Ranger/monk???? or ranger/monk/pally

[Jquillen]

What do you think good idea or bad i need help if someone would explain i want to use wpns not hands and i want to be sick tank

[Goldeneye]

gratz on the grammer.
Just go pure ranger, sounds like you would be best off going the simplest route.

[Kancho]

You'd be best served going a single level of Monk unless you wish to forgo the benefits of Tempest III. The second level of Monk would only give you another free feat and a couple of enhancements that have a modicum of value. It's for this reason you tend to see 18 Ranger/1 Monk/1 Rogue.

It would be feasible to go 12 Ranger/1 Monk/7 Paladin but the problem you'll run into is the stat spread. Strength/Constitution/Dexterity/Wisdom/Charisma. That's a lot to spread around. However, by going with the extra levels of Paladin you will gain 3 or so Lay on Hands, some burst damage from smites/exalted smites/divine mights & sacrifices, paladin aura bonuses (save, AC), fear immunity and disease immunity. The trade off though is that you will be giving up a favored enemy and the extra FE enhancements as well as Tempest III (extra AC and attack speed). I haven't really looked at how tight the Action Points would be to go Tempest II and Knight of the Chalice I but that would compensate for some of the Favored Enemy enhancements you would lose.

Outside of that I don't know what the forum consensus would be for splashing only 3 levels of Paladin for the Fear immunity. A 16 Ranger/1 Monk/3 Paladin would give 2 Lay on Hands and Fear immunity while allowing the extra Favored Enemy and 4th level Ranger spells (Freedom of Movement).

Bear in mind there is a reason you see all the 18 Ranger / 1 Rogue / 1 Monk builds when reviewing this.