Quote Originally Posted by Kensei View Post
The best of the two in this instance, not in general. You want SE to adjust the game based on one raid. What if the boss stayed static in one position and there was AoE all over the place except at melee range? Then Archers wouldn't get invites because they can take very little damage compared to the other classes. Would that mean that they have to give Archers the same durability as a Gladiator? Of course not. Every encounter will be easier for some, it's variety. Now it's an issue because it's the one raid. As SE adds more raids encounters will favor different approaches.
No I'm speaking in general. This dungeon is a very good example of why things need to be balanced a bit more but it will continue happening in future dungeons if things don't change. Ranged damage should not be equal to melee damage, otherwise they still have the advantage of staying out of range and not getting hit. I'm not saying they should do obnoxiously less than others but enough of a difference to be noticeable at least. Maybe 85-90% of melee damage. People would still bring them as they have little chance to die so they would be the "safe" bet in most cases. If you wanted to take a few more chances and do more damage at the cost of higher potential death then they would bring melee classes.

Yes I am one of these melee classes, Pugilist. We've gotten a strange end of the stick as we now have MP cost added to a few of our staple attacks. However I intend to take Musketeer up the minute it's available. That being said I would still be okay with less damage for the advantage of the range and whatever else they bring to the table.

Edit: Another acceptable way to tip the balance away from Archers would be to make some things much more resistant to pierce. Make those damage modifiers actually mean something noticeable.