Why the obsession with archer Fighters?

[Obryn]

Previously, fighters were basically the "whatever" class. Due to their feats, they could be molded into basically any combat style by the time they hit higher levels.

Their wealth of feats let them specialize in a single weapon of whatever kind, or else be a huge generalist.

4e tightens down class roles significantly, compared to 3e. The fighter, wizard, and cleric had been the most flexible classes in 3e, but are now in line with everyone else. So, if someone feels that the classes are constraining - they'll focus on one of these three guys.

-O

 

[phil500]

I don't understand it too.

I think its mostly because in 3.5, the difference between a ranger and a fighter was mostly in the feats.

now its all in the powers.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Fighters can use bows. They don't get the prof bonus, but they can use them. They also don't have cool powers with them;

Fighters and Rangers are both proficient will all simple and military weapons.
Fighters get the proficiency bonus with bows. However, few, if any, of their powers work with a bow.

 

[TimeOut]

I think its mostly because in 3.5, the difference between a ranger and a fighter was mostly in the feats.

now its all in the powers.

Yes, but what stops them from playing a ranger instead? The name of the class? I can name my warlord class Mr. Shouty-Man (Warlord) and it wouldn't change much.

But as said earlier in the thread, it is the old 3e mindset. A 4e fighter is not a 3e fighter. Character concepts that worked with the old fighter class are of course realizable, but not necessarily under the same class name.

 

[Blackbrrd]

If you want to be a tank with good bow skills you can multi-class into ranger and take the power swap feats.

If you want to be good with the bow and use heavy armor, take the necessary armor feats.

 

[fba827]

I was going to post something very similar to what HeapThaumaturgist said ...

In previous editions, fighters have been the weapons guy which meant he gained abilities for any sort of weapon set in which he chose to specialize. Now fighters are (as specifically defined by their role) a tanker character: They are there to take the hits and attention which is a function best served as a front line combatant (which means better suited for melee weapons, which is why the fighter exploits are all melee weapon based).

So it's a matter of checking which definition you're using in your head. If you're meaning "Fighter" referring to the class, then the class definition has changed to specifically be a front-line/tank attacker. If you mean "Fighter" referring to any sort of combatant than you should be looking at the entire pool of martial-powered classes to meet what you are looking for.

As suggested by the OP, you can easily be a ranger or rogue and call yourself a fighter/warrior/etc or do a fighter with multiclass or half-elf. Or be a ranger/rogue and multiclass to fighter. After all, your PC doesn't have a big glowing sign above his head that says your class, the game world should be judging you based on your appearance (which includes weapon equipment) and how your PC interacts (which includes, among other things, how your PC acts in combat)

That's just my opinion anyway.

Of course, the majority of this thread seems to have as similar opinion so I don't know why I felt like posting.