What's wrong with Fighters as archers?

[Shades of Green]

I'm thinking about creating a custom Marksman class, focused on ranged combat. However, before doing so, I want to make sure that I'm not re-inventing the wheen in regards to the Fighter. The thing is that fighters could be pretty effective ranged combatants, due to the following reasons:

1) High BAB and many attacks per round at higher levels.
2) Proficient with all simple and martial weapons - which include most ranged ones.
3) Weapon Specialization at level 4, which, ofcourse, could be used for a ranged weapon if desired.
4) Alot of bonus feats - not only could he gain Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus on the ranged weapon of choice, but he could easily (and earlier than other classes) learn the entire feat 'tree' associated with ranged weapons (Rapid Reload, Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Percise Shot, Improved Percise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Dodge+Mobility=>Shot On the Run and Mounted Combat=>Mounted Archery).
5) Good armor proficiency, as well as melee weapon proficiency so that the Fighter could defend himself well if opponents come into melee range.

So, what's the Fighter missing to be an archer?

 

[Legildur]

So, what's the Fighter missing to be an archer?

In short, nothing! But it's nice to have some decent saving throws and maybe some skills....

 

[Stalker0]

Yep, while there are dedicated archer prcs out there, the fighter has all the tools you need to make a great archer. Or a ranger/fighter or fighter/rogue can give you an archer with better saves and skills if that's what your looking for.

 

[hong]

1. The fighter is not missing much to be an archer.

2. Create your class anyway.

The only person who might complain is the guy playing an archer fighter, and then only if someone else used your class to make another archer. But he would also complain if that someone else used the fighter to do it instead. Because either way you end up with two archers in the party, and they steal each other's schticks.

I used to think that minimalism in terms of the mapping of classes to niches was important. Now I say to hell with it. Niche protection is important within a party, but in terms of the overall ruleset, I see nothing wrong with having multiple classes that can all do the same thing.

 

[Nyaricus]

NOthing really, although I'd allow for stuff like a Good Ref save (instead of Fort) and a some slightly different skill choices to make things more interesting.

Or, maybe drop heavy armours to get the Good Ref save. Something like that.

cheers,
--N

 

[green slime]

Nothing really.

An archer doesn't really need the hitpoints, either.

 

[Felix]

Another vote for "Not Missing Anything".

He won't be as skillsy as an archer ranger, but he'll be a better archer.

Point Blank Shot
Weapon Focus
Rapid Shot
Dodge
Mobility
Weap Specialization
Manyshot
Shot on the Run

For a human fighter, all of that by 6th level. 6th!

 

[moritheil]

Another vote for nothing missing. I did build an archer homebrew class for my campaign once, but that was more like a modified ranger (removed nature magic, etc.) than a fighter.

 

[Imre]

The most direct way to construct an archer is feats and a fighter gets the most.

Another "nothing missing" vote.

 

[was]

I don't think that there is anything wrong with it.