You can't dodge or parry a ranged attack, though if you're carrying a shield, there's a 15%-90% chance that missile fire will just impact on the shield depending on size and whether you're crouched behind it. With only one shot per round, an archer may as well aim and gain an extra bonus - and his chance to hit is doubled if a target is within the archer's DEX score in feet (so potentially up to 21' away). Given that you can allocate a lot of your 250 starting percentile points to a weapon skill if it's part of your profession, an archer might easily begin play with a 60-80% chance of hitting targets that can't dodge or parry - and if he was really savvy or combat was in really close quarters he'd have an even more certain chance of hitting. An archer might average something like a 4-7 hp damage per round in a game where the average armored (but not shielded) foe has 4 hp in armor and 10-12 hp total.
Sounds really good, right? But you can't fire a bow and move on foot in the same round. You obviously can't get more than the one attack while the melee combatants get potentially up to 4 attacks within a round, and your bow is useless if a foe closes with you (this is likely). The average bows do a little less damage than a rapier and the really good bows do a little less damage than a broadsword. The melee guys have less chance of hitting on average because their opponents can dodge or parry, but they get more attacks which generally do more damage if they land.
My question is, do these seem like fair archery rules, balanced nicely with the sheer might a melee combatant can bring to bear - and generally making it so that one guy in the party gets to be the archer, but he will need to have a melee type around to be effective? My gut feeling is that these are fair, but the rules are on the complex side and I'm not entirely sure. What do people think?