Originally Posted by GiantOctopodes
Originally Posted by The Old Soul
If you want to be an archer, you're better off being a fighter, maybe even a rogue.

Doing just straight single class comparison, as you indicated was correct, for level 10 and below (the vast majority of the game), can you please explain how and why Fighter is a better Archer, and by what margin they are better at being an archer? We'll ignore everything else a Ranger can do and just focus on the Archery, same for the Fighter (lol). What exactly, prior to level 11, makes the Fighter superior as an Archer, and how much of a benefit does it provide? I'm curious to see what your response looks like. I see claims like this all the time, but pretty much always just as blanket statements without any rationale or support, just stated as though they're unquestionably true.

If the entire reason they're better in your mind is because Fighter at 11 gets an extra attack, that's fine, and we can certainly do some comparative analysis, as I still disagree, but if that's all it is can we first agree that 11+ represents proprtionally a small part of the game experience, and that prior to level 11 Fighter does not offer substantial advantages for the Archer archetype?

As your question never was answered, here is why: For damage you need to hit, and the Battlemaster Fighter has better means to achieve hits when using Sharpshooter. Simple as that.