A field is a commutative ring with unity where every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse. Fields are integral domains with additional structure. Examples: rationals Q, reals R, complex numbers C, finite fields Z/p. Every field is an integral domain.
A field is essentially a number system where you can add, subtract, multiply, and divide freely — except you can never divide by zero. From your work on rings, you know that a ring gives you addition and multiplication with nice properties, and an integral domain adds the condition that there are no zero divisors. A field is one step further: every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse, meaning you can always "undo" multiplication.
Think about the rationals ℚ. You can add 3/4 + 1/2, multiply 3/4 × 2/3, and you can always divide: 3/4 ÷ 5/7 = 3/4 × 7/5. Every nonzero rational has a reciprocal. The integers ℤ fail this: 2 has no multiplicative inverse in ℤ because 1/2 is not an integer. So ℤ is an integral domain but not a field — it has no zero divisors, but it also lacks inverses for most elements.
The hallmark examples are ℚ, ℝ, ℂ, and the finite fields ℤ/pℤ for prime p. The prime condition is crucial: in ℤ/6ℤ, the element [2] has no inverse because gcd(2, 6) = 2 ≠ 1. But in ℤ/5ℤ, every nonzero element has an inverse — [2]·[3] = [6] = [1], [4]·[4] = [16] = [1]. When p is prime, every nonzero element is coprime to p, so inverses exist by Bezout's theorem. A modular ring is a field exactly when the modulus is prime.
The relationship between fields and integral domains is clean: every field is an integral domain (inverses prevent zero divisors), but not every integral domain is a field. The integers are the canonical counterexample. This distinction becomes structurally significant when building field extensions — the foundation of Galois theory — where the goal is to adjoin roots of polynomials to existing fields, creating larger fields that contain solutions you could not find in the original.