archers are hilariously broken, I have no idea if it's a inherent flaw of pathfinder's PnP system or what
[...]
I have no practical experience with PnP PF in itself (sadly), just a lot of exposure and theoretics, but given that it's based on 3.5, I'd say it's actually the opposite. Sure, PF tried to deal with it in a variety of ways, and I'm sure all the feats are pretty much straight from the tabletop, but generally speaking, melee is superior to ranged. Of course, a lot of things that affect ranged effectiveness aren't factors in PF:K. For example, it's hilariously easy to score ranged sneak attacks in PF:K, whereas in PF/3.5, getting consistent ranged sneak attacks is something entire builds are based on. The game also largely favors nuking/focusing and pure damage-dealing, whereas positioning and the exposed nature of the ranged combatants are more of an issue on a tabletop.
It all just sorta adds up to making ranged vastly better than melee, 9 times out of 10, I guess. However, just so we're clear, let's not pretend Baldur's Gate/2 was any better on that point. I think it's just one of those things that are concept-based rather than pure numbers, and when it comes down to it, in order to stay competitive numbers-wise (which they have to in order to function as a viable choice), they end up being generally stronger because killing someone at range is simply inherently better than killing someone as they are stabbing you in the face. I know which I'd choose.
Even the "stronk womyn" stuff isn't bad like I expected going in to the game, I thought Amiri was going to be really annoying but she is clearly insecure and just overcompensating because she has daddy issues with her entire tribe. I do find Octavia pretty annoying though, and Tristian is bland although I admittedly haven't used him very much. 
