<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=214960.msg10574116#msg10574116">Quote from: Carlissa on October 07, 2014, 03:07:55 pm</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">But if I'm going ranged, why not just be a rogue, ranger, or fighter? Wouldn't they do a better job at being an archer than a cavalier? Like, a ranger and rogue could stay out if danger using stealth or something? And wouldn't a fighter be able to dish out more damage? I mean, I'm no expert on these classes, but that's the impression I got when I read over their class descriptions...<br/><br/>Ohh, I see. So it's cruel for the opponent, not for the monk. :P<br/><br/>So then... There isn't any benefit of being a melee fighter over a ranged fighter?<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Melee is able to block people from getting to squishier people (like my character will be >_>). However, you would be doing okay at that anyway.<br/><br/>And the Luring cavalier transforms them from a stereotypical western knight into a horsebowperson. You keep your foes at a distance, taunt them and turn them into pincushions. It's not going to be any less effective, and against single targets will generally be superior.