<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=214960.msg10573985#msg10573985">Quote from: Vekseid on October 07, 2014, 02:32:06 pm</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">You'd be using your mount to stay out of melee. However, if someone does actually reach you (through whatever walls of pain the party has setup), you can still have a big two-handed weapon to fall back on. You probably will be involved in melee at some points, for a variety of reasons.<br/><br/>Luring Challenge gives one opponent a +4 bonus to hit you (as opposed to -2 AC you apply to yourself). If other people are in the way, in order to reach you and take advantage of that they need to take a solid beating from your allies.<br/><br/>Archery starts pulling ahead of melee starting around 6th level. It's probably best to see this in play, but a character cannot both move and make a full attack, normally. Full attacks let you do a lot more damage, but if you're melee, you have to keep moving to reach your opponents (which may not always be possible), while a ranged character can try to hit almost anything they can see.<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>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?