colemcm wrote:A lot of people bring this up but I don't think a lot of people have really looked closely at the 1e saves. Fighter saves actually start out on the weak side and end up pretty good, but matched in a number of ways by both wizard and cleric saves. So what's the real story? Fighters had a very favorable table for improving because the saves were on the same schedule as the attack matrix - meaning they improve every 2 levels. That enables them to catch up and become really good overall at about 8th level, and dominant when the fighter hits his apex at 17th level (until the wizard and cleric catch up 3-4 levels later). Notice that 8th level point is when most demi-human fighters are stopping advancement and, according to a lot of anecdotes people bandy around about how 1e got played, about the point most campaigns are ending/petering out. If those claims are true, most people rarely played the game when fighters had the best saves. So I question how many people really saw this effect, of fighter resistance to anything requiring a saving throw, in action. I certainly question the idea that it was an important aspect of the 1e fighter's design as a class.
However this is exactly what the 1st edition Fighter was. They had some of the best saving throws in the game, because they didn't have magic and focused all of their training on being able to overcome whatever the magical world they existed in could throw at them.
I'm not sure why 3.0+ has insisted on making the Fighter the stereotypical dumb-jock. PF did a decent job in updating their fighting abilities from 3.X, but they're still 2/3 pathetic in the saves department.
While there's some truth to this, the fighter at least had the potential to be as tough as nails. A 3.X fighter will always, ALWAYS be an easily manipulated puppet.