What's wrong with Fighters as archers?

[Slaved]

Cross class skill for the guy with 2 skill points a level? Uh oh!

Multiclassing though means that it is no longer a pure fighter build and so no longer applies to the threads question right?

I definately think that multiclassing definately helps, but if the question is, "what is wrong with Fighters as archers" then saying that they are fine if they multiclass seems like an answer of them not being fine to me.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm quite pleased with my Barbarian 1/ Fighter 2/ Ranger 2. I plan to follow the Ranger line from here on out, mostly for the spellcasting (using Spell Compendium spells) and the skills. If my party were in less need of a skill-based character (our rogue is highly specialized in womanizing... erm, social skills) I may have considered going Fighter, but I greatly dislike the boring every-other-level nature of the Fighter's progression.

In long-running campaign, I think a Fighter may actually be useful for archery, even without a few levels of another class. There are ALOT of good feats available for archers, both at low and high levels. During middle levels, the feat slots that have no archery feats to fill them can be used for other combat types (being specialized means there are more enemies who can exploit your weaknesses), and the usual every-3-levels feats can be for (gasp, he's crazy!) character flavor.

 

[Klaus]

A Fighter, if he wants to take advantage of his heavy armor proficiency, could be built like this:

Str 14 Dex 13 Con 10 Int 12 Wis 16 (15 +1 at 4th) Cha 8
Feats: Zen Archery, Point Blank Shot, Weapon Focus (longbow) (human, 1st, F1)
Precise Shot (F2)
Able Learner (all skills cost only 1 skill point/rank) (3rd)
Weapon Specialization (F4)
Rapid Shot (F6), Improved Initiative (6th)
Weapon and armor: +1 mighty (+2) composite longbow, +1 full plate armor, +1 buckler.
Skills: Maximize Ride, Handle Animal and Intimidate at levels 1 and 2, then buy 1 rank/level on Spot, Listen and Search at levels 3+.

 

[Nyeshet]

Nothing, although . . .

I'd change the Fortitude save to a Reflex save and would remove heavy armor and perhaps something else to add in a couple more skill points - and add skills such as Spot to their list of class skills. Otherwise, I don't think the fighter needs all that many changes to make an excellent ranged combatant.

 

[Owldragon]

As everybody else has said, the fighter makes a great archer. As has also been pointed out, though, it depends on what you want from your archer; being a decent archer isn't that feat intensive. If you're a fighter, you can use your extra feats to make you an even better archer. If you're a spell caster, you can use magic to make you an even better archer AND do other stuff, but it's possible to run out of spells. Other classes can give you other benefits like more skill points or living shields animal companions. I tend to prefer the sort of characters who have more options, but if all you want to do is shoot things, fighters are pretty good at that, if you just search out enough archery feats to fill their feat slots.

This does bring to mind the Marksman class from Untapped Potential, however. (It's available in a $5 PDF if you're interested.) Basically, the class has only 1d6 for hit dice and only light armor proficiency, but in return it can manifest some psionic powers and gains Signature Style bonuses that lets the character knock over targets, shoot extra arrows, etc.

To answer the original question, the only thing fighters are missing is anything extra you might want them to have. A plain fighter is fine, but it's also possible to have an archer with cool special abilities that there aren't feats for. You just have to:
a) determine what those abilities are
b) give up enough that the class is still balanced