Would a master swordsman be considered a rogue rather than a warrior?

I was just wondering about this because leaving behind the usage of a gigantic sword (i.e. Guts from Berserk), I was wondering if a character who used at least only a regular long sword (perhaps coated with poisons or enchanted by magic/runes, but not necessarily) and was able to wear heavy armor, medium armor, or light armor depending on his circumstances would be put in the same light as rogues or thieves would be. To give you an idea of the kind of character I'm talking about, think more of characters like Geralt of Rivia or Ciri from The Witcher series. Mihawk(forgiving his usage of a humongous sword), Shanks, or Zoro from One Piece. Or perhaps even a character like Jamie Lannister from Game of Thrones who is renowned for his expert sword skill even though he is considered a knight.

For people who don't won't to read all of that: Could a character who only expertly uses a long sword and perhaps some heavy armor call himself a warrior/knight or would he only be considered along the same lines of a rogue/thief(depending on terminology)? Would dexterity be more important than strength for such a character? And if so, is that the only reason why they would be considered more a rogue than a warrior?

Stop playing D&D

Why not just be a fighter with a high dexterity (or whatever the system uses) over strength? There are historical and literary examples of fighters who aren't towers of muscles, and none of the examples you've listed I'm familiar with show much in the way of the stereotypical rogue talents, sneaking, being good at bluffing and conning, disarming traps, picking locks, etc.

Rogues do not have Two-Handed / Martial / Weebwonderweapon proficiency, so no.

ITT: OP learns about the Man at Arms.

What is a ronin for 500 Alec.
What was Conan for 1000 Alec.
What is refluffing for 1500 Alec.

All your examples seem more like straight up fighters to me, Geralt and Ciri are more like some sort of a ranger or multiclass.

>DnD is never even mentioned
>DnD-hate-wank shitposter proceeds to go into full-alert anyway

What's really funny is they'll come up with the explanation that P's description sounded like D&D, and therefore he must be a D&D player. this justifies their paranoia and makes them sound reasonable.

Really, they're just brain damaged paranoiacs.

Few characters from fantasy literature or video games can be translated into RPG rulesets with any sort of fidelity.

The problem is often that they're too good at too many things which most RPGs don't allow (at least until the very high levels), or that there is no closely analogous mechanic for (for example) a Witcher's Signs.

>There are historical and literary examples of fighters who aren't towers of muscles
Most of them, actually. Prior to D&D, the vast majority of heroic warrior types are more achilles than ajax. You have a few demigod types like hercules and gilgamesh that are known mainly for their strength, but they are hugely outnumbered by famous warriors known mainly for their skill.

>All your examples seem more like straight up fighters to me, Geralt and Ciri are more like some sort of a ranger or multiclass.
Yeah, a witcher would definitely be some kind of prestige or multiclass depending on system. You probably start with a warrior as a template, but there's so much outside the box stuff - magic, fieldcraft, alchemy, tracking, explosives, monster hunting knowledge / skills, etc. It's a very heroic and well rounded character model, because it's meant for a solo game, not a party based one.

You should really be more able to describe what kind of "Master Swordsmanship" you're talking about instead of pulling out wildly different characters.

Except a lot of those guys who are known mainly for their skill also display a huge amount of raw physical strength, it just doesn't get the dramatic spotlight. Achilles, for instance, definitely has super-strength (and is actually probably stronger than Ajax) consider things like his fight with Asteropaeus, where he throws his javelin so hard that when it misses, it gets buried up to half its length in the dirt, something that nobody else manages to do in the Iliad.

I think you're getting too hung up on class distinctions that no one will agree about anyway.

But if you're talking about d&d, and I think you are, a skirmisher sort of character is pretty easily done by taking fighter, rogue, or any blend of the two. Dex fighters work fine. I'm sure there are opinions out there about which combination is 'best', but thematically they all work.

Or having a bow no-one but him could string.

That was Odysseus.

Yes, another character in greek legend as an example of a sneaky git who is also brutally smashy.

>Achilles
Are you speaking from that Brad Pitt movie? Achilles is an unstoppable murder machine whose defining character trait is his rage

>modern media movie portrays mythological hero vastly different to source material; news at 11

>D&D 5E
A battlemaster fighter.

>a good game
Depends on which game.

Sorry that might not have helped, I agree. I guess, someone who is just really good with a long sword and can wear plate (or some other kind of heavy) armor. Instead of just focusing on overwhelming strength, I see the "Master Swordsman" as being highly dexterous, agile, and clever. Someone who tries to outsmart (or out skill) their opponent, and a lot of the time that seems to describe rogues more than warriors. I don't see him using halberds, spears, or some other kind of polearm and I especially don't see him as being overly fond of shields. Someone who relies on their armor, sword, wits, and anything else that can help him prepare for a fight.

I mean, in 4e that was entirely viable. 4e rogues had a lot of stuff for just being a fantastic swashbuckling swordsman rather than a backstabber. Parrying and riposting was something they did quite well.

To add to that, I do see the swordsman as having a lot of strength as well. I think any good swordsman should be strong. I just feel like there should be to it than that, you know what I mean? I might be trapping myself in a box, though. There is only so many things any party-based game would allow me to do, and I guess that's why there are multiple members of any party who are all good at things the other member isn't good at. I might be thinking more in terms of solo play, but I have no idea what game to build such a character off of.