what is exactly a fighter? Taking D&D for example, it's

>>49692032
at least from 3.5, grunts would be warrior.
fighter would be special forces or mercenaries

>>49692032
What exactly is a Fighter?*

are we overthinking things?

>what about Special Forces, Sniper Teams or PJ (Pararescue)
specialists

Would a P.J. be a fighter/cleric?

>>49692052

thank you


>>49692054

but are they fighters?


>>49692047

but what's the difference between warrior and fighter?

>>49692032
All those things you mentioned are Prestige Classes. They are more versatile than the Fighter.

File: 89c5f5ac76f8b749bbc1fcc9eba6c950.jpg (2MB, 1906x2500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1906x2500px

In traditional D&D parlance, your typical fighter is a master of arms. He splits the difference between the light-slinging paladin and the berzerking barbarian; unlike those who rely on powers or raw fury, fighters have their training (and discipline, in many cases) to fall back on. They also make up for it with their overall versatility, having access to the most weapons and armor of most any class. They usually stand at the front with the other "heavy melee" classes.

If you were to pull a fighter out of D&D and look at him as is (say if you were to port a typical fighter into Mutants & Masterminds), you would still have all the hallmarks: a man-at-arms who relies on his training and equipment more than anything to get him through the fight. They don't always have to wear heavy armor or swing claymores, mind you.

>>49692156
Their considerable training is usually represented by the vast array of feats/advantages available to fighters as they grow stronger.

>>49692032
>what is exactly a fighter?
A miserable little pile of Feats.

>>49692156
In tradtional D&D parlance the paladin was a fighter with limited cleric spells and turning, serious restrictions on number of possessions, wealth, income, and alignment, and a 40% larger XP requirement for each level but he soon became much the same as a cavalier subclass but with even high minimum stats and a bigger XP hit as there was no prime req XP bonus. He had the same to-hit table, the same hit points, the same saving throws, the same weapons, the same armour options as fighter. This puts the fighter and the paladin quite together on allowed equipment and only UA made much distinction with fighter only weapon specialization. Paladin = fighter + spell like abilities + more XP.

>>49693530
More or less.

>>49692156

nice explanation. if we take it to modern world. Is it the grunt the baseline for a fighter type?


>>49693530

Rules aside, I don't get it. Same training, same weapons but with a touch of magic. That's overpower as fuck.


Does this make the fighters are smart type of warriors? Using training and smarts to overtake the enemies? Why everyone portray warriors as chad dumb bros?

>>49695547
>chad dumb bros
Because the whole 3rd edition of DnD + open license which was a massive influence made them shit at anything but brainless full attacks.

>>49695612
That, plus the stereotype that you can teach any idiot how to swing an axe. A real fighter is indeed pretty smart.

>>49695627

mostly this. Taking a full career, train from child fighter, they are more than capable to overcome odds in a fight against anything.

also, thinking that barbarians are dumb is not accurate. A Barbarian represent someone that survive till adulthood in a harsh environment. That means that natural selection eliminate the slow and dumb and keeps the smarter and faster candidates.

>>49692032
>taking to our modern times, we could say that a foot soldier (Grunt) is a soldier, but what about Special Forces, Sniper Teams or PJ (Pararescue) are they fighters or some mix with other things? If every marine (US) is a rifleman, that means that every marine is a fighter too?

I would call most of them fighters, albeit of different levels, proficiencies, equipment, and tactics to reflect any unique training or abilities they might have. The US is famous for these things, so its soldiers would likely be of higher level than those of developing countries, in addition to their other advantages.

Those trained with a focus on stealthiness and dealing death from the shadows might be considered assassins, while those highly specialized in reconaissance and outdoorsmanship could be rangers. But the overwhelming majority of trained soldiers would be fighters.

That said, I do feel that class systems are not always well-suited to reflecting the diverse skillsets that modern people can acquire. I'd rather use a skill-based system like that used in shadowrun to reflect the more subtle differences between soldiers' training and equipment.