The only thing with Archers in BG 2 would be,your pretty much sitting in the back row the whole game.Combat is usually all close quarter stuff.Great for BG 1 where you can keep the front line at a distance before you reach BG.In BG2 you'd be better off as a thief type or stalker,with the option of ranged and a bit of backstabbing/traps/locks etc.I'd never roll an archer but it's what ever rocks your boat at the end of the day.
It's not really that big of a deal honestly...if you're attacking from 2 or more character's distance away (2 handers can hit from 1 character's distance away, while 1hd hander's require being right next to), it's the same as if you're attacking from maximum weapon range, your arrows are just hitting faster (which is better imo). The enemy will always go for the closest target, unless they're a thief going for a facestab, which wide open spaces wouldn't help you any if they decided to come for you.
If you're soloing, just go gets boots of speed asap. then you can avoid melee range no matter how small the room is. In a party you should always have at least 1 tank-like character, so needing extreme range is largely pointless (though an archer is still a good candidate for boots of speed, if you aren't using a Backstabber).
Keep in mind...archer's deal more damage then any other class can at ranged (except a kensai, but their bonus shouldn't apply to thrown weapons anyway, just melee....damn shoddy implementations), and are only SLIGHTLY worse in melee, if necessary, then another warrior class. You can sit back and merrily plink your way through 90+% of the game, and likely deal a lion's share of kill experience by dropping most enemies before your melee guys can get to them, and if you lack the ammo to hurt something, or it's highly resistant to piercing, you have the option of easily massacring it in melee.
only SLIGHTLY worse in melee, if necessary, then another warrior class.
Not sure of your definition of "slightly". +3 hit, +5 damage, and +1 APR sound like a big deal, and that's only Grandmastery, without any fighter kit bonuses.
Ultimately, the question becomes this: "why do I want to play an Archer?"
If the answer is "because I want to play one" or "because ranged weapons are cool", then go right ahead and play one, because fun is the most important thing in the end. I can stress that enough: do not let objective arguments or powergaming concern ruin your experience of the game. If you derive fun from analytical optimization of characters, that's one thing - but 99% of players won't be like that. Make your enjoyment your top priority: this is a game, not a job!
If however you are more inclined towards powergaming and your answer to the question is "because I think they are the objectively best choice for my party", then you should re-examine that answer more closely. In my opinion, there is little to no compelling reason to use an Archer over a fighter-type dual/multi class combination in the vast majority of setups. As for the reasons, I think they've been outlined sufficiently earlier in this thread.
IMO, archers are hugely crippled in BG2, to the point where I would question whether they are really worth having.
In BG1, ranged weapons were the perfect foil for most spellcasters, because they could interrupt spellcasting, or inject the caster with poison that would prevent them from casting for several rounds.
In BG2, the reverse is true - spellcasters are now able to cast spells instantly or automatically (i.e: through spell triggers) and typically have defenses that give them immunity to missiles.
Ranged weapons are still usable in BG2, but your overall success will ultimately depend upon your ability to cast and dispel magic.
IMO, you'd be better off with a vanilla fighter who masters in ranged weapons, since they'll be basically just as sufficient as a ranged fighter by BG2, and also much better in melee.
I'll totally agree that, compared to a lot of the game's crazy dual/multiclass builds, archers are pretty mediocre. In my experience, however, they work about as well as any single-classed warrior (better in the early game). Remember that Called Shot is amazing to debuff enemies that can take a few shots. So if you want to just go single-class anyway, they're good. If you want to really stretch your powergaming options, though, Archers suffer severely due to being single-classed. Of course, that's true of every ranger build that doesn't go for the ranger/cleric dual.
Because it doesn't MATTER....there's only a handful of enemies in the game you will be slightly gimp'd on and other wise, you'll be gunning $%#^ down faster then your melee can reach them.
Show me....I mean seriously, now, show me where in his post he asked for powergaming tips...right now....go ...
.....give up? good, cause he didn't.
Archer's are perfectly viable in the whole saga. By your logic, anything that isn't a 13 B/M dual is worthless and waste of time to level. There you go. Fact. Every class in the game that isn't a B/M is garbage, because it isn't the best.
So there ya go OP. Unless you're a 13 Berserker/Mage dual-class, just delete the game and start over, but nothing can touch a B/M in terms of sheer brokenness, without abusing blatant exploits (Blade/Skald image singing BS, as an example, which is THE flat out strongest thing in the game, and so horribly wrong I had to go puke just from typing it out).
@Sharguidesmyhand The only spell that foils missiles only works vs non-magical, their other protections are just as effective vs melee..and you can get a +1 infinite quiver immediately out of the prelude, not to mention you'll have so many +1 arrows from drops over the course of the game you will literally not know where to put them all.
@Lord_Tansheron Because an archer is a ranger...not a fighter. Compared to a ranger the archer is heads above better for most of the game, and it's only vs a tiny handful of enemies that another type of ranger is better and only slightly.
Lets just remove everything but fighters, mages, and fighter/mages. Hows that? $%#^ variety, the game isn't intended for powergaming, but screw that, we're going to anyway, and if that doesn't give us our jollies, we'll use cheese mods that blatantly cheat to in an attempt to make powergaming ALMOST challenging..but not quite, because the engine just can't handle it without making the fights completely unwinnable.
It's worth noting on the archer that their bonuses work for crossbows as well. If there are enemies with damage reduction higher than +3 then I suppose you that you might *gasp* need to call upon OTHER party members to assist you! I had a full party of characters for the Black Pits and the archer was the highest physically damaging character in the group but he wasn't always the character I could go to deal with situations. It's not like how some classes try to fill a role that other classes are just better at filling (for example, Shapeshifter vs any other divine caster including other druids, or Beast Master vs other Rangers or Druids).
by the sounds of it, you will be playing a single player game with 5 pcs on your team, and none of the pcs in SoA are clear cut power houses in terms of melee damage ( except for haer'dalis at very high levels and sarevok) and with minsc it is rather difficult to make him do over 50 damage on a critical hit in SoA, so if you want to make your archer viable in the SoA/ToB world, here is what you need to do: first put five points into short bow, because in SoA, the shortbows just simply rock, especially gesen bow, and before you get over to ToB buy the strong arm from ribald in the promenade, once you hit 5 points in short bow, start to scoot them over to longbow, that phantom +3 bow there from trademeet can be obtained relatively early in the game, so I would suggest going there as soon as possible and get that bow, some one earlier in the thread told you how to get it, with that bow, there is only like 3 enemies in SoA you cant affect with it ( demilich, lesser demon lord, and anatha, plus those last two you don't even need to fight ever) and when you can, get that gesen bow, because once you hit ToB that bow will affect any enemy that will be immune to your +3 arrows coming out of your strong arm long bow ( strong arm is the best longbow in the game for an archer) and even with +3 arrows, there is only a small handful of enemies you cant affect ( demilich, the ravanger, whacky mage dude in one of the final seals, and I think that's it) so archers are still alright, the thing that is great about them, is that their attacks are fast, and they interrupt enemy casters very well, make sure to use that called shot ability as well, if you pelt a boss enough with it, and can be fatal, so if you follow those tips above, that will make your archer viable and you will be pretty pleased with his contribution to the party
I have to agree with @ZanathKariashi, almost all of this powergaming discussion is entirely off point for the thread. The OP's question was whether the Archer remains able to meaningfully contribute throughout the later stages of the trilogy, or if pretty much everything by that stage would be immune to (the available) arrows. As has been pointed out, the Archer should be fine in this regard.
For the rest, who cares? If I may paraphrase, the premise was basically: "I want to play an Archer, can I do so without him becoming useless?" Any reference to other classes is thus irrelevant and off-topic.
I'd also like to add that no, you don't *need* to put pips in short bows, or at all. Within reason, you don't *need* to do anything a certain way, you can just pick whatever appeals to you most. An Archer will be perfectly fine never touching a short bow at all. The point isn't optimization, at least not for most people. As long as long bows are good enough (which they are), the fact that short bows are better is again not overwhelmingly relevant in itself.
Well, as I said, optimization and powergaming is for a small minority of player. However, the arguments behind it have merit for a larger audience. If you could make every decision simply by preference and gut feeling, there would be no need to talk about it in the first place. There clearly is, so some arguments have to be presented.
I'm not sure how I could be misunderstood again and again after clearly and in no uncertain terms explaining my argumentative process and how it relates to powergaming vs. a more casual approach. I'm presenting arguments, not conclusions. Conclusions you have to arrive at for yourself, under consideration of the arguments presented by the discussion.
"Arguments", I say, and that means objectivity. @ZanathKariashi's depiction of events is anything but, from both sides. I can't speak as to what people find fun, nor would I presume to. That's their business. I'm not calling anything "garbage", "not worth playing", "broken", or whatever other terms he is using. I am presenting arguments as objectively as possible, and I constantly remind people of the caveats. I don't know how better to present facts rationally, without entering personal preference and opinion. After all, people aren't looking to be told what to think (at least they shouldn't be), they are looking for information with which to find out what they themselves are thinking. Shallow, misleading, and inflammatory speech is not exactly conducive to that, and ultimately helps nobody.
@Lord_Tansheron As far as I can see the problem isn't that you are being misunderstood, but rather that the point you are arguing is not really pertinent to the question being asked. @Battlehamster wants to kit his ranger into an archer and, as is quite clear from his posts, the worry he wants to address is whether late-game enemies might be overwhelmingly immune to ranged damage. It is a straightforward question, which in fact you already answered yourself early on:
Keep in mind, though, that these differences are fairly minor when talking about the vanilla version of the game. While immunity to +3 and lower weapons can be a bother, there's plenty of ways to get around it as an Archer; the performance hit you suffer won't be very pronounced in an unmodded game. Archers are a completely valid choice for the entire saga, start to finish.
That's it, asked and answered. Sure, you can reasonably dress it up a bit more, but a treatise on optimization is clearly surpluss to requirements here.
Once again, all classes are viable, but people will always come with arguments such as "kensai-mages are better". Archer is a class that has an astronomic thac0 at mid levels, causes lots of damage ... and it can't hit what, like five enemies in the whole game?
Of course they have vulnerabilities, but you've got other party members to cover it up.
That's it, asked and answered. Sure, you can reasonably dress it up a bit more, but a treatise on optimization is clearly surpluss to requirements here.
Technically true, but I do think that a certain degree of elaboration is of interest to the broader forum community and audience. Illustrating an issue in-depth, even going beyond the initial question, can help illuminate aspects of the game to people that are curious, or have simply never thought about these things. While I agree that I do tend to ramble at times, I think that information is best presented in a detailed form; it is up to the users themselves to peruse what is offered, and skip the lengthy bits. I try to include summaries and TL;DRs on occasion for that purpose as well, though I dislike brevity at the expense of accuracy.
'A certain degree of elaboration' implies merely providing some additional detail in your answer to the question. The thread diverting into a different discussion rather overshoots that target. If you think it of interest to others on the forum you are entirely free to start a new thread about it. Doing so at length here somewhat gives off an impression of you (and others) just wanting to indulge your own interest in talking about powergaming/optimization/etc.
Well i'm playing with an Assassin through BG2 at the moment along with Nalia,Korgan and Vicky.That'll be my party for the rest of the game(maybe Imo later).Now with the Tuigan shortbow my Elf is an epic sniper, and that's without poison.Now an Archer would be a lot better than that i believe.So yeah an archer would be perfectly viable.
My point as stated before is though,why not just take a class that has a few more tricks up it's sleeve other than just ranged.Either for RPing or Power gaming or whatever you're into.Rather than just being that guy at the back,with the bow.
I've been currently playing an Archer through SoA that focuses on the Crossbow. He's awesome, does tons of damage, and when i do run into enemies that I can't hurt at range (1 so far out of roughly 18 billion) I switch to my flail of the ages, walk up and proceed to lay the smack down on them. Sure, in that one fight I wasn't as good as a character fully devoted to melee combat but I wasn't "gimped" or "useless" or "horribly overshadowed" I was simply not the rock star of the fight.... as for the other 17,999,999,999 fights... I was. I've come to terms with the fact that Keldorn was better than me in that fight and am just trying to get on with my life.
And goes back to the other point...why play anything besides a F/M/T or a F/M dual? Everything else is inferior.
RP or just wanting to have fun, not caring about the numbers, are the only reason to ever not play the above. Or using a party in general.
The point was taking any other single class.Any m/c or d/c is OP in the game.Anything with mage class added to it is virtually fucking indestructable(stoneskin/blur/mirror image/fireshield) and the game ends up a total bore.With the weapons available in BG2 any class can be effective at range especially elves or halflings.An Archer is a viable class he's just not needed.
@Banex Sure, and with the same weapons an Archer will be more effective at range than another character, at the cost of some melee prowess. With the weapons available in BG2 an Archer can also be effective in melee, just not as much as so as a Fighter, or even a regular Ranger. So what, what is your point? It can't be about necessity, since as @ZanathKariashi already pointed out that would just leave you with a solo F/M of some description.
It can hardly be about versatility either, since Assassins aren't exactly a wonder of well-roundedness either and are apparently a perfectly valid choice. And for that matter, most warrior-types are mostly about grabbing a piece of steel and whaling on the enemy from close range. An Archer is just the long range equivalent.
And goes back to the other point...why play anything besides a F/M/T or a F/M dual? Everything else is inferior.
RP or just wanting to have fun, not caring about the numbers, are the only reason to ever not play the above. Or using a party in general.
You are correct. There is no objective argument for using anything other than the optimal setup, whatever that may be in the given configuration of mods/difficulties.
That however in no way implies that anyone should compromise their own, personal, SUBJECTIVE values. But since you can't guess those for everyone in the world, the best you can do is present the objective ones - not as the ultima ratio, but as a set of tools for people to use in order to find out what is best suited *FOR THEM*.
As for Archers specifically, I think @Banex summed it up well:
You are correct. There is no objective argument for using anything other than the optimal setup, whatever that may be in the given configuration of mods/difficulties.
That however in no way implies that anyone should compromise their own, personal, SUBJECTIVE values. But since you can't guess those for everyone in the world, the best you can do is present the objective ones - not as the ultima ratio, but as a set of tools for people to use in order to find out what is best suited *FOR THEM*.
And what would the 'objective' argument be for using the optimal (in the powergaming sense you are implying)? The one that doesn't in any way reference subjective values such as one's motivation for playing games in the first place, and the elements of those games one finds most stimulating? Because arguments in favor of using any setup are going to be contingent on the goal it is being used for in the first place. And since that goal isn't objectively given, the argument for using your optimal setup is just as objective or subjective as the rest.
Hey OP, do you like ranged comat? If so, the Archer is the best option available. He will destroy enemies at range better than any other class can with a Crossbow, Longbow or Shortbow. Is ranged combat the best solution for every fight in the game? No. Could be useful to bring along a melee weapon. Is the Archer the bestest class in the whole wide game? Nope. They are really fun to play though if you like turning baddies into a pin cushion. Are they a powerful class? Yep! They will decimate 99% of all enemies given the right ammo or weapon. For the other 1% you'll be good but not great.
@Banex Sure, and with the same weapons an Archer will be more effective at range than another character, at the cost of some melee prowess. With the weapons available in BG2 an Archer can also be effective in melee, just not as much as so as a Fighter, or even a regular Ranger. So what, what is your point? It can't be about necessity, since as @ZanathKariashi already pointed out that would just leave you with a solo F/M of some description.
It can hardly be about versatility either, since Assassins aren't exactly a wonder of well-roundedness either and are apparently a perfectly valid choice. And for that matter, most warrior-types are mostly about grabbing a piece of steel and whaling on the enemy from close range. An Archer is just the long range equivalent.
My point is stated well enough.Any other Single class with decent dex can do what an archer can do but can do other stuff ie ranged identify/use any weapons/magic -bards ranged locks/traps/dispel illusion/set traps/back stab-thieves ranged backstab-stalker ranged magic-mage-sorcerer(boomerang dagger +2) ranged/magic-clerics/druids(slings +5) More options to make the game more fun,single classes not too OP(Sorcerer maybe the exception there) Oh i forgot to add archer to the list. ranged-Archer Catch my drift now.As i said an Archer is perfectly viable but you have a bit more under the hood taking other Single classes.Again the beauty of this game,you can play it the way you want to Powergaming or RPing(whose to say you should do this or not cheese that,it's your game experience) and again take whatever class rocks your boat but for me an archer or even a straight fighter would bore the arse off me.That's just me though doesn't mean those classes suck at all.(to stay on topic)They are perfectly viable
Except that most of the classes you mention can't do ranged combat remotely as well as an Archer can. It's a bit like saying that any other single class with decent strength can do what a Warrior class can, because they are technically capable of holding a stick and whacking enemies with it.
So no, with other single classes you don't have a bit more under the hood, you just have different things under the hood. The fact that in some classes it is spread out across more skills and abilities doesn't change that. So far you have not provided any clear argument for taking a more generalist class over a more specialist one, other than that they bore *you* (which does not constitute an actual argument).
@Banex Sure, and with the same weapons an Archer will be more effective at range than another character, at the cost of some melee prowess. With the weapons available in BG2 an Archer can also be effective in melee, just not as much as so as a Fighter, or even a regular Ranger. So what, what is your point? It can't be about necessity, since as @ZanathKariashi already pointed out that would just leave you with a solo F/M of some description.
It can hardly be about versatility either, since Assassins aren't exactly a wonder of well-roundedness either and are apparently a perfectly valid choice. And for that matter, most warrior-types are mostly about grabbing a piece of steel and whaling on the enemy from close range. An Archer is just the long range equivalent.
My point is stated well enough.Any other Single class with decent dex can do what an archer can do but can do other stuff ie ranged identify/use any weapons/magic -bards ranged locks/traps/dispel illusion/set traps/back stab-thieves ranged backstab-stalker ranged magic-mage-sorcerer(boomerang dagger +2) ranged/magic-clerics/druids(slings +5) More options to make the game more fun,single classes not too OP(Sorcerer maybe the exception there) Oh i forgot to add archer to the list. ranged-Archer Catch my drift now.As i said an Archer is perfectly viable but you have a bit more under the hood taking other Single classes.Again the beauty of this game,you can play it the way you want to Powergaming or RPing(whose to say you should do this or not cheese that,it's your game experience) and again take whatever class rocks your boat but for me an archer or even a straight fighter would bore the arse off me.That's just me though doesn't mean those classes suck at all.(to stay on topic)They are perfectly viable
Yeah except the Archer can actually do more than that. I think it should look a little something like this.
And to add "ranged" to bards and thieves like it is a perk is silly. They can have 1 pip with crummy Thac0 and are stuck at base APR. The fact that they can use weapons at range doesn't mean they should have a blanket statement like "Ranged" which also covers the silly ranged prowess of the Archer class.
Comments
If you're soloing, just go gets boots of speed asap. then you can avoid melee range no matter how small the room is. In a party you should always have at least 1 tank-like character, so needing extreme range is largely pointless (though an archer is still a good candidate for boots of speed, if you aren't using a Backstabber).
Keep in mind...archer's deal more damage then any other class can at ranged (except a kensai, but their bonus shouldn't apply to thrown weapons anyway, just melee....damn shoddy implementations), and are only SLIGHTLY worse in melee, if necessary, then another warrior class. You can sit back and merrily plink your way through 90+% of the game, and likely deal a lion's share of kill experience by dropping most enemies before your melee guys can get to them, and if you lack the ammo to hurt something, or it's highly resistant to piercing, you have the option of easily massacring it in melee.
Ultimately, the question becomes this: "why do I want to play an Archer?"
If the answer is "because I want to play one" or "because ranged weapons are cool", then go right ahead and play one, because fun is the most important thing in the end. I can stress that enough: do not let objective arguments or powergaming concern ruin your experience of the game. If you derive fun from analytical optimization of characters, that's one thing - but 99% of players won't be like that. Make your enjoyment your top priority: this is a game, not a job!
If however you are more inclined towards powergaming and your answer to the question is "because I think they are the objectively best choice for my party", then you should re-examine that answer more closely. In my opinion, there is little to no compelling reason to use an Archer over a fighter-type dual/multi class combination in the vast majority of setups. As for the reasons, I think they've been outlined sufficiently earlier in this thread.
In BG1, ranged weapons were the perfect foil for most spellcasters, because they could interrupt spellcasting, or inject the caster with poison that would prevent them from casting for several rounds.
In BG2, the reverse is true - spellcasters are now able to cast spells instantly or automatically (i.e: through spell triggers) and typically have defenses that give them immunity to missiles.
Ranged weapons are still usable in BG2, but your overall success will ultimately depend upon your ability to cast and dispel magic.
IMO, you'd be better off with a vanilla fighter who masters in ranged weapons, since they'll be basically just as sufficient as a ranged fighter by BG2, and also much better in melee.
Show me....I mean seriously, now, show me where in his post he asked for powergaming tips...right now....go ...
.....give up? good, cause he didn't.
Archer's are perfectly viable in the whole saga. By your logic, anything that isn't a 13 B/M dual is worthless and waste of time to level. There you go. Fact. Every class in the game that isn't a B/M is garbage, because it isn't the best.
So there ya go OP. Unless you're a 13 Berserker/Mage dual-class, just delete the game and start over, but nothing can touch a B/M in terms of sheer brokenness, without abusing blatant exploits (Blade/Skald image singing BS, as an example, which is THE flat out strongest thing in the game, and so horribly wrong I had to go puke just from typing it out).
@Sharguidesmyhand
The only spell that foils missiles only works vs non-magical, their other protections are just as effective vs melee..and you can get a +1 infinite quiver immediately out of the prelude, not to mention you'll have so many +1 arrows from drops over the course of the game you will literally not know where to put them all.
@Lord_Tansheron
Because an archer is a ranger...not a fighter. Compared to a ranger the archer is heads above better for most of the game, and it's only vs a tiny handful of enemies that another type of ranger is better and only slightly.
Lets just remove everything but fighters, mages, and fighter/mages. Hows that? $%#^ variety, the game isn't intended for powergaming, but screw that, we're going to anyway, and if that doesn't give us our jollies, we'll use cheese mods that blatantly cheat to in an attempt to make powergaming ALMOST challenging..but not quite, because the engine just can't handle it without making the fights completely unwinnable.
For the rest, who cares? If I may paraphrase, the premise was basically: "I want to play an Archer, can I do so without him becoming useless?" Any reference to other classes is thus irrelevant and off-topic.
I'd also like to add that no, you don't *need* to put pips in short bows, or at all. Within reason, you don't *need* to do anything a certain way, you can just pick whatever appeals to you most. An Archer will be perfectly fine never touching a short bow at all. The point isn't optimization, at least not for most people. As long as long bows are good enough (which they are), the fact that short bows are better is again not overwhelmingly relevant in itself.
I'm not sure how I could be misunderstood again and again after clearly and in no uncertain terms explaining my argumentative process and how it relates to powergaming vs. a more casual approach. I'm presenting arguments, not conclusions. Conclusions you have to arrive at for yourself, under consideration of the arguments presented by the discussion.
"Arguments", I say, and that means objectivity. @ZanathKariashi's depiction of events is anything but, from both sides. I can't speak as to what people find fun, nor would I presume to. That's their business. I'm not calling anything "garbage", "not worth playing", "broken", or whatever other terms he is using. I am presenting arguments as objectively as possible, and I constantly remind people of the caveats. I don't know how better to present facts rationally, without entering personal preference and opinion. After all, people aren't looking to be told what to think (at least they shouldn't be), they are looking for information with which to find out what they themselves are thinking. Shallow, misleading, and inflammatory speech is not exactly conducive to that, and ultimately helps nobody.
As far as I can see the problem isn't that you are being misunderstood, but rather that the point you are arguing is not really pertinent to the question being asked. @Battlehamster wants to kit his ranger into an archer and, as is quite clear from his posts, the worry he wants to address is whether late-game enemies might be overwhelmingly immune to ranged damage. It is a straightforward question, which in fact you already answered yourself early on: That's it, asked and answered. Sure, you can reasonably dress it up a bit more, but a treatise on optimization is clearly surpluss to requirements here.
Of course they have vulnerabilities, but you've got other party members to cover it up.
Let's try to bring things back to the original topic, eh?
My point as stated before is though,why not just take a class that has a few more tricks up it's sleeve other than just ranged.Either for RPing or Power gaming or whatever you're into.Rather than just being that guy at the back,with the bow.
RP or just wanting to have fun, not caring about the numbers, are the only reason to ever not play the above. Or using a party in general.
The point was taking any other single class.Any m/c or d/c is OP in the game.Anything with mage class added to it is virtually fucking indestructable(stoneskin/blur/mirror image/fireshield) and the game ends up a total bore.With the weapons available in BG2 any class can be effective at range especially elves or halflings.An Archer is a viable class he's just not needed.
Sure, and with the same weapons an Archer will be more effective at range than another character, at the cost of some melee prowess. With the weapons available in BG2 an Archer can also be effective in melee, just not as much as so as a Fighter, or even a regular Ranger. So what, what is your point? It can't be about necessity, since as @ZanathKariashi already pointed out that would just leave you with a solo F/M of some description.
It can hardly be about versatility either, since Assassins aren't exactly a wonder of well-roundedness either and are apparently a perfectly valid choice. And for that matter, most warrior-types are mostly about grabbing a piece of steel and whaling on the enemy from close range. An Archer is just the long range equivalent.
That however in no way implies that anyone should compromise their own, personal, SUBJECTIVE values. But since you can't guess those for everyone in the world, the best you can do is present the objective ones - not as the ultima ratio, but as a set of tools for people to use in order to find out what is best suited *FOR THEM*.
As for Archers specifically, I think @Banex summed it up well: Play it as you like, it's totally fine. There are better options, there are worse ones. For the details, refer to the plethora of posts above.
What more than this needs to be said here?
ranged locks/traps/dispel illusion/set traps/back stab-thieves
ranged backstab-stalker
ranged magic-mage-sorcerer(boomerang dagger +2)
ranged/magic-clerics/druids(slings +5)
More options to make the game more fun,single classes not too OP(Sorcerer maybe the exception there)
Oh i forgot to add archer to the list.
ranged-Archer
Catch my drift now.As i said an Archer is perfectly viable but you have a bit more under the hood taking other Single classes.Again the beauty of this game,you can play it the way you want to Powergaming or RPing(whose to say you should do this or not cheese that,it's your game experience) and again take whatever class rocks your boat but for me an archer or even a straight fighter would bore the arse off me.That's just me though doesn't mean those classes suck at all.(to stay on topic)They are perfectly viable
So no, with other single classes you don't have a bit more under the hood, you just have different things under the hood. The fact that in some classes it is spread out across more skills and abilities doesn't change that. So far you have not provided any clear argument for taking a more generalist class over a more specialist one, other than that they bore *you* (which does not constitute an actual argument).
Godlike ranged, Stealth, Debuffing, Limited Druid Spellcasting - Archer.
And to add "ranged" to bards and thieves like it is a perk is silly. They can have 1 pip with crummy Thac0 and are stuck at base APR. The fact that they can use weapons at range doesn't mean they should have a blanket statement like "Ranged" which also covers the silly ranged prowess of the Archer class.