Many Shot and Rapid Shot.

[Felix]

That seems like a narrow style of play to base balance decisions on, to me, though.

Archers are buggered when they're in dungeons because of the close encounter distance and the preponderance of cover, so if an archer is going down there, he already knows he won't be operating at peak. For the same reasons, a TWF will be better off. But in situations where there is less cover, more lines of sight, and a greater encounter distance (ie, not inside), the archer shines.

Pick which you'd rather.

And what Twowolves said.

 

[Coredump]

Which is a valid argument, but I find it to be somewhat narrow. The argument is, essentially, that the range itself affords greater damage potential if you use it properly by initiating combat at a good range, while archery suffers in more closed environments.

But you are only thinking of initial distance. You also must think of distance during the fight.

Even in a dungeon, you often fight in a large hall. (Dining room, throne room, etc.) Yeah your TWF wins initiative and closes the 20' to the first baddie, and gets to hit him once. Next round he can down that guy in only 3 of his 7 swings, but then he is done, next round he needs to *move* the 10-15 feet to get to the next guy, and then only get 1 attack. The next round he gets a full attack, and after 4 more hits, downs that one also....and will have to move...etc.

The archer can switch target to target during the same round, so he should be getting the *all* 5 attacks *every* round.

Similarly, while the fighters have to wade through the mooks to get to the BBEG, (or the spell caster) The archer can take the fight to him immediately.

The damage comparison from above only holds if there is a continual supply of bad guys walking right up to the TW/GS fighters