Swordsmen take the risk of being too close for comfort if they want to attack an enemy (unless they abuse charge).
Gunners take the risk of dealing less damage over time, and for the most part, harder time controlling mobs.
And I stand by what I said. Bombs, aside from the knockback/damage ones, are not designed to kill for the most part. I'm not saying you can't kill an enemy with only bombs. It just makes it tougher, which may be fun to some. About the AoE... Why do people use Status bombs in LD? They use it to cover as much area to stop enemies from coming close to capture a point. Then, usually, they switch to another weapon, or a teammate, goes to kill that enemy. The Nitro is also somewhat popular in LD because people won't come too close to the bomber because if they attack, they know they might get caught in the giant explosion. The only bomb that wasn't for AoE was really the Shard bombs, and that's because it was more a single-hit weapon.
Just because my logic is similar to that of Three Rings does not make me a fanboy. The fact that I have a differing opinion and am free to express it is apparently "my problem".
"Bombers take a risk when they decide to only use bombs."
And what risk does sword users take using only swords? What risk does gun users take using only guns? None. They kill single targets and groups of targets just fine. They kill fast moving targets just fine (especially greavers).
"Bombs aren't designed to kill an enemy."
"AoE is the niche of bombs because they're the main weapon to do that. You can go into the whole Brandish/Alchemer debate, but that has nothing to do with this."
R.I.P., logic. Your last word on the ground started with "Fan", "boy" in the middle, and ended with "ism".