Site News
Warning: This wiki contains spoilers. Read at your own risk!

Social media: If you would like, please join our Discord server, and/or follow us on Twitter (X) or Tumblr!


From Fire Emblem Wiki, your source on Fire Emblem information. By fans, for fans.

Is there any reason to have this page separate from thief aside from the different localized name and weapon change? We don't have priest and curate split, and multiple classes have changed weapon types but are still on the same article. PikaSamus (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a gray area, but IMO there's enough in the way of differences to justify a separate page: the name and weapon change + different promotion options (even if Adventurers are just Tricksters with bows) + different stat build r.e. higher resistance. For what it's worth, favoring splits over merges when it comes to this sort of situation with classes makes a fair bit of sense, IMO, and I'd argue there's enough to justify, say, three separate Queen class pages, or even separate pages for FE2 Priests or Jugdral Bards or Shamans/Clerics for the same reason. --PA (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Very skeptical there, as there's alot more differences between Gaiden's Thief/Regular Thief, and Gaiden Fighter/Fighters then Thief/Outlaw. The only real reason I can see keeping them separate is localized name, but that in case the Ranger articles should be merged. Emperor Hardin (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
FE2 Fighters would be another example of a class that could stand to benefit from being split. Its Thieves too, arguably, but they're extremely unimportant even in FE2 so it doesn't matter what happens to them. --PA (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any opinion on FE3 Berserkers being split? Though the class is even more unimportant then FE2 Thieves. Emperor Hardin (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)