1° D6+5 HP again, I'm bored of that many Characters with the same amount of HP. D6+6 would have been better, at least for a change.

2° Again, 6 in Defense; I would had like for an Attacking Archer at range but a defending Char at close combat, since it's a mobile/agile fighter, i.e. 7 Defense. Since there is only 1 Char: the Knight, that as that much DEF, it would make for a good change. At worst, reduce his Attack to 11, but I don't think it's a good idea.

3° Since it's not a close combat fighter, what would be the good reason to ask for 9 Strenght ? I believe 9 Intelligence sounds better for a range combat Char. And probably ask for 11 or 12 Reflexes would be better, according to the multiple skills that he got.

4° In Rapid Shooting, the distance between the 3 targets shouldn't be relevant, since you DIVIDE the Attack in 3, you should be able to shoot at them in a 180° in front of you, up to the weapon range. Close targets are mandatory only if you keep full Attack.

5° To me the Archer is a fast-moving/fighting Char, so a basic AF of 2 sounds better. At best, do like the Hunter class and add a 'Soldier' skill, to reach no more than AF 3: Ringmail/Hauberk. That will mostly differentiate the Archer from the Hunter class, which is a very good thing.

Just crossed my mind, the question I'd keep asking myself is whether this makes a good npc to play. Too many abilities at 4-6th rank just makes it troublesome. I'd much rather keep them simple until 8th rank. It wouldn't be 'overpowered' if they had other skills that benefit other aspects of the game such as overland travel or some kind of rural ability.

At the back of my mind, there is a role where the archers can fire from a hidden position and not be spotted. The stealth rules don't cover this but imagine getting shot up from a concealed area and only being able to guess the direction of the arrows? You know, like something out of robin hood?

Something along those lines.....

I fear the days of simple professions are behind us. I'm not sure how you could do it now and still make the profession distinct.

This could work. What does everybody else think?

I don't see it this way I'm afraid. I'm not aware of any historical evidence for archers to be particularly good in defence. If anything, I could see an argument being made the other way.

I'm a bit torn on this one. I selected the penalty we see because historically archers quite commonly wore armour, and it didn't seem to impact their archery. Your suggestion is a good one I think; it would perhaps offset the overpoweredness of the Archer that Dreadnought and Kharille have commented on.

An archer that's sacrificed skill with other weapons to be good with a bow isn't going to be practised at melee defence. I'd be tempted to give the Archer a much poorer defence than the other fighting professions to represent this lack of skill in this area.