|
Ever since I began making Captain America for pathfinder, I realized how great the dearth of information on the ranger class was. I tried looking for builds, guides, advice, and thoughts but found almost exclusively limited and dated information. So I did the legwork on my own, all the while feeling sad about the ranger who seems to never be compared to and scarecly mentioned except as an afterthought when people talk about paladins smiting evil, rangers vs favored enemies and fighters dealing more damage in general.
Ranger was a class that was heavily played in 3.0 and 3.5 (along with halfling rogues), thanks to the lord of the rings trilogy. At the time and for many years after I felt that were I to see another ranger or halfling or rogue it would be far too soon. And here we are when it is not too soon.
My friend and I were discussing pathfinder over iMessage when he said something along the lines of fighters being one of the most versatile classes in pathfinder. Now, I know he meant more in the way of actual fighting and he's correct in some ways. They are extremely flexible and foregiving. You simply have so many feats available that you can dig deeply into !multiple combat trees, complete them, take some random tests, grab some utility feats, and still have room for 'necessary' feats (power attack) while being able to consider another feat tree to master...
But I rose to the defense of the other martials and stated that the paladin is a stout defender, built to survive grueling combats, support a party with status removal and healing, able to bring powerful weaponry or a decent mount to the field all while annihilating any evil that dare show itself.
I argued that the ranger was skillful, and excellent at hunting down a target and preparing for a kill. Against a single or very small group of enemies, the ranger seemed primed to be a phenominal combatant through the combination of favored terrains, favored enemy, few but extremely versatile and potent spells, a hardy animal companion and bonus feats that come with early access that is extremely significant. They can navigate and fight and hunt.
I ignored barbarians.
This lead me to really think about these martial classes. I also said so!e raw things related to other classes like a human brawler and human fighter but I digress. I realized that a paladin probably is the worst combatant of the group, with fewer combat feats and only one primary offensive tool- smite. Still, they endure more readily due to healing and saves and a possible mount or super weapon. They also bring more to a party in utility. The ranger, I felt may not always fight as well as the fighter (depending on level) but brings more than he ever could. Clearly superior to the paladin in terms of raw combat ability, the ranger seemed to stand tall but in more subtle ways that required a bit more work and forethought, ranging from spell selection and access to favored enemy and terrain and quary and evasion as well as the animal. Fighters struck me as having advantages overall in combat via better ac and sometimes mobility combined with consistent combat output versus anything without any preparation. They have plenty of tricks and are going to be good at all of them, and their advantage is that they are effective more often and against any number of foes. In this regard I felt that the ranger was the more versatile of all the corr martial concepts and on a per fight basis, was as capable as any other at it's best (smiting, raging, etc). However, I felt that the fighter performed better in combat over time as rangers are restricted by specific choices and limited resources (in terms of my claim that they can equate to the best of martials doing their best).
All that said, I wanted to hear the communities thoughts on the class dynamic between these martials. Is my analysis off? Do the numbers reveal something else? Yes, ragelancepounce barbarians exist who eat magic. Where does a fighter or ranger kick in during a random encounter in a random environment? What is the real difference in combat ability and what do these classes actually bring, functionally, to a table?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to give my opinion of Fighters here, as out of the three (Ranger/Fighter/Paladin), I have the most experience with them. Out of them and Barbs, Barbs are more my effort of expertise, but I digress.
Fighters are built on a lie, and that lie is versatility. I suppose it's better to say there's two types of versatility that's worth talking about; versatility in build concept and versatility in play.
Fighters have great versatility in this first respect, you can build them HOWEVER you want as long as it's a martial concept, it's what makes them special and is the draw that a lot of people have for them. They're the blank slate, you can give them whatever flavor you want, or whatever reason you have for picking them.
This in turn leads to their greatest weakness, versatility in play. Once you have your feats picked, Fighters stop being versatile. They do, there's no arguing this. Most of your feats will be placed in one part of the class or another, generally ranged or melee, but this can also include combat maneuvers or other such fields.
The biggest problem with Fighters however is the game doesn't reward 'last all day' classes. There's a very set model of encounters for how long your abilities should last, which is generally 3-5 per day. While the Fighter can go all day, they really don't need to when other classes have unique abilities that last them through this work day, with the problem only getting bigger with shorter encounter days.
The Fighter's class features in Pathfinder are also almost against the fluff of the class, in that Weapon Training makes you better with 1 weapon while the Fighter's thing is that it's good with all weapons, Armor Training at times doesn't even provide a benefit without a stat tax (in the form of improved max dex penalty), which again doesn't really fit the 'Heavy Armor' style that some Fighters shoot for in creation.
Feat chains are another problem, in that most of them have an end, especially THF (which is a boon for switch hitters.) This is especially bad for Combat Maneuver Fighters, since eventually they can't really make their maneuver of choice much better after 6th level (some feats can, but some styles don't have any feats that makes them any better), meaning that they just have to pick up a new feat tree. The problem with this?
Let's say a Fighter at 7th level has Improved/Greater Trip. At 8th they pick up Improved Dirty Trick and at 9th they pick up Greater Dirty Trick. The problem here is that these aren't scaling abilities, they're just old tricks that the Fighter could have had before. Most talents and such are good at scaling, especially spells, and for some reason don't have prereqs (really should need to know Burning Hands before getting Scorching Ray before getting Fireball). It gets worse at 10th level when they pick up Improved Disarm, something that's expected of a 2nd-4th level character, meaning they just don't get great scaling abilities.
Ranged gets past this for the most part since you can always fire a bow better, but then locks a character into a singular style, which seems against the Fighter's concept.
And while you can take 'utility feats', most are bandages for a lack of pure class options, such as Iron Will (Improved), since there's really not a lot of feats that actually give you some good versatility without building on class features.
I wouldn't even consider the Fighter the best at feats, since both Monks and Rangers are able to skip prereqs for feats from several different list (especially if archetypes are included in the case of the monk.) Fighters can't, they just...have to take all the garbage on the way to their good feats (*COUGH*COMBAT EXPERTISE*COUGH*)
To me, the only Fighter that actually makes a reliable and versatile combat participant is the Martial Master+Lore Warden, which aside from losing Medium and Heavy armor is literally what the Fighter should have been all along and shows a great deal more versatility in play and in concept.
This went on a lot longer than I expected, and that's just a part of my opinions on the Fighter. I guess I really want to see martial characters made better than the baseline Fighter.
Ranger and Paladin are leagues above Fighters in most respects aside from raw damage, and better in certain situations, although as I'm sure everyone's aware, the game's about more than just damage.
Nobody mentioned Cavalier/Samurai yet?
Some interesting takes here.
Like most I find the fighter great for bending into the shape you want for a combat class, but a pain once you do because it's then stuck there in that shape. The fighter has two big weaknesses: lack of out-of-combat versatility, and poor saves. You can take a few steps toward fixing these problems with feats, but they are real problems. The biggest problem with the fighter is that like the rogue, other classes can do the fighter's job of hit things and get hit back and do more besides. However it has to be conceded that the fighter's ability to hit any target outweighs that of other classes in most circumstances.
The barbarian is equally tough, having extra hit points to make up for poorer armour, and equally mobile if not more so. A barbarian can easily match the fighter for damage and much in-combat versatility, although he is likely to use brute damage over any other tricks. Out of combat, barbarians have more useful skills and more of them. With superstitious they even get better saves. If you don't want a sophisticated warrior, the barbarian is an easy choice.
The paladin arguably brings more to the party than any other martial. The bring buffs (their auras), healing, better (as in more usable) skills (though skills are definitely not their strong-point), spells, and when the going gets tough, smite. They may not get many smites, but when they play them it's basically an "I win" card. A non-smiting paladin is like a ranger not fighting his favoured enemy - lacklustre, compared to the fighter and barbarian, but smiting he excels everyone.
The ranger I've always looked on as the weakest in up-front combat of all the martial classes save the monk. Unless they are fighting their favoured enemies, they get no bonus to hit and damage as the other martial classes do (although a paladin fighting a non-evil foe is in the same boat, but evil foes are more common than specific ones). However some of their spells allow them to confer this advantage to themselves fighting other enemies. They do get some bonus feats for their fighting style, making them good at one combat option (rather than many as the fighter is capable of), and they have an animal companion which gives them extra actions. What the ranger gets in spades are skills and non-combat versatility - favoured terrains, tracking, spells, and other archetypes have other abilities. In his element, the ranger is the party's best friend. Most rangers I have seen in play take the archery option and the role of "support fighter" to the party while another martial plays tank.
The monk is the weakest of the combat classes, so much so that some argue it isn't a combat class at all; the problem with that stance is that the monk most certainly isn't anything else either. Monks have some neat abilities, but they aren't a patch on spell-casters; they have a some useful skills, but they don't get many of them; they get a good fighting style, but they get no boost to hit or damage situational or otherwise that other martial classes get - and their MADness, poor enhancement options, lack of full BAB, and poor weapons add up to make them the weakest at actual combat. While they can get some maneuver feats for free they aren't good at them - they just don't suck at them. It's possible to make an OK monk (they can, for example, have excellent AC, and his saves are second only to the paladin's), but it's very hard to make a monk that can both do their role and not so poorly that another class couldn't do it better.
The Other Martials:
The cavalier is a less holier version of the paladin; his challenge is useful but gains him no bonus to hit (the only martial to lack one completely, save the monk). He has some more useful skills as being officially a member of the nobility, and an animal companion from first level is not to be sneezed at. He effectively gets one combat style, and while he's good at it, it's not really a universally useful one.
The gunslinger is what happens when you want forearms in a non-firearms setting and not have them totally dominate or be totally useless. I don't like guns in my fantasy, so I haven't gone into them in any depth.
The brawler...well, what can I say? You can already build an unarmed fighter archetype that can out-fight a monk, so the only point of this class seems to be to say to monk-players: "hey, here's a real dedicated unarmed fighting class - just to rub your nose in the fact you suck."
The swashbuckler is something that's been demanded for a while, a non-strength oriented option for being a fighter. From the look of it, it will still be demanded for some time to come because the swashbuckler rather falls short and locks in the player to one particular interpretation of the concept.
The slayer is...well...look you could already do this with rangers and rogues. I just don't get why this class was even invented. I'm not saying it's bad, it just seems hyper-specialised in a way that doesn't seem to be demanded.
The semi-casters:
I include these because they are designed to be in the thick of it, like the full-BAB martials, but are 3/4 BAB with 2/3 casting. The magus, warpriest, and inquisitor all are classes that have to fight, and have particular advantages to enable them to do so in a paqr with the full martials - including spell-buffs, of course. What they also have is massive versatility thanks to spells and skills over that of the martials. What they lack is the ever-readiness of said martials. It's an interesting trade-off.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cavalier is a less holier version of the paladin; his challenge is useful but gains him no bonus to hit (the only martial to lack one completely, save the monk). He has some more useful skills as being officially a member of the nobility, and an animal companion from first level is not to be sneezed at. He effectively gets one combat style, and while he's good at it, it's not really a universally useful one.
Eh, he can do other combat styles if he likes. And several Orders provide bonuses to hit on a Challenge. Heck, Order of the dragon provides it to the whole party.
The brawler...well, what can I say? You can already build an unarmed fighter archetype that can out-fight a monk, so the only point of this class seems to be to say to monk-players: "hey, here's a real dedicated unarmed fighting class - just to rub your nose in the fact you suck."
They are coming out with a new version of the Monk soon...Brawler's also got a very different them from Monk that many people were demanding.
The slayer is...well...look you could already do this with rangers and rogues. I just don't get why this class was even invented. I'm not saying it's bad, it just seems hyper-specialised in a way that doesn't seem to be demanded.
Uh...what? People's demand for a good spell-less Ranger and/or a Rogue that's actually good at combat have been ongoing for a really long time. Slayer does both.
Also, Slayer is usable to build literally any mundane character concept that doesn't involve Heavy Armor or an Animal Companion. It's a fix to Fighter and Rogue in one sublime package...and that makes a lot of people pretty happy.
My brief summary of all the martial classes coming up next.
|
Let's start with the classics and work our way down.
Fighters are just sad. They get extra feats, but no way to ignore prerequisites. Other classes get less extra feats but ignore prerequisites, and the end result is the same. Except those other classes also get more class features. The pernicious thing about fighters is that if you want some odd fighting style, a few levels of fighter will get you there faster, but in the long run you lose out on actual neat class features. The Lore Warden is a notable exception, but almost feels like a different class.
Barbarians do pretty much everything the fighter does, and more. Yeah, they can't get Weapon Specialization, but Rage makes up for that. Yeah, they don't get Armor Training to move around in armor, but Fast Movement and some mithral breastplate fixes that nicely. Massive concentrated damage is THE answer to some of the major defense mechanisms (DR, hardness), and barbarians are great at it. Rage powers give you some odd tricks, particularly Superstition (better saves than a Fighter!), Spell Sunder (deal with magic) and Beast Totem (compete with archers for full attack opportunities). Barbarians also get more skills than fighters, and a better set of class skills.
Rangers are a moderately powerful and very flexible class. It should be possible to make a good guess what Favored Enemy to take to get regular use out of it. In PFS, picking Humans, Evil Outsiders and Constructs is pretty solid. Your fighting style puts you almost on par with fighters with regards to feats and options in combat. Since Inner Sea Combat introduced Faithful Combat there are more fighting styles than you can shake a stick at. But in addition to all that, rangers get a very generous helping of class skills and skill points. With maybe a few traits, you can easily be any kind of skill monkey you like. Rangers are only a little behind other full martial classes in raw power (or sharing the top spot, in archery), but they're among the most versatile outside combat.
Paladins are basically Easy Mode. Particularly good saves, various immunities, and the ability to say "screw your special defenses, I'm coming for you". Pick up an adamantine weapon and even neutral monsters present little obstacle, but you might be able to Diplomacize most of them into friendliness anyway. Paladins don't get a lot of feats but then they don't really need them. Pick up Power Attack and maybe Fey Foundling, and you have everything that you absolutely need. The rest is just gravy.
Monks - core monks are meh of course, but the Zen Archer is a different story. That's a tank/machine gun combo. I think the Tetori is also strong, because being grappled will wreck so many enemies' tactics. Apart from that, I think monks are more profitable as a dip than as a straight class.
On to the newer stuff...
Cavaliers are a triumph or fail proposition. If you can pull off mounted combat in your campaign, they're good. But in I dunno, 80% of the campaigns that's not gonna work, and then the cavalier is an exercise in frustration. Smaller cavaliers have better odds, but I think at best you're breaking even with reliable classes like barbarians. Out of combat the cavalier is so-so; your Order gives the potential for some funky class skills, so you can go in several directions here. But you're not spectacularly good at any.
Gunslingers are basically in a straightjacket as builds go, for the first five levels or so. Sad but true. Out of combat, you have some decent class skills, but it's not perfect. For a class with some emphasis on Wisdom, you weirdly lack Sense Motive. For a Dex-driven class with Sleight of Hand, where is Stealth? For a class with Survival, where is Knowledge Nature?
And the newest stuff...
Slayers are, I think, an excellent new addition. You can keep up with fighters by using rogue talents and ranger styles to pick up combat feats as fast as any fighter can (and skipping some absurd prerequisites). But you also have a second good saving throw, and many more skill points and a better list of class skills. I think a slayer is basically what you get when you add the nice parts of the fighter and the rogue.
Swashbuckler I don't like this class. It feels like it's doing all the thinking for you; don't pick any abilities, you just get deeds. Don't think about weapons, there's a few that are so much better than the others that it's pointless. And in the end you're really a very narrow kind of character.
Bloodrager Now we're talking. This is the barbarian's outrageous brother. In some ways, maybe a tad weaker; more MAD, worse HD (by only a little). But some of the bloodline powers are amazing. They've got a few really good spells, including flying by their own power rather than being dependent on a caster in the party. They're not super-skilled, but since they're not dumping Charisma and still get more skills than a fighter, they can do a few things.
|
|
So, my own summary of the Martial Classes is here:
Fighter: As others have noted, Fighter can be used to build any concept you like...as long as that concept involves hyper focus on a particular weapon, no out-of-combat skills, and terrible Saves. There are several Archetypes that make one or both of the first two problems a bit better, but none that help the third, and all tend to be pretty specific.
Paladin: Awesome defenses. Really, probably the best in the game with high AC, self-healing, and ridiculous saves. Solid offense that ups to absurd when Smiting. Good skill list despite the crappy number of skill points.
Ranger: A bit weak offensively sans Favored Enemy but the second best of these Classes in terms of out-of-combat utility, and better offenses than a Fighter when their Favored Enemy does apply...which is potentially a whole lot of the time at 10th level plus due to Instant Enemy. So...at that point they become better in bursts but worse the rest of the time, much lie a Paladin in some ways. Defensively, actually pretty decent with fairly good Saves and decent, if not stellar, AC.
Barbarian: Ridiculous offense. No, seriously, ridiculous. Very solid defenses via Invulnerable Rager and Superstition, too, and potentially a lot of in-combat utility via Rage Powers if you set it up right. Adequate out of combat utility, but no more.
Monk: Good saves, mediocre AC at best, mediocre out-of combat utility. Offense, by default, is pretty bad...but with the right Archetypes and Feats you can ramp it up to the level of the more respected martial classes, or even beyond, and Qinggong can really help with AC and utility (especially in-combat utility).
Cavalier: Very good burst damage via Challenge and their Animal Companion. Mediocre out-of-combat stuff with skills, decent combat buffs via Teamwork Feats. Pretty solid AC but bad Saves (though not truly abysmal). Certain Orders can help a lot with some of these issues, though.
Gunslinger: Very good offense in its own way, probably on par with the Barbarian (better if really abusing the system, but don't do that). Decent defenses, though nothing compared to something like Paladin or Barbarian. Decent skill points but nothing special outside of combat.
Bloodrager: Much like Barbarian in many ways. Better utility via Bloodlines, and especially spells, but weaker defenses than a Superstition/Invulnerable Rager build (though Destined Bloodline does get some pretty good defenses in its own right).
Brawler: Solid offense if built properly, decent defenses, mediocre out-of-combat utility, and by far the most in-combat utility of any non-caster in the game. Sapping in combat feats at will is amazing, and provides for a lot of really cool combinations and advantages.
Slayer: Consistent, excellent, offense via Studied Target plus burst-y damage with Sneak Attack, plus being the best skill character on this list. Decent Saves, too. The only real weakness is AC, and with decent Dex even that's not a problem. Gets almost as many Feats as a Fighter over the first 10-12 levels, too.
Swashbuckler: Swashbuckler is a very solid damage dealer with good defenses, especially against melee attacks, and mediocre out-of-combat and in-combat utility. All hamstrung by some really terrible saves inadequately patched with Charmed Life.
Can't really talk about the other martial classes, but they seem to all have something better than the Fighter:
The Fighter just seems to be the regular weapon master without a single way to make it stand out from the rest. The other classes have at least some specialities in terms of weapon proficiencies or combat style, but the Fighter just seems lost in all that.
That might sound really awkward, but the Fighter could benefit from maneuvers, IN ADDITION OF his class features. It lacks a special power that would make a decent tool for roleplaying... or be an actual menace.
I'm having trouble making a BBEG with a fighter, because the other classes give me so much more to work with. Aside from having a really menacing gladiator, like the War Duke from D&D, I get nothing else.
Paladin: as said before, the tankiest one. Great save, self healing, many immunities help for the lack of damage outside of the smite. One down side that I didn't see in the previous message: a limited RP. You can't do what you want as a paladin, and it can make some situation quite difficult (Negociating with a devil to get throught? What a joke!)
Barbarian: probably the strongest one, if you get the good build. It get rage power for every situation, will do huge damage, is quite tanky... The only flaw is that, at low level, he don't get enough rage power to be really everywhere.
Monk: here I must disagree with some. When you build a monk, you must choose to go for divine level of AC or minimal damage. The Monk is not a damage dealer, even when you try your best to make one. But if you want a tank, he is quite awesome. And don't forget the ''RP'' factor: the monk will keep it's ''jaws'' even in situation without armor and weapon, be it in jail or in a dance hall.
Fighter: sure, the lackluster one. In fight he is quite good, but not enough better than the other to forget it's lack outside of it. For the save, unless you play a dwarf, your gonna get a bad time (dwarf fighter can get really great save). But, fighter are still usefull form mutliclassing point. They don't have limitation like the other class, and let you get many feat quite fast.
For the other, all has beed said I think.
Part of the problem about martials is not their design but how combat in pathfinder is designed.
You either full attack things as a martial or ýou suck (or are less than hald as useful as others).
You can't build for anything else or you'll be setting yourself behind. When was the last time you saw a martial moving and hitting once as a viable combat tactic? (instead of full attacking when both were possible). It's the system, not the classes.
This has a simple solution through feats and archetypes to give more options (shot on the run, vital strike, fighting defensively, combat maneuvers..) that they just don't write, leaving them as always sub or options.
|
|
Offense:
Fighter
From what I can tell, the fighter has a built in +4 to hit and damage against everything at high level. If you get weapon specialization, they have an additional +5 to hit and +6 to damage. Offensively, that's pretty nice. Armor training increases mobility which is important while weapon mastery is pretty nice when you crit as you auto confirm threats and get an additional multiplier.
Cavalier
The cavalier charging annihilates his target in a single hit or does half to 2/3 the bosses health on that hit. The banner provides +4 to charges, the cavaliers charge feature increases the charging to hit bonus from +2 to +4 when mounted while removing the ac penalty. If the cavalier is medium and facing another medium foe when mounted he has an additional +1 for high ground. At level 11 mighty charge is free improved critical for their weapon and allows a free bullrush, disarm, trip, or sunder that doesn't provoke so long as the charge hits....and it will hit on anything but 1 and the combat maneuever will succeed on anything but a 1.
Demanding challenge makes everyone else in the group finish off the charged target who is now almost dead by lowering its ac. Factor in the teamwork feats selected intelligently, a good order a few bonus feats and the challenge which adds at least as much damage as a paladins smite (but doesn't give an unneeded bonus to hit which is acquired via charging, doesn't ignore Dr but applies to everything) and you have a very mobile, very high damage dealing machine who deals triple or quadruple damage, or possibly more.
Barbarian
The barbarian has rage which eventually reaches +8 to str if memory serves. Assuming the barbarian is using a two-handed weapon this means they have a +4 to hit and +6 to damage against everything.
Fast movement is not to be underestimated. Mobility is very important and an additional 10 feet matters. This is effectively a weaker armor training but situationally better.
Rage powers can add more damage or attacks or two not depending on what is being faced but so can extra feats. The advantage rage powers have over feats is that they offer a wider variety of options than most combat feats do, such as energy resistance, the ability to fly, etc.
Paladin
Smite is the big ticket. Regardless of the enemies alignment you ignore their Dr. If evil, you add charisma to hit and paladin level to damage. If it is certain kinds of strong evil, you add double this amount to the first attack.
Channel energy can be used to nuke undead or heal. Versatile.
If needed, Lay on Hands can be used for similar purposes.
Divine bond, though almost intentionally ignored by every pfs paladin I have ever seen, is pretty potent, boosting damage substantially no matter which version you take. The bonuses increase every three levels after fifth making it relevant early enough to cover some does gaps when not facing evil to smite.
Holy champion is a combat ender (as if smite evil wasn't) but the max healing from channels and lay on hands turns them into more potent offensive tools should they ever be needed at that point.
Aura of justice is just stupid and makes encounters vs evil near pointless.
Paladin spells are not bad. Most are defensive or status removal or deal with outsiders, so in the latter regard, more useful than ranger magics. However, offensively the spells are limited to mostly those as!e things, although they do have a few low level clerical spells for raw generic buffs to damage or accuracy. The list is solid and has it's place in general and in particular during high level play.
Ranger
Favored enemy is often the go-to for ranger offensive arguments. You get five of these over twenty levels, the bonus starts at +2 and each interval increases any other single favored enemy by 2. So that's an additional +8 divided as you desire in +2 increments between up to five types of enemies. If applied to a single favored enemy you can have a +10 to hit and damage. However, since the bonus applies to several skills as well, some of which have combat applications, the value is actually greater from a pure combat perspective and it is very flexible. Moreover, favored enemy has no limitation on use per day, however, the bonus is purely circumstantial and becomes less so as you level.
Favored terrain is an under looked feature with very real combat applications. The bonus to initiative is pretty valuable as initiative can determine so much about a combat. Since it applies to perception as well, the combination can allow a ranger to be ready during a surprise round, preparing for what he is facing where others would be less likely. You get four of these and the bonus starts at +2 and at each new one gained you increase the bonus of any other you have by 2. That's up to a +8 initiative and perception and such. Even a +4 is the equivelent of improved initiative. You could effectively have this feat in three different terrains. Between this and favored enemy, you should almost always have some significant advantage.
Bonus combat feats only get a mention because the ranger gets several and at levels 1-10 the early access can put them well ahead of many other martials in terms of raw feat power. This increases survivability (I am assuming) and threrefor is a very attractive class feature.
Hunters bond is solid if you select an animal companion. The other option is rather costly and doesn't last very long but it's there and it adds up.
Spells are pretty awesome for a ranger. They are straight utility, dps or mobility buffs for him and his animal. A few interact with other class features improving flexibility and magnifying what they can already do.
Quarry, camouflage, and hide in plain sight all have uses in combat, albeit they are either situational or require specific tactics to employ, but ambushes are very real whether your group bothers to use them or not. Improved quarry is silly as you can select another after ten minutes and receive a +4 instead of a +2 on attack roles.
Master hunter seems like overkill.
Monk
Lol. Too many abilities.
But 2d10 unarmed damage, stupid amounts of mobility, quivering palm, and 8-9 attacks per round allow for consistent damage, though usually not as high as others as the class receives no accuracy or damage boosters and no real ways to debuffs and penalize opponents. Moreover, not having a feasible way to improve unarmed strike damage or accuracy via weapons does reduce their damage potential in general. However, developers have gone on the record to state that monks are not an offensive martial class but a defensive one, so this is really moot. People argue that paladins have the best saves and I disagree. I say monks do more often. What they lack is swift action healing but wholeness of body is a slow and minor way to heal up at a high cost. Their host of other defensive powers are awesome but yes, they lose in the DPR race. I should also point out that the comment about monk ac being poor is not correct. They can have the highest ac in the game or at bare minimum compete for it. I think monks have been proven to reach the ac limits available (though I think other classes can probably do it as well).
Conclusion:
I feel that offensively the fighter and barbarian and cavalier win, in general. They have generic tools for hitting and dealing damage and built in additional mobility that makes them pretty straightforward. You take feats and hit harder. You take rage powers and do more damage or reach otherwise inaccessible targets. The cavalier seems to not be appreciated for what they bring to a 'real' game. For one they have a mount which can fit in some dungeons and do what most peoples animal companions do. All the things people want from an animal companion are applicable to the mount. They want it bigger, stronger, etc. The cavalier doesn't have to be mounted to contribute with a secondary beat stick. Moreover, tactician allows for more synergistic options than normal and applies to the whole party usually. The challenge feature relies more heavily on a charge when considering accuracy but otherwise it's a more versatile and mildly less effective smite. And when not restricted to small dungeons and such, the cavalier is more free to roam and explode on any given target. The mount isn't nearly as much of a hindrance or as limited as people seem to say it is. All that said, I find the barbarian is the most flexible of the three due to the coolness and variety of the rage powers.
The paladin seems to come in a close second due to the theory that most enemies faced will be evil (and he needs them to be evil/undead for his DPs to be really noticeable). Aside from facing against evil and undead, they really don't bring any offense outside of their mount or enchanted sword. The mount is not to be disregarded, despite this. It just doesn't seem to be a deal breaker here.
The ranger requires a different sort of game play entirely to make it contend offensively but it can if you actually use it. Offense isn't mostly about DPs, it's just frequently about it. Rangers seem to be able to take advantage of many more offensive options than simply hitting often and hitting hard. They do have raw damage output but to do it reliably requires favorable campaign settings (and favored enemy/terrain choices) as well as the likely use of limited resources.
Monks make the best mobile tanks and are great anti-caster silver bullets (barbarians can be anti-caster, too).
Overall, I feel that a ranger and paladin or ranger and cavalier are the more ideal martial classes to bring to a table for sheer versatility and options in and out of combat while still maintaining a lot of DPs in key situations. If I had to add a third martial to the mix I would then go monk and my fourth team member would be a cleric or wizard (prefer cleric here if no paladin and sorceror or wizard otherwise).
Fighters may seem versatile, but before archetypes, you are called to go one of two ways with a fighter; TWF or switch hitting. Armor training requires decent dex to work and either twf or switch hitting is very feat intensive.
Now, as a fighter, I really like to run around and smack things with reckless abandon like any resource-less class would. But at high levels I find many enemies will just negate the ability to get into melee, so my idea for a fighter is to go from pure melee brute to switch hitter.
1 |Toughness, Intimidating Prowess, Combat Reflexes
2 |Bravery, Power Attack
3 |Armor training, Cleave
4 |Great Cleave, +1 Strength
5 |Weapon training(Blades, Heavy), Blind-Fight
6 |Bravery, Lunge
7 |Armor training, Iron Will
8 |Quick Draw, +1 Strength
9 |Weapon training(Bows), Deadly Aim
10|Bravery, Weapon Focus(longbow)
11|Armor training, Greater Weapon Focus(longbow)
12|Point-Blank Shot, +1 Dexterity
13|Weapon training(Spears), Rapid Shot
14|Bravery, Manyshot
15|Armor training, Precise Shot
16|Improved Precise Shot, +1 Dexterity
17|Weapon training(Close), Pinpoint Targeting
18|Bravery, Farshot
19|Armor mastery, Improved Critical(longbow)
20|weapon mastery(greatsword), Improved Critical(greatsword), +1 Dexterity
Sample of what build can look like at 14
I would say though, that fighters are straight up weaker than rangers, paladins, and barbarians. That is the priced paid for only having HP as a resource, you can't tactically spend your power.
The slayer is...well...look you could already do this with rangers and rogues. I just don't get why this class was even invented. I'm not saying it's bad, it just seems hyper-specialised in a way that doesn't seem to be demanded.
The slayer to me was needed mechanically. It gives me quiet a few things that I did not have before. I have always wanted a ninja/assassin type class without any magic power. The rogue and assassin(Prc) can fit the idea in concept, but they are not really up to the task in the actual game. I honestly think that if the assassin PrC did not exist this class would have been given the "assassin" name. That is basically what it is especially since that(killing) is what many of its archetypes seem to revolve around. It also has some mix of the ranger and rogue skills. I still think it should have been given diplomacy as a class skill, and I think it needs better talents are on par with the investigator abilities or it may also fall by the wayside.
The guide ranger archetype was also good for this. You could also try the urban ranger and trapper ranger, well except for the fact that the trapper ranger gives up spells for some crappy traps. If only those traps were better or the ranger had traded in those spells for something more useful in addition to the traps then I would agree with you that the slayer would not need to exist at all.