Fighter vs. Warrior, OR, What's in a Name?

[Deepbluediver]

Ok, so in D&D 3.5 the core PC melee class is called the "Fighter" and the NPC equivalent class is the "Warrior". I realize that this is a hold-over from the earlier editions, but I really REALLY think it was one of those things they should have just sucked up for and changed (like doing away with level 0 spells) rather than trying so hard to force an anchor in continuity.
I know it's rather trivial, but for some reason it drives me absolutely nuts! :smallfurious:

Am I being irrational? Or do other people have their own seemingly inconsequential pet peeves, too?

[Dusk Eclipse]

Actually they should have named it Warblade

[GenghisDon]

The name fighter has ALWAYS bugged me. So lame. Warrior ought have been adopted by 1e AD&D.

At least when it was "fighting man" it was palatable, if still blek.

Warblade isn't a very good name either, particularily for a hammer or other weapon focused character. Plenty of "warblades" won't use blades.

Given the fluff for the class, they could have called it "hero"

[Eldan]

I don't like the name warblade much. It's a made-up term that has no context outside of one specific D&D book, unlike Warrior or Fighter. Or wizard, ranger, cleric and bard. The class is good, the name isn't.

Fighter is a very generic term. It's someone who fights. A warrior is someone who goes to war. Out of the two, I prefer the first for the class. That said, we don't call wizards spellcasters, or rogue sneakers, so there's that.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I was trying to be funny; but I agree with you. (though my charters do tend to exclusively use bladed weapons...just a quirk of mine)

[Novawurmson]

I've got a homebrew project on the back burner called the Soldier, which I think is really what the Fighter should be called: The Barbarian is the "natural" fighter who works on instinct; the Ranger is the "school of hard knocks" fighter; the Soldier would be the "trained" fighter.

Though I see no problems whatsoever switching the names of the Warrior and Fighter; Warrior is so much more of an evocative name. Fighter looks like it would be fine by Commoner.

[Knaight]

Ok, so in D&D 3.5 the core PC melee class is called the "Fighter" and the NPC equivalent class is the "Warrior". I realize that this is a hold-over from the earlier editions, but I really REALLY think it was one of those things they should have just sucked up for and changed (like doing away with level 0 spells) rather than trying so hard to force an anchor in continuity.
This has always annoyed me; I'd rather they switch the names.

[Downysole]

Am I being irrational?
Yes

Or do other people have their own seemingly inconsequentional pet peeves, too?
New words made by people who don't know there's a perfectly good word that would serve. (Inconsequential)

[ericgrau]

I like general sounding class names since it lets you fill in your own concept. The fancy sounding names in add on books tend to lack that.

I think rogue took it too far though, particularly due to all the misspellings it caused. Nobody likes to watch people roleplay makeup. It needs a simpler yet still general name.

[Deepbluediver]

Fighter is a very generic term. It's someone who fights. A warrior is someone who goes to war. Out of the two, I prefer the first for the class. That said, we don't call wizards spellcasters, or rogue sneakers, so there's that.

I've got a homebrew project on the back burner called the Soldier, which I think is really what the Fighter should be called: The Barbarian is the "natural" fighter who works on instinct; the Ranger is the "school of hard knocks" fighter; the Soldier would be the "trained" fighter.

I just thought that the term "Warrior" for the class would sound more impressive, but I think Nova's explanation works well, too. A Warrior (Fighter) is some one who was trained for war, even if they have never actually fought in one and use their talents and combat skills for other causes.


New words made by people who don't know there's a perfectly good word that would serve. (Inconsequential)

Flibberty-babbit! I need to remember to manually use the damn spellcheck feature.

[Schylerwalker]

I like general sounding class names since it lets you fill in your own concept. The fancy sounding names in add on books tend to lack that.

I think rogue took it too far though, particularly due to all the misspellings it caused. Nobody likes to watch people roleplay makeup. It needs a simpler yet still general name.

I've always liked the sound of 'Renegade' for a rogue-type class, and I'll probably use it for one of the homebrew classes I'm working on.

Speaking of which, I'm also working on a homebrew Soldier class, which is basically supposed to be an improved Fighter.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I don't like the name "fighter" either. Martial classes are usually called "warriors" as a generic term in my the campaign I run. (Just like wizards, beguilers, sorcerers and so on all get called "mages" by people (i.e. NPCs) who don't know or care about the differences.) Renaming fighter (as the basic martial class) to "warrior" would be a nice start, but I don't know if I like the name "fighter" enough even for the NPC class; if I had it my way, I'd call them "men at arms" or something like that. "Soldier" is also a good choice for a word to replace "fighter" as it does a good job of capturing the "martial skill by training" flavor fighters (are supposed to) have.

I'm also not a fan of very overtly fantasy-sounding names for classes like "swordsage", "warblade" and "duskblade". They always sound made-up and artificial, like something a game designer came up with rather than something an in-universe character would ever call himself.

[Deepbluediver]

I think rogue took it too far though, particularly due to all the misspellings it caused. Nobody likes to watch people roleplay makeup. It needs a simpler yet still general name.


I've always liked the sound of 'Renegade' for a rogue-type class, and I'll probably use it for one of the homebrew classes I'm working on.

Here (http://thesaurus.com/browse/rogue?__utma=1.1993087777.1339802539.1344965280.13 46350167.6&__utmb=1.4.9.1346350676236&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1339802539.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(di rect)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=37778083)'s a link to a whole list of potential ideas, but so far most of what I'm seeing seems like it would curtail certain roleplay aspects. Pathfinder got around this by using the "archetype" versions, I think.

Still, I kind of like the idea of playing as a class called the "hooligan". Rapscallion sounds kind of cool, too. :smallwink:

[Craft (Cheese)]

New words made by people who don't know there's a perfectly good word that would serve. (Inconsequential)

Worse: New words made by people who DO know there's a perfectly good word that would serve, but just make up a new word to sound cooler or more thematic.

(e.g. most psionics stuff: Metacreativity? Seriously?)

[Zaydos]

Warrior would cause confusion when dealing with new players, it's too generic a term for melee characters and would require explaining to them the difference between warrior (archetype) and warrior (class). Can't say fighter is the best, but I prefer warrior as a generic term because it's what comes to people naturally.

Also 0 level spells aren't a hold-over from 2e, they were made whole sale in 3.0.

[Deepbluediver]

I don't like the name "fighter" either. Martial classes are usually called "warriors" as a generic term in my the campaign I run. (Just like wizards, beguilers, sorcerers and so on all get called "mages" by people (i.e. NPCs) who don't know or care about the differences.) *snip*

I'm also not a fan of very overtly fantasy-sounding names for classes like "swordsage", "warblade" and "duskblade". They always sound made-up and artificial, like something a game designer came up with rather than something an in-universe character would ever call himself.

I already do this, to a large extant. What my characters refer to themselves as usually has more to do with their profession, i.e. soldier, mercenary, adventurer, healer, etc. The only campaign where it's ever drawn more than a passing interest was the one where I was playing with the "Holy Liberator" prestige class and kept referring to myself as a Paladin. In fact, most people didn't even know until the DM's monster used some ability that normally only affects lawful characters and I said I was immune.

I don't mind the second issue as much, because it's easier to seperate things in mechanical terms, and eventually we start to run out of different common words to use in place of "magical-swordsman". Again, I would just refer to myself by my character's preference. I might use it in game if I wanted other people to know that I was a member of "the secret and ancient order of Swordsages", for example.

[Novawurmson]

I'd also like to point out another pet peeve: Fighter. A guy who fights. Fights with what? How? Why? Who?

The Fighter is mostly supposed to represent any and all people who have fought with weapons throughout the course of human history + fantasy (for core 3.5 anyway). It's kind of expecting a lot. I'd much prefer an Archer, a Fencer, etc. instead of trying to fit so many concepts into one frame.

[Gnome Alone]

It kinda would make a lot of sense to switch Fighter and Warrior, but Fighter is just so iconic to D&D now. It's an adorably stupid name, too, unlike Warblade and the like. A lot of the class names are just ri-doo-doo-diculous, come to think of it.

[Deepbluediver]

Warrior would cause confusion when dealing with new players, it's too generic a term for melee characters and would require explaining to them the difference between warrior (archetype) and warrior (class). Can't say fighter is the best, but I prefer warrior as a generic term because it's what comes to people naturally.


I'd also like to point out another pet peeve: Fighter. A guy who fights. Fights with what? How? Why? Who?

The Fighter is mostly supposed to represent any and all people who have fought with weapons throughout the course of human history + fantasy (for core 3.5 anyway). It's kind of expecting a lot. I'd much prefer an Archer, a Fencer, etc. instead of trying to fit so many concepts into one frame.

That's why I like "Warrior": some one who is trained in the practice of war, with any variation or specialization thereof. If there was a Knowledge (strategy and tactics) skill, the Warrior would totally have it.


I don't know if I like the name "fighter" enough even for the NPC class; if I had it my way, I'd call them "men at arms" or something like that. "Soldier" is also a good choice for a word to replace "fighter" as it does a good job of capturing the "martial skill by training" flavor fighters (are supposed to) have.

I usually think of them as "guards", since that's the most common non-adventuring combat profession in most fantasy worlds. Town guards, caravan guards, tavern guards, bodyguards, merchant guards, etc.

[Deepbluediver]

It kinda would make a lot of sense to switch Fighter and Warrior, but Fighter is just so iconic to D&D now. It's an adorably stupid name, too, unlike Warblade and the like. A lot of the class names are just ri-doo-doo-diculous, come to think of it.

Tradition is, IMO, a poor reason at best for doing anything. Especially if that thing doesn't work or is unreasonable. WotC showed just about how much they care for the iconic classes with 4 ed. and IMO (again) that wasn't necessarily a bad thing.


Also 0 level spells aren't a hold-over from 2e, they were made whole sale in 3.0.

Oh sorry, my mistake then. Still think it's pointless.

[Venger]

I agree with "rogue" being weird and confusing. I think that an apt name for it would be "scoundrel" instead. it's in the general tone as "knave, rapscallion" etc. people have been throwing out.

want to know what's in a name? ask the truenamer. :smalltongue:

[ThiagoMartell]

0-level spells were created for 3rd edition, so I don't see how 3rd edition could have removed them.

[ericgrau]

Scoundrel is nice; others might work too but I think the end goal is to pick the single name that fits best and stick to it. I was starting to think "combatant" in place of fighter but that's even more general and could fit any class. Perhaps "weapons specialist" (+ immediate feat name change) to be slightly more specific, but then the style of the wording is all wrong.

[Beelzebub1111]

Honestly I don't care about the Fighter vs. Warrior as far as names go. They both mean about the same thing. What I'm glad they changed, was Thief to Rogue. It caused so many problems with the Class Name defining what you do as that class.

Every player I've played with as a Thief played as a thief. Which means that if I want to play a Thief as an Indiana Jones Adventuring type everyone (including the DM) assumed I would be pocketing gems and planning heists and scamming rubes.

[eggs]

"Fighter" evokes something closer to a fish that doesn't want to be caught than a guy who whacks things with a sword. It was off-putting for a long time when I started.

[Telonius]

"Warrior" sounds a bit more primitive to me. Like, the sort of random 1-hd goblin who would throw spears at you, not the sort of master swordsman or weapons expert that the Fighter class is supposed to represent.

[Deepbluediver]

0-level spells were created for 3rd edition, so I don't see how 3rd edition could have removed them.

I already admitted they only came out later than I thought. Still, if they where new in 3.0 then they should have been gone in 3.5


What I'm glad they changed, was Thief to Rogue. It caused so many problems with the Class Name defining what you do as that class.

Every player I've played with as a Thief played as a thief. Which means that if I want to play a Thief as an Indiana Jones Adventuring type everyone (including the DM) assumed I would be pocketing gems and planning heists and scamming rubes.

That's been my biggest issue in trying to find something new to replace "Rogue" with; lots of classes can be played with a rogueish personality. I kind of like Scoundrel, but that usually has negative conotations. One main thing about rogues is that they are such skill-monkeys; is there anything we can come up with that focuses on that?


"Warrior" sounds a bit more primitive to me. Like, the sort of random 1-hd goblin who would throw spears at you, not the sort of master swordsman or weapons expert that the Fighter class is supposed to represent.

And I think that "fighter" sounds like a tavern-brawler or professional MMA competitor. "Weapons expert" sounds like it's closest to the description of what the fighter/warrior should be good at, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

[Prime32]

I usually think of them as "guards", since that's the most common non-adventuring combat profession in most fantasy worlds. Town guards, caravan guards, tavern guards, bodyguards, merchant guards, etc.Eh? Why are you calling the guy who doesn't have Spot, Search, Listen, Sense Motive or even Profession a guard? :smalltongue:

[ericgrau]

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

[Downysole]

I already admitted they only came out later than I thought. Still, if they where new in 3.0 then they should have been gone in 3.5

I'm pretty sure a wizard cast the "Cantrip" spell in 2nd edition, and that was embodied by a whole boat load of 0-level spells that made the book bigger in 3.0.

[Darth Stabber]

If you subscribe to the view that classes are just ability sets refluffable as needed, then the entire point is moot (crunch/fluff segregation). I could call my warlock a sorcerer, and claim his decent from some random fey entity, would that break the game? Probably not. Call your fighters phlebotomists if you want, just know you're mechanically a fighter.

[Schylerwalker]

If you subscribe to the view that classes are just ability sets refluffable as needed, then the entire point is moot (crunch/fluff segregation). I could call my warlock a sorcerer, and claim his decent from some random fey entity, would that break the game? Probably not. Call your fighters phlebotomists if you want, just know you're mechanically a fighter.

I'm just imagining renaming all the classes and presenting them to somebody new to the game. Same abilities, just different names.

"Wow, phlebotomists sure do get a lot of feats...are they really good at drawing different kinds of blood or something?"
"Yeah, or something."

[Darth Stabber]

It may just be rationalization of not wanting to change the name I am used to, but, in 3.x, fighter being a generic name fits with it being the most generic of classes. In previous and subsequent editions the fighter class had/has more of a distinct identity and role, where as the 3.x fighter can be shaped into a wide variety of concepts, from the professional soldier, to an archer, or a fencer, or brutal ruffian from the streets (who lacks the anatomical knowledge of their rogue cousins).

[ThiagoMartell]

If you subscribe to the view that classes are just ability sets refluffable as needed, then the entire point is moot (crunch/fluff segregation). I could call my warlock a sorcerer, and claim his decent from some random fey entity, would that break the game? Probably not. Call your fighters phlebotomists if you want, just know you're mechanically a fighter.

You know, the idea that everything is fine as long as it does not break the game needs to die in a fire. Mechanics are just a small part of D&D.
If the setting has stablished reasons for why a sorcerer is a sorcerer and a warlock is a warlock and how people react to them, refluffing a warlock as a sorcerer hurts verossimilitude.

[Darth Stabber]

You know, the idea that everything is fine as long as it does not break the game needs to die in a fire. Mechanics are just a small part of D&D.
If the setting has stablished reasons for why a sorcerer is a sorcerer and a warlock is a warlock and how people react to them, refluffing a warlock as a sorcerer hurts verossimilitude.

Really? Most setting's fluff has people react positively and negatively to other classes due to fluff reasons. The peasants don't burn warlocks at the stake for having @will slas instead of spell slots.

[Duke of Urrel]

The word "fighter," as I believe somebody has already mentioned, is a throwback to the olden days (which I can remember) when D&D players also used to say "magic user." One term is as generic as the other.

Whenever we don't like a generic term, we can substitute a term of our own that is both more colorful and fits better in a particular region or "milieu" (remember that word, too?). The name "warrior" seems to me wilder and more Chaotic, whereas "knight" is more European, Lawful, and medieval, and "samurai" evokes a similar image, only in a Japanese setting.

In my campaign setting, NPCs seldom call characters of the fighter class "fighters," and they seldom call characters of the warrior class "warriors." In Lawful areas, NPCs call both classes of characters "knights," but only the elite ones actually belong to the fighter class (or the aristocrat class); the rest belong to the warrior class. In Chaotic areas, fighting men and women who have no lord (and often no land, either) are not called knights, but they may be called almost anything else; "warrior" is only the most common term.

In-game names don't have to be the same as official game names. I believe it's much better if they're different. That way, when you meet an NPC who is called a "knight" (or anything else), you don't immediately know to which martial class he or she belongs. That's for the DM to know and the players to find out.

[Siosilvar]

You know, the idea that everything is fine as long as it does not break the game needs to die in a fire. Mechanics are just a small part of D&D.
If the setting has stablished reasons for why a sorcerer is a sorcerer and a warlock is a warlock and how people react to them, refluffing a warlock as a sorcerer hurts verossimilitude.

And that's fine if the class mechanics are actually tied into the fluff (be that printed or that of a particular campaign). There are very few classes that actually have that level of intermixing; in core, I would argue for maybe druid, monk, and paladin at the very most.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Cantrips and Orisons, 0-level Arcane and Divine spells, were introduced in the origional Unearthed Arcana. No idea where some of you folks are getting your information from.

Anyway, why the hate deepblue? I've always found them to be a flavorful addition to the game and they're used extensively when I run 0-level/low level games. I couldn't see getting rid of them without giving out an ability akin to always active prestidigitation.

[Knaight]

If you subscribe to the view that classes are just ability sets refluffable as needed, then the entire point is moot (crunch/fluff segregation).
Hardly. You can ignore the names, and you likely will, but they are still a useful shorthand, and if they were all replaced with something that was less memorable and less evocative (in the case of the Fighter, that leaves something like Class 1C) and do the same to abilities it would lessen the utility of the game, simply because it makes things harder to keep track of. It also would add a level of irritation to reading, even if you do end up ignoring WotC fluff entirely.

[Psyren]

I also prefer "warrior" to "fighter." It sounds bolder, stronger. I also like "soldier" but that's a bit too narrow to capture some concepts, e.g. the itinerant selllsword, the showboating gladiator, or the grizzled blademaster. "Soldier" implies lots of rule-following.


Worse: New words made by people who DO know there's a perfectly good word that would serve, but just make up a new word to sound cooler or more thematic.

(e.g. most psionics stuff: Metacreativity? Seriously?)

Poor example. "Metacreativity" is indeed a much better fit than "Conjuration" - you are assembling X locally rather than summoning them in from elsewhere already formed. (This is explicitly called out in many power descriptions.) Only your building materials (i.e. ectoplasm) come from outside, hence "meta."

And besides, of course psionics leans heavily on Greek terms; the very word is Greek in origin. It was a great, yet subtle, way to distinguish its own set of arcane ramblings from the more established one (magic, which has more of a Latin base.)

[Dsurion]

Warrior? Sure.

Fighter? Meh.

Fighting-Man? Yes! :smallbiggrin:

Arms-man works, too. Also, Druid could be Bear.

[sonofzeal]

Am I alone in not seeing any major functional or poetic difference between "Fighter" and "Warrior"? The former implies something slightly more ideal-oriented to me ("fighters for liberty!"), while the latter implies perhaps more inherent martial spirit, but the difference is slight. I can't see how either is objectionable in this context.

[Beelzebub1111]

Cantrips and Orisons, 0-level Arcane and Divine spells, were introduced in the origional Unearthed Arcana. No idea where some of you folks are getting your information from.

Anyway, why the hate deepblue? I've always found them to be a flavorful addition to the game and they're used extensively when I run 0-level/low level games. I couldn't see getting rid of them without giving out an ability akin to always active prestidigitation.
I never saw the problem with them, but some people obsessed with second edition prefer the Cantrip and Orison spells. First level spells that (when prepared) give you a number of castings related to your level and functioned like prestidigitation.

[Killer Angel]

The name fighter has ALWAYS bugged me. So lame.

At least in this sense, the class fits the name... :smalltongue:

[Deepbluediver]

"Wow, phlebotomists sure do get a lot of feats...are they really good at drawing different kinds of blood or something?"
"Yeah, or something."
ROTFLMAO

As soon as I read this I was struck with an image a hulking, battle-scared verteran in battered armor, with blood and dirt covering him, and waving about a huge sword screaming "THE DOCTOR WILL SEE YOU NOW!!!" It was really funny. :smallbiggrin:


Anyway, why the hate deepblue? I've always found them to be a flavorful addition to the game and they're used extensively when I run 0-level/low level games. I couldn't see getting rid of them without giving out an ability akin to always active prestidigitation.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear in my earlier posts. I have no problem with a different class of low-level spells, although I don't really like pathfinders unlimited-uses-per-day version. What I was objecting to was having the spells labeled as "level 0", necessitating an entire extra description of how they interact with anything based on spell-level. I am fine with keeping things like Acid Orb and Dancing Lights, they should just be labled as level 1 spells.

See, I can be even more petty than you thought.


Warrior? Sure.

Fighter? Meh.

Fighting-Man? Yes! :smallbiggrin:

Arms-man works, too. Also, Druid could be Bear.

Arms-man, hmm....

http://images.wikia.com/onepiece/images/7/7a/Hachi3.jpg


Am I alone in not seeing any major functional or poetic difference between "Fighter" and "Warrior"? The former implies something slightly more ideal-oriented to me ("fighters for liberty!"), while the latter implies perhaps more inherent martial spirit, but the difference is slight. I can't see how either is objectionable in this context.

Functionally they are very similar; I admitted right up front that this was not a gripe with major game-changing ramifications. But to me, "warrior" sounds more fitting for what the class is supposed to embody, whereas a "fighter" could be almost any melee combatant for any purpose, from rangers to monks to the guy who plays "punch for punch" in the bar to win free beer. Plus, I think "warrior" just sounds cooler.