Which of these classes, FIghter or Samurai, should I include in my party, and why?

(Note that this question is not in the context of any specific game, but more a general question regarding party based games that happen to have both these classes in them.)

(Also, perhaps you could answer this question: What do you expect the differences between Fighter and Samurai to be, and what abilities would you expect each class to get?)

Samurai can decapitate (instakill) if we're talking about Wizardry clones right?

I think generally speaking Samurai would be more damage-based melee as opposed to tanking. Since historically Samurai did not wear chainmail or plate armor (afaik anyway) they could be restricted to brigantine or leather to make up for higher dmg output.

Samurai after comparing the imagery of the two.

They're not comparable despite both being warrior classes. When I think of a fighter, I think of an an unsanctioned knight or a footsoldier from a militia - some sort of inexperienced infantry. OTOH, a samurai has years of battle experience, always carried two swords at their hips, enjoyed high social status if they were sanctioned, and had extreme loyalty to their clan and lord. Some samurai either randomly murdered other people randomly to test their skills or had to be prepared against attackers. A more equal comparison would be between specific experienced fighters like knights, Vikings, Spartans, gladiators, apaches, etc.

Anyway, I'd expect fighters to be able to wield a variety of general medieval weapons except for specialty weapons like swords (greatsword, rapier, glaive, shortsword), daggers, spears (pikes, lances), clubs / maces, axes, shields, bows, and javelins. I'd imagine they'd know their formations by heart, to boost their party's performances through warcries, and some basic first aid.

For samurai, they'd use swords (tachi, katana, wakizashi, tanto), longbows, spears (yari, naginata), arquebuses (tanegashima), cannons, staves, and chained sickles. They also used cavalry extensively during warfare. Typical abilities would include iaijustu (quickdraw). Famous techniques are the Sasaki's tsubame gaeshi (two cuts immediately following each other), Miyamoto's dual-wielding techniques, and the concept of defeating your opponent with one blow or strike. And a samurai would probably never want to be revived since it'd be disgraceful to live on knowing they lost in a battle that should've killed them.

They were known to occasionally wear chainmail.

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusari_(Japanese_mail_armour]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusari_(Japanese_mail_armour[/url])

Fighter is just a category. Samurai is more specialised, focusing on slicing weapons and lighter armour. A knight would also be a fighter, focusing on heavy armour and either heavy weapons or crushing weapons. So the question does not make much sense. What do you need from the character? A samurai fighting skeletons would get massacred as slicing is no good on just bone.

First impression is that fighter is a basic class and samurai an advanced one, so maybe an upgrade path for fighter in a game that has class upgrades. But in general, I'd expect fighter to be quite sturdy and able to use pretty much any armor and any more or less common weapon type but not naturally excel in any, and the focus between damage dealing, tanking or a balance being the player's choice, how they develop the character. While samurai would be more agile but a bit less tough, wear at most medium armor, be able to use pretty much any weapon if necessary but have expertise in certain ones you'd expect, generally focus on offense, killing before the enemy gets a chance to really harm, and also have some leadership abilities.

As for which I'd take, I focus on magic, so depending on the development system used even my tank may be a paladin or something of the kind, developed focusing on defense but with some minor magical abilities alongside. But just between those two, quite clearly fighter, since if my physical character would be focused on offense I'd likely have trouble surviving.

depends on morality of the game?

A fighter is more versatile and can operate within any moral settings

A samurai is more deadly, but can only act within the confines of Bushido

Fighter.

Samurai's rarely done well except in a game that focuses on them extensively.

For what they should do:
Fighter should be a very broadly versatile physical combatant, with usually the widest ranges of possible equipment. A fighter might exclude mounted combat and/or (less commonly) ranged combat but certainly should include sturdy armor choices.

Samurai should generally be higher offense, lower defense [but still not low-low, just relative to fighter], and have a narrower range (but still wide range) of equipment. (Too many games forget samurai aren't just swords, but also bows and mounted combat.) Samurai should probably get a bit more in terms of non-combat abilities (some diplomacy, acrobatics, or so on, if it's in the game) than a figher would, but usually at the expense at some plot choices being eliminated due to honor codes.

If the game has "magical" elements, samurai would be more likely to get some, but still not a lot.

Obligatory tabletop RPG mention: I really liked how Pathfinder's Samurai was a modified cavalier, rather than many previous versions of games making it a modified fighter.

As above, “fighter” is too broad, a crusader is a fighter, but would his own code. Even a bandit fighter could have a thieves code.

Actually, samurai do not have the innate ability to instant kill that ninja do (except in Wizardry 6-8, and that feature was not copied by the Wizardry Gaiden series). On the other hand, it's very common for katanas, which are equippable by samurai but typically not by fighters, to have instant kill effects.

A fighter, because:

- they have no code of honor or other such bullshit.

- they don't need to commit seppuku if they "lose their face" or don't fulfill their master's wishes.

If possible, pick a viking fighter. They can rape and pillage all they want, and then drink beer made out of genuine bear pee.

Also, when I think about "samurai", I see them more as peace-time nobility who just train swords and rarely use them, and they don't see real combat that often (especially large scale on a battlefield, where I think swords were used less, and it was more about bows, arrows and very long spears).

So they are like those French nobles dressed like homos and wearing a wig, who carry around a rapier and occasionally wave it in the air for show. Never seen real combat, I tell you.

Oh, and whatever you do, don't pick a geisha. They are quite useless in combat. What are they going to do anyway, throw hot tea on their enemy, or stab them with a hairpin?

Worth noting that none of the game designs that I've made in my head include mounted combat. If horses are obtainable, they only act as separate (monster) party members, never as mounts; hence, mounted combat isn't something I could use to differentiate the classes.

On the other hand, something I *could* use is the method by which skills are learned, whether they're learned through training, practice, or just spontaneously sparked when performing another attack.

(By the way, in Stranger of Sword City, a Samurai who has reached a certain level does get the ability to equip bows.)

(Also, what is a cavalier? That's not a class I've encountered in any CRPG, to my knowledge.)

I've always noted that despite the similarity, they're often different, but often largely only in skills or in a way that takes them into consideration. A fighter is often a western knight or a berserker/gladiator, while a samurai is often less armored but given more useful skills.

As for teh suggestion, it depends on the rest of your party and the game that you're playing. If both are included at the same time, i'd go samurai, but generally when I go warrior (which is pretty much all the time), it's because i don't want to start over or i need something tankier. With your aim at wizardry games, i'd go samurai if they are still tankier than light armor classes.

Fighter is like warrior. A general broad-scope definition of a melee class. Specifics include knights and berserkers, etc. A Samurai would be a specialized subset of fighter. The fighter is a damage dealer and a tank. He's not GREAT at either, but pretty good. He can use virtually any weapon and armor. But he doesn't get specialist damage or tanking skills like the knight, paladin, berserker or samurai. He has some higher armor class and protection skills (ability to take a hit for a nearby companion, ability to deal powerful multiple attacks over a short time, etc).

The samurai is a specialist class. It has armor and weapon restrictions. Typically, they are a damage dealing and agility (or dexterity) tank. Against direct hits, guaranteed hits, or magic. they will be less useful over all because they will have lower HP. Attack skills typically include high damage sword techniques, low probability instant kill attacks, multiple hit combos, and attacks that can disable opponents (blind, stun, slow). He also is more likely to be able to use ranged attacks with a short bow from horseback or a long bow, though not nearly as effectively as an archer or ranger class.

The fighter is more utility, jack-of-all-trades melee class with decent damage output, decent damage absorption, and the ability to use almost any weapon or armor.

The Samurai is a damage dealer/status distributor who will fare well against most foes that can't pin him down for a lot of direct damage.

Which do you need for your party? A samurai may carry a bo or jo. In that case, those skeletons would be in for a rude reawakening.