I intend to play a pure stealth archer.

Now am I required to switch weapons in combat ? I mean are melee weapons more suited for melee combat and I need to switch to melee weapons when an enemy is in my face or is the bow doing the job fine even in melee ? I'm not sure I would like needing to switch, I wanna play an archer, not an archer-melee-wizard-healer jack of all trades master of none.

Well for an archer it makes sense to switch between a bow and a sword/knife once the enemy gets close.

I dont think you MUST switch tho, and i think you can use two bows to have two skill bars while unly using one weapon type.

well, it is problably not exactly the smartest thing to use a long-range weapon in melee combat, but you CAN have 2 bows as your 2 weapons, or just dual-wield weapons like most rangers/assassin do in close-combat.

Well as an archer I'm supposed to kite melee not smack them with the bow or weapons, as I'm not nearly as effective with melee weapons as an actual melee fighter, so it's pointless to stick to melee and try to outdps him. So why would an archer ever use melee weaps ?

Because there is nothing in this game that says that an archer isn't as proficient in melee as they are with a bow.

because there is nothing saying you ARE weak with melee weapons, and actually, TES has always had archery classes be good in melee for that EXACT purpose.

While it might be pointless to stick with melee, its going to be effective to weaken an enemy with your bow and - once he got close - finish him with a dagger stab instead of kiting a half dead enemy.

I dont think the change is going to be automatic. Probably a button required at least so you can kite if you want. Remember though many mobs are faster running forwards than you are running backwards

1st group of quickbuttons : bow / ranged

2nd group of quickbuttons : regen talents / heal / CC / speed buffs - (to get HP to 100% and keep enemy at bay, then back to 1st group).

Are you sure you're not just drawing false conclusions from some other game? Personally I would think that if I was "good with a bow" my target would almost be dead by the time it gets close. So the Melee part would only be a "finisher".

But you are right about one thing... You only get "really good" with a weapon by using it. So to be really good with Melee weapons you would have to "put your Bow away" and use something else. The Flip side is that if you insist on Only using a Bow. By the time you hit 50. You're comparative skill, with any other weapon, won't be very good.

_________________________________

I think I understand part of how you feel. One of my planned characters will be a Bosmer Nightblade. And I wanted his Primary Weapon to be the Bow, for RP reasons. But I suspect its going to take some adjustment on my part to develop my Dual Wield skill so I don't have to "kite". Despite the fact that the Nightblade skill lines do have a few skills that would very handy for Kiting. Still that's all down to personal preference.

If melee skill levels affect damage, then melee will always be weaker than the bow.

Or more powerful, if the archer uses melee weapons more than their bow.

Generally, it's a good idea to have a melee weapon as a back up in case the enemy gets too close. Fortunately, there are bow skills that can keep enemies at bay for a bit longer.

And that's exactly how it should be. If an archer switches weapons very often, then he will develope melee skills that are as weak as ranged ones. Jack of all trades just doesn't work here. You either focus on bow and became able to deliver powerful ranged damage, or you focus on the melee part and your ranged performance will suffer. Focusing equally on both weapons will just make you a weak jack of all trades that can't stand toe to toe with a warrior nor is able to outdps an enemy ranger.

I can understand the melee weapons to finish a wounded opponent but what if a melee gets the jump on you ?! Trying to go toe to toe is a mistake as he has much higher melee weapon skills and will outdamage you if you intend to stick to melee, which means you must cc and kite.

Just to be clear, the idea of "kiting" is an invention of gaming. If you're trying to "roleplay" an archer (I put it in quotations, because being an archer isn't exactly a character type), then what sounds more realistic: Having a basic proficiency with melee weapons for when enemies get too close? Or jumping around and running backwards like a cartoon character to make sure you stay out of range?

Your idea of the rp ranger leads to an early grave. There is no reason a light armored archer should be able to defeat a heavily armored warrior with a 2hander or shield who trained to fight in melee.

In the real wars, the most effective tactic against enemy archers in the open field was to rush them with the cavalry and the line was broken when the cavalry dug into them.

In close quarters combat, the archers were easily countered by soldiers with shields who could get near.

Archers were NEVER meant to fight melee opponents and always shot arrows from behind enemy lines, while being relocated once the enemy army was too close to the friendly melee lines and the archers risked hitting their own allies.

that is simply not true actually. Pure "archers" do not actually exist, almost all archery based classes n most games have SOME melee capability if they are able to equip more than 1 type of weapon. Rangers are masters of both, Assassins, are as well, etc. a good example is DDO, if you only use bows, you will be kicked from the group as there are MANY times, in melee situations where you cannot move around very much, that bows are useless and using melee is just simply better.

I would imagine that they have archery-specific abilities that would help an archer forced into melee. As a "for example", there is an ability in Guild Wars 2 (I think with the rifle or shotgun, though) that knocks your foe back away from you and knocks YOU back in the opposite direction ---- looks amusing but ends up giving you a nice bit of distance from the melee attacker. ESO might have some similar "get away from me!" ability to handle melee attackers.

Whether there should be or not, I don't know if there is any real distinction between fighting in melee with a bow or a melee weapon. That is, there are some games (I dimly recall) where you would actually take MORE damage from melee attacks if you were using a ranged weapon. Maybe it was SWG, back in the day, when my gigantic sniper rifle actually made me take massive damage from melee attackers.... or maybe it was because I was prone and they were in melee range? Anyway, I am not sure that using ranged attacks in melee is necessarily any worse than using melee attacks.

In "real wars", you had large armies with different unit types, and archers were not heroes who went out adventuring on their own time. If you'd like to create a character who mimics a conscripted archer from the Middle Ages, be my guest. Just don't be surprised if you look silly when you have to spend your entire day backpedaling.