I have been out of Pathfinder now for quite some time and have some brushing up to do on the rules. In my area pretty much the only way to play a game at all is if you play Pathfinder/3.5/D&D 4e. I was interested mostly in a lot of other games but getting players and keeping them is exceedingly difficult in Columbus, Ohio.
I am interested now in possibly jumping into a Pathfinder group and thinking of either playing a Ranger or a Paladin or Fighter type.
My question is how good are these classes these days with the options and books that have been published so far and in comparison to the other classes. When the game first came out I read a lot of threads that made the claim that Wizards still ruled in the upper levels and that Clerics were overly powerful.
Hope this helps and as always, IMHO and YMMV.
If your GM works with you to pick the optimum favored enemy and favored terrain combo for the campaign, then Rangers are excellent, and can be nearly as lethal as fighters, especially if you save your buff spells for yourself....if they dont, then they are weaker but more skilled than Fighters.
Paladins in pathfinder can be butt kickers, particularly in a campaign against undead. The new smite is more usable and is a good tool for combat not merely a finishing bloow. The new channel energy ability is good for flash-frying zombies or doing a decent group heal if a group is cleric poor.
Wizards rule at mid not just high level now that they have hit points worth something. But if your gm throws lots of crunchy NPC's at you, you still use up your spells per day since they stuck with Vancian magic, and that lets you rule less.
Now that Druids can choose a domain instead of the always-annoying animal companion, as a player, I think I might choose it over cleric personally, although the cleric is still superior in terms of armor.
If you are wanting to play, a human paladin or dwarf ranger would be a good way to go. I would choose either over Fighter myself, but then I always liked skilled characters (ranger) and the ability to heal myself (paladin).
To add to Kierato's post :
Witch : A decent mix of arcane/divine, in that she get's a mix of spells, and some SoS abilities that aren't spells. She casts like a wizard, but can heal some like a bard. Basically she's got good potential as a backup healer and buffer/debuffer. And due to high-int requirements, she's got good skills.
Alchemist : A really strange mixed character, depending on your build it can be a decent melee/skill monkey, or battlefield control/skill monkey. Not the biggest damage dealer, but his bombs almost always hit and do splash damage.
Summoner : Can be extremely complicated to play, has a similar power level as a druid (action economy, powerful pet) but limited casting (like a bard). Biggest issue with this class, is to me, that it's so exception heavy that you can never be sure what rules apply to it or how they apply.
Inquisitor : A very capable combat type with some limited divine spell casting. If you wanted a divine gish type, the inquisitor is an excellent choice. They don't approach a fighter for damage, but they can dish out decent melee damage and still have some spells for backup. Better in combat than a cleric now.
Cavalier : A decent combat specialist, but heavily dependent on it's pet (mount). If you are in a lot of dungeon crawls, the cavalier is underpowered unless you do something like a halfling worg rider or something. If the game is a lot of surface world stuff, then a cavalier can be very powerful on the battlefield.
