Fighter Identity (if any)

[Lucas Yew]

What on Golarion (and the d20 system in general) do Fighters represent as something of its own? Just what is the Figher's class identity?

In the current iteration, every core classes other than the Fighter have a solid character by themselves;

----

Alchemist: Who learned alchemy(duh) to unleash (al)chemical reactions upon the world

Barbarian: Who bursts into a berserker state reminiscent of a human-sized killing machine

Bard: Who dug into the arts to gain esoteric knowledge of all kinds, including some high magic

Cleric: Who represents the gods (and hopefully some philosophes) as its divine petitioner (but unfortunately shoehorned to healer roles as an original sin)

Druid: Who is backed up by nature to unleash its primal fury as magic

Monk: Who learned Wuxia-style martial arts for extra oomph (and maybe a safe, traditional way to divine ascension)

Paladin: Who is the forceful fist of goodness (and hopefully other alignments) that supernaturally smite things to oblivion

Ranger: Who is the deadly stalker of the wilderness, shredding horrors via blade and arrows

Rogue: Who specializes on all kinds of skills from the professional to the shady ones

Sorcerer: Who were naturally born with spellcasting (but for some reason still relies on tongues and hands to use it)

Wizard: Who learned magic academically for cosmic-scale power

----

So what should the fighter be? At least, it must never be "that class which represents all other martial arts and fighting styles not yet specialized by other new classes," ever.

Like, Cavaliers took riding and field commander things (and ruined them with bad practice), Gunslingers took all guns (obviously), Magi (plus Inquisitors and other 2/3 casters) took gishing, and Vigilantes combined the Fighter and Rogue then attached some serious social stuff that actually works with minor superhero trappings.

I believe they need some serious examinations on class identity for them to earn their page in the books, other than being in a sacred cow position.

[Scythia]

Who is the master of weapons based combat.

They get the best melee weapon abilities (2H, TWF, 1H, and with shield), they get the best ranged weapon abilities, and they not only are trained in all weapons, they get to Legendary with most of them (and master with the exotic). They also get good armor and shield proficiency, as well as Master Perception, allowing them impressive battlefield presence.

[Rameth]

I would say that the Fighter represents a "civilised", city going, fantasy Warrior. Those ones who have to much time on their hands and like all these fancy weapons. The ones who talk about how Brave they are and how good they are with their Blade (or whatever pleases them). The Fighter

- Knows how to use all kinds of weapons, really good with chosen few
- Works best in Heavy Armor, something civilised nations have easy access to
- Is flexible in his weapon/tactic choice, able to use different styles for different means
- Is everything from a medieval Knight to a Captain of the Guard.

Now with the way the Bestiary is we don't even need to have the player classes fill those rolls. We can just make them up ourselves. It makes the Fighters roll much more defined I think.

[Adjoint]

They are those warriors whose method of fighting depends a lot on training and skill, as opposed to barbarians who depend more on their emotions.

[SuperBidi]

In my opinion, fighter should be the weapon master. The guy actually choosing his weapon.
Currently, fighters get AoO (paladins also, but at level 6, so it's tougher), so they are the only one able to take reach weapons and use them to their complete extent.

I think AoO should be a conditional class feature, a weapon choice. You choose polarms as weapons of choice, you get AoO. You choose maces, you get something more "macy", etc... So the fighter will be unique by the choice of his weapon, like a barbarian is unique by the choice of his totem and the sorcerer by the choice of his bloodline.
Currently, between a greatsword, a greataxe and a maul, the game gives you the feeling you are using the exact same weapons (ok, there is one weapon ability to change their feeling). I'm sure Paizo can come with more defining fighting techniques based on weapon type. Like, say, the Maul allowing you to make more powerful attacks at the cost of more actions (which is quite logical considering the weapon weight), the axe allowing you to cleave through enemies, the greatsword being better at iterative attacks against a single target, I don't know.
And instead of combat flexibility allowing you to change one feat, having a combat flexibility changing your weapon of choice for the day and the associated class features (which is also kind of logical, if you change your weapon, you change the fighting techniques you're using).

Well, lots of thoughs in there :D

[Edge93]

Interestingly they also have to me the feel of the "Learned" Fighter. Rather than a key ability like Rage or Hunt that they build their combat identity off of they get a variety of combat tricks through their fighter feats that gives them unique ways to effect enemies and contribute on the battlefield.

And that's in addition to being the master in straight weapon use and having the aptitude to master just about any specific fighting style to a degree that others can't, again the idea of a learned warrior.

[Themetricsystem]

Honestly if the Class were given a half dozen or so "Paths" like the other classes to take at Level 1, it might even be wise to consider renaming the class something even MORE generic.

Something like "Warrior"

You'd have Weapon Master, Brawler, Armor Master, Fearless Warrior, Finesse Fighter, & the plain old Fighter "Class-Paths" and you could pick your own name.

[Helmic]

I like the Fighter's lack of specific flavor, as the point of the class for me is to shape it into a very particular fighting style that could have any number of specific names. I'm also OK with the Paladin being made into a more generic class that covers paladin as we currently know them (the lawful good variant) with other alignments, though I'm less keen on the mechanical restrictions placed on them (a player that wants to be chaotic good isn't necessarily declaring that they want to be a damage-focused paladin, they just might not want to play lawful good).

As far as flavor in general, they're the ass kicker. They use weapons and armor really well in a world dominated by the magical and supernatural. They don't have any special powers, they're not tricky like the rogue, they're just really good at fighting. I've loved the class, at least conceptually, ever since I got into D&D. I really don't want my character concept overridden by the core rules definition of what a Fighter is.