Since you and Quickleaf are obviously describing completely different character archetypes, might I humbly suggest they might best be represented by two completely different classes? WotC didn't even try to shoehorn Really Angry Guy and Good With Weapons Guy into the same class; trying to get Superman Wannabe Guy into the Good With Weapons Guy class seems unnecessarily difficult.
I don't think so.
The difference between "Good With Weapons Guy" and "Superman Wannabe Guy" is mostly level.
I mean, we have no problems with "Apprentice wizard barely able to tie his own shoes" being coupled with "Sorcerer Supreme" in the same class. Or, "Gets Angry Guy " and "Able to Fly Guy" in the same class. So on and so forth.
See, that's the thing. As soon as a class gets access to anything "magic", then the ceiling is lifted. Seriously, what is the justification for a flying barbarian? How is that part of the archetype of barbarian? But, since we're allowing "spirit animals" (magic by another name) then allowing the barbarian to fly isn't a stretch.
Monks work the same way as well. I start out not terribly different from a fighter, but, even with an Open Hand monk, I get all sorts of supernatural abilities, up to and including instant death attacks, because I have "Ki" (again, magic by another name).
My fighter, at best, can make 8 attacks in a round. My ranger can make 16 (extremely unlikely, but, potentially possible). But, again, my ranger can also hide in plain sight and cast several spells so, the ceiling goes away.
That's the trick it seems. Add just a soupçon of magic to a class and poof, I can do fantastic feats far beyond anything a mortal human can do.