon their heads while having to climb or run up a very steep slope. Having to negoiate obstacles to movement while some yahoo with a bow is trying to make you look like a porcupine. Or trying to mix it up with some monster with a 10 to 15 foot reach.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I absolutely DETEST archery in 3E. It blows melee combat away on so many fronts in not even funny. While it may be realistic that the idiot who brings a knife to a gun fight loses, it's not very heroic. Heroes should bravely charge forth to fight evil, not hide behind a rock and fling pointy sticks at it.

 

[Ranger REG]

I prefer ranged combat. I don't have a big ego, but if someone pisses me off, I'll exterminate them without having to confront them nor having them see the face of their killer for the last time. You're just one less threat to me on this world.

And if I have the urge to boast, I'll just talk to the animals.

It may seem cowardly, but it's effective.