Not very many serious drawbacks? Do you really want to stick by that statement?
Archers have several drawbacks compared to melee, and I will go over some of them for you.
First, Archers provoke an attack of opportunity for attacking, something melee characters don't need to worry about.
Second, Archers have limited ammunition. Even if you have a thousand arrows, you are still at a disadvantage to the melee character who has no such limit. And when you are fond of Rapid Shot (as most arhcers are), you go throguh ammunition all the quicker.
Third, Archers can't make attacks of opportunity, nor can they flank. This is a huge, huge disadvantage, especially considering the emphasis they place on Dexterity and what combat refelxes could do for them. Yeah, you people always bring up Rapid Shot as an example of how "archery is better than melee," but you often negelect to take into account what even a single attack of opportunity or flanking can add to a battle, especially for rogues.
Fourth, Archers have a limit on the damage they can deal because of the limits on strength adding to bows. Regular bows don't get the benefit of strength at all, and even a mighty composite bow can only add up to +4. And even if an archer wanted to have good damage and used a comp bow, that still means he has two attributes to worry about - Dex and Str. Melee characters, on the other hand, get the benfit of attack AND damage from a single attaribute.
On that same note, melee characters can really do well without a high dex at all. They can simply pump up their strength and con, tank in plate mail, and be juggernauts. Archers, on the other hand, usually stick to lighter armor since they emphasize Dexterity so much.
Fifth, Melee characters have alot more combat options. Things such as knockdown, sunder, grappling, cleave, etc are often overlooked but can be a huge advantage to a melee character who uses them properly.
Sixth, there aren't anywhere near as many feats for archery as there are for melee. This isn't as big a deal for most characters (who only get 7-10 feats anyway), but it is a big deal for fighters. And more options is never a bad thing. Yes, Rapid Shot is nice, but don't forget about the awesome feats avaiable to melee (Cleave, Great Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, etc).
Seventh, archers need two hands to use a bow. This isn't as big of a drawback as some of the others, but it does take away a significant option available to melee characters - shields.
Eighth, archers have some disadvantages compared to melee, particularly with environmental and circumstantail penalties. Some of these can be overcome with feats such as Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot, but consider that the melee character didn't have to spend feats because he didn't have those drawbacks to begin with.
Now, in fairness, I will point out that archer has some incredible advantages as well (such as having more flexibility in positioning himself and being able to full attack without having to spend time getting to his opponents). But please, people, don't act like archers have it all easy and don't get anything but advanatages over melee! To say they have no serious disadvantages is blatantly false.
