Power Curves for Various Classes

[two]

I was thinking about the power curves for various classes, compared to one another, particularly in light of TOB coming out soon. These are my thoughts on the subject...just my opinions, what do y'all think?

Levels 1-9:
Fighters rule. They have a decided advantage in hp's, AC, THATCO, survivability. Mages are too low level for good spell casting, other specialty classes (Monk, Bard) too low for abilities to show. Same with Paladin, not much better than a pure fighter. Thieves are very weak in combat. Winner: Barbarian Dwarf.

Levels 10-14:
The ascent of magic. Mages get progressively more powerful than pure fighters. Fighter at still low enough level to not have great weapons/armor. Mages have more spells now, do more damage, have defenseive spells. Monks still not quite there, same with Bards. Assasins getting OK but not great, thieves in general OK. Winner: sorcerer.

Levels 15-20:
Mages very powerful, getting 9th level spells. At this level, however, fighters are getting wonderful magic weapons and armor (CromF, robe of reflection, others to come). Monks are highly magic resistant, get great specials. Assasins are wicked backstabbers, and usually hit. Bards have good spells, good armor, good weapons. Honestly, I think at this range the characters are pretty close to one another. However one scary thing is beginning to be obvious to mages: spell saves are getting negative, immunities to magic are increasing (robe of reflection, etc.), etc.
Winner: Too close to call.

Levels 21-28:
Mages level off. No new spell levels, just more of the same spells..and not very many more. Fighters on the other hand are getting progressively more powerful weapons and armor. Assasins/thieves levelling off; ironskin and other protections saving the worst of the worst from initial attacks. Monks could be wicked, depends on new specials. They are 100+% magic resistant. Bards good fighters by now, with great backup spells. The bad thing for mages: saving throws automatic. Nobody fails anymore, even after greater Malison. This removes a lot of spells. Similarly magic damage will be much reduced a la a robe of reflection/belt of inertial barrier. And magic resistance will be high for baddies. In general, it seems like there are more defenses AGAINST magic than FOR it. For example, the robe of reflection alone removes what, 90% of attack spells from a mages's book? Unless there is a magic device that does something like "decreases saving throws for all spells by 10" for mages, they will start to fall behind. Mages may have to start doing a LOT of summoning of high level support.

There are only a few defenses vs. CromF (pure hacking) for example, IronSkin, mirror image, etc. And these are low-enough level they are usually gone in a round or two.

Winner, I think: Fighter types. Just because the weaponry/armor/items will be disgusting.

Higher than 28 -- Who knows, probably depends upon the special abilities the clasees are given. This may help recover magic from the dust bin somewhat. Although I just can't see fireball/skull trap/finger of death/meteor swarm doing anythning to any monsters you will encounter at level 30.

[Red Inquisition]

At what level do you finaly reach GOD status as a mage? Until then a fighter will usually have so much magical equipment that they are basicaly immune to most spells. Mages need a "no save instant non-reversable deatomized death spell" which would also negate all magical items that the target is wearing.

[Bruce Lee]

Cool topic. All saves aren't automatic. Only fighter-classes get the best saves and the really good saves you have to be dwarf or halfling with constitution 18. A level 20 human thief for example has pretty crappy saves. A level 20 dwarven berserker has awesome saves. Paladins has bonus to their saves but have to be human. Monks get bonuses to and have magic resistance.
To me though the strongest class throughout the game is the dwarven barbarian.

[koz-ivan]

two - there are a few flaws (imo) in your logic here.

1. remove items from the equation, every class gets some pretty cool items in this game, most are balanced out.

2. cloak of reflection totally screws most mage spells, this item has always felt more like a bug to me. did the designers have any clue how powerful they made this item?

-----------

now with the above in mind, a 25th lv ftr w/ blackrazor & crom fayer (or any other power items you want, -15 ac (just for sport) & cloak of reflection.

still can't see invisible creatures
imprisonment
wish
time stop & mindflayer

ect

[two]

Originally posted by koz-ivan:
<STRONG>two - there are a few flaws (imo) in your logic here.

1. remove items from the equation, every class gets some pretty cool items in this game, most are balanced out.

2. cloak of reflection totally screws most mage spells, this item has always felt more like a bug to me. did the designers have any clue how powerful they made this item?

-----------

now with the above in mind, a 25th lv ftr w/ blackrazor & crom fayer (or any other power items you want, -15 ac (just for sport) & cloak of reflection.

still can't see invisible creatures
imprisonment
wish
time stop & mindflayer

ect</STRONG>

It is quite impossible to remove items from the equation. They are there, it's pointless to even discuss the game without equipment. After all a level 30 mage is seriously hampered without equipment (want to spend an entire round casting imprisonment, no Robe of Vecna, no Staff of Magi, no invisible)? And the items are balanced according (roughly) to level, for example you cant' get CromF until you are over level 15 I don't reasonably think.

Cloak of reflection is definately there for the long haul. But it's not necessarily going to be any better than new, even more powerful magic items (for example a spell trap item that sucks in 50 levels of spells a day, etc.). And yes Imprisonment is a nice spell but who knows what the 25th level fighter will have as defense? Magic resistance, outright immmune to imprisonment, reflection of non-damage spells, we will find out. Same with Wish. Mind Flayer IS fun but they are very whackable at level 20...at level 25 I would say extremely whackable for a fighter. Rapidly and nastily. We will see. And of course a 25th level character will see invisible; even now True Sight is the standard for the book of inifinite spells.

The point I'm trying to make is that, as it currently stands, a LOT of mage spells are going to be 100% useless, especially against other NPC parties(or for character vs. character comparison). Assuming imprisonment is still a killer (for non-barbarian/berserkers at least) you only get 1-2 9th level spells anyway until you are level WAY high...and after you shoot your imprisonment wad, will mages have to stand around twiddling thumbs while the fighters dish out 100+ damage a round?

Think about it, would you rather have 25d8 damage (25th level mage) from the Wilting spell (automatic save for half damage, then possibly reduced more because of "magic damage" resistance, if it even gets through magic resistance/other immunities) which MAY do 80 or so damage if you are lucky and your opponent is vulnerable -- or a solid 4-5 attacks/round with CromF or something nastier (way more with improved haste)? The fighter easily dishes out more damage, that is far less susceptible to "not damaging/hitting" the target. The only spell useful vs. +5 pure hacking is stoneskin, which won't last vs. the dispel-magic holy avenger or heck even some rapid Crom-F smacking or with weapons whose damage gets through stoneskin (Flail of Ages, elemental damage, Gnasher splinters, etc.).

I'm not saying Mages will suck but I DO think they need some serious items to help them along. As I said a ring of "-6 to enemy saving throws" would help a lot, or some spell that damages THROUGH magic resistance, immunities, reflections, and spell traps, etc. I mean if you take away most "save vs." spells and most "damage" spells Mages are left with little else than summoning nasties to help and a few select Wish/Imprisonments. hmm....

Just my specculation.

[Red Inquisition]

What if they increased the power of mage weapons. Then a mage could stoneskin and try to go toe to toe with a fighter. When he gets low on hp he could heal and continue kicking ass. Just a thought although it may not work, it would help.

[moriveth]

Thus spake two:
<STRONG>Mind Flayer IS fun but they are very whackable at level 20...at level 25 I would say extremely whackable for a fighter. Rapidly and nastily. </STRONG>

I think the original poster meant casting shapechange, then time stop, then changing into a mind flayer and tearing in. Since attacks always hit during a Time Stop, the fighter is dead.

<STRONG>The point I'm trying to make is that, as it currently stands, a LOT of mage spells are going to be 100% useless, especially against other NPC parties(or for character vs. character comparison).</STRONG>

Agreed. But isn't that already the case in SoA? I mean, towards the end, how often did major enemies fail their saving throws?

With Chain Contingency and Time stop and new spells like Improved Alacrity, your equations for damage break down. *Several* high-lvl Horrid Wiltings, even when all are saved against, are (especially against a large group) far more damaging than anything a fighter can dish out for a short time period. And wasn't there a 20d10 spell they mentioned at some point? But yeah, I can't see casting Finger of Death much...

Enemies hopefully will not be wearing Belt of Inertial Barrier or Cloak of Reflection. Since both mages and fighters can use these items, and there's no deathmatch mode, I'm not quite sure why these items weaken mages or strengthen fighters.

But if they introduce a Super-Nifty Malison spell--say, -6 to saving throws and stackable--everything changes. Or an area effect lower magic resistance...

And for that matter, fighters with whirlwind will probably be capable of doing lots more damage than they do now in a round, not to mention new weapons supposed to be more powerful than anything we've seen. So basically, we'll have to wait and see. (But it is fun to speculate.)

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: moriveth ]

[koz-ivan]

It is quite impossible to remove items from the equation. ...

Cloak of reflection is definately there for the long haul. ...

even now True Sight is the standard for the book of inifinite spells.

ok, now what's the context here? if the situation were:

a single mage facing a single ftr (wearing cloak of re. & true sight infinite spell) the mage is in for a very rough time, he may still win but the mage needs a miracle.

now it's important to remeber that the ftr is at his best when it's one on one, the ftr as of right now has no innate abilty for area attacks, the mage does. this is an important distinction when talking of a party as a whole. rather than a one on one.

-----

now i would be very suprised if every single ftr a mage will stumble across is armed w/ both of the above mentioned items, hence their value cannot be used as a benchmark for powercurves of a whole class (or all the classes)

a ftr without the reflection is still a tough opponent, but there are plenty of raw damage spells w/ no save or save for 1/2 dm.
now add in some stoneskins & invisiblity, all of a sudden it's a tough day for the ftr.

and once you take into account lare scale combat, the ftr is starting to look weaker and weaker.

remember a single ftr cannot defend or take a castle, a single mage can.

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: koz-ivan ]

[Bruce Lee]

In real d&d a single fighter cannot take a castle( guess it depends on the dm). But here he sure can. A mage will always be stronger in one fight, but the fighter is more endurable. It is alot easier to play some kind of fighter, you need to be skilled to take full advantage of the mage.
Saves cap out in bg2 so unless anything changes in the rules they wont get any better in ToB.

[Andrew Shih]

I did include "rate of progression" in my guide--basically, early on, druids and thieves are great, while late in the game, mages and monks are especially good.

--Riverwind

[two]

Originally posted by moriveth:

With Chain Contingency and Time stop and new spells like Improved Alacrity, your equations for damage break down. *Several* high-lvl Horrid Wiltings, even when all are saved against, are (especially against a large group) far more damaging than anything a fighter can dish out for a short time period. And wasn't there a 20d10 spell they mentioned at some point? But yeah, I can't see casting Finger of Death much...
[/QB]

I like mages -- I really do. They are my favorite class to play. But I still don't buy the damage argument listed above. I am worried they will still be weak in TOB.

Let's say you are confronted by a big bad monster (dragon, something mean). Let's take the best case scenario on the new spell: this Dragon's Head spell (does 20d10) is level 9 or a special 1/ce day innate for high level Mages and let's say it has NO save. You cast it on a baddie (Dragon, Giant Drooling Snake, something). Best case: magic resistance fails, save fails or no save, no magic damage/fire resistance, no spell trap or stuff like that. MAXIMUM damage is 200. That's rolling 20 10's in a row.

For a fighter of level 22 or so, with improved haste for the big fight (blinding strike or ring of gaax or mage cast it on him) he has 8+ or so attacks a round. If he rolls 8 20's (far more likely than 20 10's) his maximum damage is gross -- I don't know 60*8=400 or so. So forget about criticals, just hit normally. That's 8*25=200 or so. If you miss a few times (very unlikely at this level unless their AC is insane) drop that to 120-160.

Or forget the improved haste you still get 100 hp/round damage, 200+ with criticals.

And there are not many ways to reduce hitting damage. AND there are a lot of no-save specials that weapons grant you (slow, lingering damage, level drain percentage, thatco reduction, dispel magic, etc.).

This Dragon's head spell is roughly equivalent to a fighter with CromF or another high level weapon attacking for ONE round. Granted -- Dragon's Head is an area effect spell I suspect. But this does not make up for the low damage+lots of probable resistances (magical fire res., 1/2 damage saves, magic res., etc.) Plus once you cast it it's done with. The fighter keeps hacking.

Hell, put three Wiltings together and what do you get? at 25th level 25*1d8*3. That's what, maximum, saves fail magic resistance fails no magic damage resistance: 600 hp's. I am pretty sure this beats any possible fighter max for one round (can a fighter hit 8 times for 80 dam. each? maybe but not likely). But even 3 Wilting's only give on AVERAGE around 125*3=375 BEFORE magic res, saves, etc. Assuming saves for big baddies on spells, that's 180 or so damage. Good, but not great for 3 8th level spells. The fighter does that in 2 rounds on average, in 1 if lucky.

You see my point. Yes the mage can and will probably do slightly more single-round damage if stacked in a sequencer or he/she uses an alacrity spell -- IF it gets through magic resistance and the spells are of the no-save variety. HOWEVER after this wad is shot -- then what? The fighter keeps doing 100+ a round (round after round after round) with major specials -- and the mage sits back and ponders sleeping.

You can see this dynamic by the end of BGII; get CromF, gave it to a fighter-type with Belm off-hand, and watch siletly as the damage builds to ridiculous levels every round. Honestly, at this point the mage is far better stocking up on improved haste spells than anything else.

Yes Mages are good. Great at 1 fight/sleep/1 fight/sleep. But fighters almost dish out as much damage already on a round-by-round basis, and they can go ALL DAY.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me how a high level mage can dish out as much damage, on average, as a high level figher over 10 rounds? Or even 5? Then over 2-3 fights in a row without sleeping? As the mage, you have to get super-lucky with rolls, or use an imprisonment on something that's not immune (give up that treasure and xp). I wonder what WISH will do offensively, assuming a 16-18 wisdom or so?

The one advantage Mages still retain is area-effect. This is somewhat more useful than a fast fighter for medium-high baddies bunched together. Not so great for really mean monsters (dragon, etc.) that are singular, and have easy spell saves, magic dam. resistences and stuff like that.

Also remember weapon no-save specials; level drain, slow, save vs. death at -4, etc. This are occasionally more useful than any mage spell ever (ends fight immediately or in a few more easy whacks).

Yes Mages are much more flexible, can do more, good at support, can summon, invis, explore, cast WISH, etc. But I honestly think a figher will be way more useful at actually dealing out damage to baddies than the mage, even short term. Long-term (longer than 3 rounds) the fighters wins hands down, no question.

[Bruce Lee]

Two. My thoghts exactly. This is so true especially for a barbarian who has close too 200 hps and 40% resistance to damage if he is wielding defender of easthaven which he should. Nothing much can happen, it is more interesting to play mage however.

[koz-ivan]

bruce lee & two -

first off you're right about the insane amount of damage a fighter can do. all day.

but, i still think you guys are missing
something, an archmage is not a pushover, and in concentrated bursts they wield extreme power.

a few stoneskins, protect from magic weapons and timestop, gives a mage a full ten rounds where the ftr can do nothing to defend himself (or attack) save run away.

then add on offensive sequencers, and that's a lot of magic (and damage) flying around.

mord's sword another upper level spell that can be trouble for fighters.

------

the above being said, you're both right if the spellcaster ai is not improved. in bg2 i don't there is a mage that relys on pure damage spells. i expect that to change.

------

next of course we have no idea what the designers have up their sleeve.

there could be whole hordes of monsters that are highly resistant to weapon damage but vulnerable to spells, (much like the protection from magic weapons spell)

spells like blade barrier (globe of razors?) could be a major deterrent to mele also, (it's currently not w/ save to avoid damage but who knows?)

[moriveth]

Originally posted by two:
<STRONG>Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me how a high level mage can dish out as much damage, on average, as a high level figher over 10 rounds? Or even 5? Then over 2-3 fights in a row without sleeping? </STRONG>

Fine! You're wrong. Your calculations assume there's just a single enemy; a fighter can clearly do more damage to an isolated and unprotected enemy under those circumstances. The advantage of a flurry of horrid wiltings is that they can potentially kill half a dozen tough monsters immediately, before they have a chance to strike even once. Multiply the mage's expected damage by six--and it's being done in a single round.

(Note that a mage can actually do 6 horrid wiltings with a chain contingency and a time stop. Hopefully this will not be necessary very often.)

Of course, you notice the area effect issue yourself, but I think you're far too quick to dismiss it as irrelevant: it's the most favorable situation for a mage, and medium-sized groups of enemies are common in SoA, and constitute many of the tougher fights.

Is it really a problem if those three horrid wiltings average a mere 180 damage? Not unless we have groups of monsters with that much life, and that remains to be seen.

The scenario you present just isn't likely to be present in ToB, in any case. When are you going to be in multiple tough fights in a row without being able to rest? For that matter, are there more than a few fights in SoA that last much more than several rounds with a full party? Those that do usually involve mages with multiple protections from physical damage.

You are also assuming there is a need to inflict that magnitude of damage. But what tends to hold up battles? In my experience, it's rarely an inability to inflict damage quickly enough to a single target. It's either sheer numbers or spell protections, obstacles mages are often the best counter for in SoA.

As you point out, even a monster with huge hit points will go down quickly to a couple fighters. Which means Bioware will never create a monster with 500 hit points without serious weapons against melee fighters, like wing buffet, and expect it to be challenging to the player. You know how disappointing Pit Fiends are, despite inflicting a fair chunk of damage, because your fighters chop them to little pieces in a round or two? I don't think Bioware's going to make *that* mistake again.

I'm not sure I understand why you cite dragons as an area where fighters shine. I don't know about ToB's dragons, but I find mages much more effective against SoA's dragons than fighters, who tend to die too fast in melee. (Mages suck against *groups* of resistant monsters, like Drow and Mind Flayers.)

Remember that fighters are not getting much more life and probably won't have a drastically better AC, while ToB's monsters will undoubtedly do more damage. The price for doing massive melee damage is that the enemy can do the same to you.

I'm not arguing that mages will be better than fighters in ToB. In SoA, there are many situations where fighters are notably more useful than mages and vice versa. E.g., you definitely want your fighters taking out Irenicus's demons in Hell, but a Death Spell is the most effective weapon against a pack of Umber Hulks. If Bioware does their job in balancing ToB, this parity will continue. That certainly includes not giving enemies too many resistances.

It's easy to construct artificial scenarios where one class is clearly better than the other. If we fight a lot of 300-life, magic-resistant crowds, I'm with you 100% that mages will be less effective than fighters.

[xFedaykin]

It isn't appropriate to judge a classes power based purely on the amount of damage that can be dealt in a single round. That's just part of the larger equation of overall power.
One must also consider endurance, survivability and adaptability. I like the umberhulk example moriveth posted, a single high level fighter, even with the best AC and weapons, will more than likely get mauled by a large group bunch of relatively low level umberhulks. A lower level mage will just cast cloudkill or some other mass death spell.

One must also consider that a fighter has only one way of dealing damage, and that is through his weapons. A mage has a variety of ways to dispose of an enemy. He can cast offensive spells, disabling spells, area effect destruction spells, summon creatures to fight for him, or become a fighter himself (tenser's transformation). That kind of adaptability, a fighter will never possess.

In any case, I like the way some of the classess are balanced in BG2 (although some kits are useless, like mageslayer). Casters will always need the protection of warriors, while warriors will fall to overwhelming numbers and powerful creatures unless unaided by casters.

[Cloak]

This is a very interesting topic, and I am enjoying it alot. However I have a question about the affect of lower resistance. I have realized that my Paladin Cavalier can get about 100% resistance to magic once he has the correct equipment (this includes the Cloak of Balderan). In any case, whatever his resistance was before he equips the holy avenger, once it is equipped he has only 50% resistance.

That being said, assuming he encounters a mage who casts a number of lower resistance spells, all he would have to do is continue reequipping the holy avenger to keep a constant 50% magic resistance. This will sure to put some magic users off

However is topic is about the Power curves of the various classes. People seem to think that high level fighters in particular the dwarven berserker is the strongest class throughout the games. And I admit, this class is very strong, even without the up coming high level abilities such as the whirlwind attack. But I think that the fighter types with the ability to cast spells will always be the strongest. Especially the fighter/cleric combo and the paladin (caviler and undead hunter). These two are able or will be able to raise there str, con, and dex to about 25 each thanks to draw upon holy might. And thanks to armor of faith (a level 1 spell), which stacks, they don't have to worry about physical attacks. (A level 20 cleric only has to cast 4 AOF and has 100% resistance to physical damage).

Therefore, they can get as strong, as tough, and as agile as possible, and also be immune to physical damage all without eq. (I didn't even mention that spell the cleric get which allows them to deal out maximum damage with every attack ---- lets hope the paladin doesn't get this)

While I am here, let me throw out this idea. In the real world you can do things to change your stats as it where. You can work out and get stronger and tougher and faster, or you get wiser with age/experience. Intelligence you are born with, so no one really gets smarter, just more educated. In any case, how about having the fighters getting a stat increase of 1 at a very high level, and the same for the cleric types in wisdom. That's just my opinion. What are your thoughts?

[The Antichrist]

The most pwerful class at high levels will be the blade. Imagine tensers transformation at level 40+.....plus their almost uninterupted spell casting ability whilst in defensive spin
their fighting skills continue to increase greatly as they level up quicker than most classes in the game....add that to offensive spin and you get some freakish crossbread of a monk/kensai/mage.

[Bruce Lee]

Mages do have great power if controlled by a pc, not by the computer. I have soloead a barbarian and had no trouble whatsoever with any mages. I had heaps more trouble trying to solo a mage.

[Rail]

Originally posted by Cloak:
<STRONG>But I think that the fighter types with the ability to cast spells will always be the strongest. Especially the fighter/cleric combo and the paladin (caviler and undead hunter). These two are able or will be able to raise there str, con, and dex to about 25 each thanks to draw upon holy might. And thanks to armor of faith (a level 1 spell), which stacks, they don't have to worry about physical attacks. (A level 20 cleric only has to cast 4 AOF and has 100% resistance to physical damage).</STRONG>

Keep in mind, AoF depends on the casting level of the PC. A paladin or ranger has a low casting level, despite their high level as a paladin or ranger. AoF doesn't help them much. Fighter/Clerics, however, are an entirely different story. With multiple AoF's, they're nigh unstoppable!

[two]

Originally posted by xFedaykin:
<STRONG>It isn't appropriate to judge a classes power based purely on the amount of damage that can be dealt in a single round. That's just part of the larger equation of overall power.
One must also consider endurance, survivability and adaptability. I like the umberhulk example moriveth posted, a single high level fighter, even with the best AC and weapons, will more than likely get mauled by a large group bunch of relatively low level umberhulks. A lower level mage will just cast cloudkill or some other mass death spell.

One must also consider that a fighter has only one way of dealing damage, and that is through his weapons. A mage has a variety of ways to dispose of an enemy. He can cast offensive spells, disabling spells, area effect destruction spells, summon creatures to fight for him, or become a fighter himself (tenser's transformation). That kind of adaptability, a fighter will never possess.

In any case, I like the way some of the classess are balanced in BG2 (although some kits are useless, like mageslayer). Casters will always need the protection of warriors, while warriors will fall to overwhelming numbers and powerful creatures unless unaided by casters.</STRONG>

You make some good points here, and some that are debatible.

First of all by the end of BGII, a 17th level fighter decked out with typically great armor/weapons will devestate a group of 10 UmberHulks in 10 rounds max, far less if improved hasted. It is unlikely he will take much, if any damage as his AC is -10 or better, which Umber Hulks have some difficulty hitting. In any case he is regenerating rapidly, is probably physically resistant to some damage, etc. His spell saves are negative so who cares about confusion?

Have you played a high-level fighter with CromF and good armor? You can put him on autokill, walk away, and he decimates the entire Drow city by himself.

Is a Death Spell better than throwing in this fighter to wipe out 10 Umber Hulks? I suppose yes, it's faster. If they all fail saves. But the fighter also gets the job done, no fail saves needed. And the fighter has infinite rounds; you don't have infitie death spells.

A mage is of course hugely adaptible, you are so right. "One must also consider endurance, survivability and adaptability." However for endurance purposes and survivability, the mage is not at the top of the list. His endurance SUCKS; once he casts few sequencers of high level spells he needs to rest. Two 9th level spells and he's winded. As it stands in BGII this does not matter; when I play a mage I rest every other battle. However I suspect in TOB you won't be able to rest just any/everywhere... Survivability? The same as a fighter; both can run away from any battle if it's too nasty in order to rest.

Yes fighters take damage in melee. But only seriously from the biggest of big baddies (Dragons, the worst Demons, etc.) and then you take some precautions and drink potions when you have to. All the rest do little scratches when they infrequently hit. High level fighters are superb at medium-level battles, often killing without any serious damage to themselves (Drow, Vampires, non-Kangaax liches, etc.). Give him level-drain protection and let him go. These are all trouble for mages, or at least burn quite a few high level spells.

Fighters can be excellent vs. dragons. Posted here not long ago was the Paladin's way to kill Firekrag; ring of gaax improved haste, use Flail of Ages for insta-slow, use fire protection armor/helm vs. breath, attack when dragon is quiescent. The poster got 10 kills to Firekraag out of 10 attacks. No mage can do that solo, 10 of of 10, period. The old finger-o-death routine requires cheesy reloads, after all...

I guess what I'm saying is that any enemy, grouped together, that can be killed off by a few Wilting spells is by definition not much of a challenge for a fighter either. What enemies fall into this category, by the way? What respectible high-level monster is grouped together without magic resistance or anything? Not undead...not Drow...not Demons...not Golems...Umber Hulks yes but they are wimpy. Shadow Beasts? Too weak. Illithid? NO way, everyone has trouble with them! Nasty, magic resistant too. Beholders? Possibly, but they are trivial with cloak of reflection anyway. And are any new, even nastier monsters going to lack magic resistance, resistance to magic damage, immunities,etc.? I doubt it.

Help me out here, what is a good scenario where a few Wilting's work vs. high level foes where a fighter would be in trouble? I mean by the end of the game the fighter can whack 5 of JonI's demons with little damage to himself with basic retreat/attack/retreat tactics and some imp. haste.

Where do the high level mages shine?

And again -- everyone better hope for Mage's sakse that you can rest "at will" in TOB. If not, if there are some dungeons where resting is prohibited or made very difficult... that's going to make it very dicey.

I love mages though, way fun to play, they add more strategy to the game, are more complex too.