Have they done anything to make martials classes more relevant outside of combat?


General Discussion


So one of the big problems with materials is that they can't do a lot outside of combat in pf 1 have they done anything to fix this?


Well, they do get a few more Skills and there are Skill Feats now (even if a lot of those are underwhelming).

That said, most classes that had abilities useful outside of combat have lost them so it's probably closer than it was in PF1 anyway.


Are you asking about materials (like adamantite, and darkwood), or martials (like Fighter class)?


Zautos' wrote:
So one of the big problems with materials is that they can't do a lot outside of combat in pf 1 have they done anything to fix this?

Yes. They introduced rules that force out of combat teamwork and gave Martials much better access to Skills. Also, everyone gets Skill Feats and the new system emphasizes specialization. Skill Monkeys still exist but can't do everything at once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogues get more than double the others in skill increases. Wish other martials had at least similar starting skills, though (to make up for spells that give totally unique abilities).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now I want to play an adamantine dwarf paladin...


Yeah, I'm confused on what the question actually is. Because last I checked, materials were really only useful for combat purposes.

Martials, on the other hand, have only slightly moved their out-of-combat contributions, whereas a Caster's out-of-combat contributions have been significantly wing-clipped.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Yeah, I'm confused on what the question actually is. Because last I checked, materials were really only useful for combat purposes.

Martials, on the other hand, have only slightly moved their out-of-combat contributions, whereas a Caster's out-of-combat contributions have been significantly wing-clipped.

Yeah, it seems like most out of combat stuff now is Rogue central or hinges on taking the correct non-specified Lore skills, regardless of class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I found a lot of uses for materials out of combat back in PF1E - non-stick mithril cookware, lightweight darkwood tents, adamantine grappling arrows, etc. I would assume a similar array of useful item variants in PF2E, eventually, as more books come out.


Yes I am also confused.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^ Name checks out.

I'm going to assume you meant 'Martials'. And yes, I think the Skill Feats do a good job of that. A Rogue has so many skill trainings and upgrades, they can easily be the smartest member of the party. I don't think the Fighter has ever had this much skill training in PF1 or any version of D&D.


So one of the big problems with martials is that they can't do a lot outside of combat in pf 1 have they done anything to fix this?

They have increased some classes starting skill ranks. But casters seem to have more in general. The rogue gets alot more skill increases.

They have added skill feats, But materials and casters, except the rogue, gets the same amount.

So it looks like to me that martial classes have not gotten a buff outside of combat compared to casters. Except for rogues.


By "martials" the OP seems to mean fighters, as rogues are specifically exclude in the other post on the same subject and a correct title.

Fighters are the kings of combat get as many skills as everybody else. With spells nerfed, skills are even more the kings of downtime than they used to be. Fighters' tag skill, Athletics (Str-based), has taken over most of the abilities that could have been shared with Acrobatics. Athletics are now used instead of Strength rolls to perform feats of strength, allowing a high level fighter to literally walk trough walls, leaving a hole. Int has much less impact on skills than it used to, as it is only used at level 1 and 2 of the current knowledge skills (Religion, Nature) are now Wis-based. There is such a pressure to make fighters the best at everything.

To me, the question is not if fighters have a role outside of combat, it is whether casters (other than bards and clerics who have powerful non-spell abilities) have a role at all.


I hope people will answer here instead of the one with the typo.


You can probably just get them to combine the threads and with the right name.


Well, Paizo has certainly been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like, but more accurately you should probably have a look into how many caster-oriented skill feats are pretty much required to properly fulfill a caster's "job" (expected niche). That means that even if fighters and wizards get the same amount of feats, most of those will be freed up to allow martials to follow their own special niche or general utilities outside of combat.


Spellcasters are less useful outside combat than in PF1. It's not the path I would like to see taken to make non-spellcasters more useful, but it's been done now.

Also with skill feats and limited skill increases you can't effectively have one character covering all the skills, or even have two characters doing so unless they're both rogues. This means that in non-PFS games you can plan for each character to have their niche.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What exactly are you looking for?

I have never understood the desire for the Fighter to have all these out of combat abilities, they are called the Fighter, not Explorer, Medic, or Socialite.


maybe if they had background levelling alongside class levelling it would make the game better
(and I mean with its own progression tree)


Yes?
Martials are far more non-combat competent than they used to be. Particularly with the removal of signiture skills and the changes to multiclassing benefit that came with.

As a simple example, I only occasionally saw martials with ranks in Perception, and rarely saw martials with ranks in Climb or Swim. This always sat poorly with me. In PF2 everyone is trained in Perception (or better), and most martials invest in Athletics for access to the maneuvers; and thus can also climb, swim, and break things open. This already paints a much better party dynamic and that's just one skill.

In my opinion, Thievery and Spellcraft are also much more accessible in this edition. Anybody reasonably invested in the appropriate ability can perform well enough as a dungeoneer at least; finding traps and picking locks, or finding and identifying magic respectively. Previously this usually required specific archetypes (as sub-classes) or niche game elements be taken.


Vic, either the people playing fighters were annoyed at being left out of half the game, or they worked hard to make them effective out of combat, or they enjoyed kibbitzing without being involved, or they were happily playing video games during that half of the game. I haven't seen someone do the hard work - the people willing to put that effort in played other character classes - but it is possible. People likely to be annoyed would multiclass or play something else too. I've definitely seen and been annoyed myself by the kibbitzers/video gamers.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
Vic, either the people playing fighters were annoyed at being left out of half the game, or they worked hard to make them effective out of combat, or they enjoyed kibbitzing without being involved, or they were happily playing video games during that half of the game.

That has never been an issue in any D&D game I have been involved with. Actually, I had never heard of a lot of these so-called problems, until the internet. There are definite problems in each edition, but I do not agree with this casters & caddies assertion and some of the other problems people cite.


i have to say yes to that.

crafting, even magical crafting, has been opened to almost everyone, to the point where spellcasters aren't even the best for crafting specific stuff.

to add to that, skill feats (that are available to all) offer alternative solutions to some problems outside of combat.

then, class specific, we have barbarians with access to at will flying (even if for limited bursts of it) or at will dispeling, paths to add trully intelligent animal companions for both the paladin and the ranger.

the ranger also has his usual exploration stuff but he's now better vs a lot of natural hazards.

rogue, as you mentioned has a ton of skill feats to build around.

the only one lacking a bit behind, class wise, if the pure Fightr, but he makes up by being the best martial character for in combat situations atm.

when you also add how easily you can get scaling cantrips, or even full blown spells with multiclassing in this edition. Anyone who cares can do stuff outside of combat.


Now I really want to play a high CHA Fighter who uses Feint and acts as the Party Face with Diplomacy, Deception, and Performance. :( Too bad I have the "always a GM never a player" curse when it comes to the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most of the classes don't have many class-specific abilities that function meaningfully outside of combat. Rogues get more skill increases, so they make better jacks-of-all-trades, but you don't see things like "character gets a competence bonus to X skill equal to their class level" like the 1E alchemist had, and most of the things a character can do outside of combat can be replicated by another character with the same stats and general feats.

Heck, at this point you don't even see spellcasters being the crucial difference between hard skill checks or a bit of narrative because most of those "the barrier is no longer relevant" spells are either on the uncommon list or don't function in the same way.

This is both good and bad depending on who you ask. Myself, I'm a little frumpy at the fact that a wizard is far more likely to wind up grabbing the rope and crampons and scaling a vertical wall by hand than they are to cast a spell and fly up the side of the cliff, if only because Fly is now short duration and they're likely to run out of casts before they run out of mountain.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
What exactly are you looking for?

A Fighter should be good at spotting ambushes, setting ambushes, military strategy and leadership in general, athletics, crafting weapons and armor, knowing about the types of enemies they're likely to fight, first aid, riding horses, engineering, and any other skill you'd want in the military.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
I have never understood the desire for the Fighter to have all these out of combat abilities, they are called the Fighter, not Explorer, Medic, or Socialite.

"I've never understood the desire for classes other than Fighters to be good at fighting. If you want to be good at fighting, play a Fighter."


Matthew Downie wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
What exactly are you looking for?
A Fighter should be good at spotting ambushes, setting ambushes, military strategy and leadership in general, athletics, crafting weapons and armor, knowing about the types of enemies they're likely to fight, first aid, riding horses, engineering, and any other skill you'd want in the military.

Sounds more Rangerish (except for the crafting and leadership, which anyone can do), to me, and do Skills not cover that. Fighters getting more skills and badass saving throws is something I would like to see (a return of - fat saves).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rangers (in this hypothetical system where I get to decide what Fighters are good at) can still be distinguished from Fighters by their animal companions, animal empathy, wilderness survival skills, traps, tracking bonuses and spellcasting.

Fighters don't get those things. They don't get to be way better in combat than anyone else, because that throws off balance. So we have to give Fighters whatever we can realistically give them, such as generous skill points and saving throws. Otherwise they're just a bad class.


Matthew Downie wrote:

Rangers (in this hypothetical system where I get to decide what Fighters are good at) can still be distinguished from Fighters by their animal companions, animal empathy, wilderness survival skills, traps, tracking bonuses and spellcasting.

Fighters don't get those things.

They can get some. Otherwise, what is the point of the Ranger (there's a rabbit-hole)?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think so, yes, especially after today's heritage update if they get it right.

Skill Feats & Ancestry Feats should give narrative options for people who want them while playing martial classes, so that's neat and a good sign for PF2.

It's just a shame they hurt casters narratively so much. It's really hurt the 'group narrative impact' of a party, since this is a cooperative game, not a game to see who has the biggest individual impact. That's really making everyone a bit sad, including the non-casters, who are naturally friends with the group's casters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lyee wrote:
I think so, yes, especially after today's heritage update if they get it right.

Will we even get a update today, considering offices are closed?


Good point might have to wait till tomorrow. sad face :(


Gratz wrote:
Lyee wrote:
I think so, yes, especially after today's heritage update if they get it right.
Will we even get a update today, considering offices are closed?

On the stream, they said that they'll be working to get it out today, at least according to Jason second-hand from Mark. That said, even if the designers are working while the offices are closed, that doesn't mean the tech-people will be, so it might just be up to whether or not the website cooperates.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Have they done anything to make martials classes more relevant outside of combat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion
Drawing Dual Weapons