P.p.s.: Also, its very important how you skill your characters. A Sorcerer with a poor spelllist for example isnt fun to play at all. Neither is a fighter who has picked the wrong weapon skills and cant use the really good weapons, at least not as well as they are supposed to.
There is one difference here (though I really do think the game would have been less awful with some way to respec character choices):
* In the fighter case, there is no good indication of the trade-offs of the different weapon choices. You don't know, unless you look it up ahead of time, what weapons are in the game and whether there's some interesting weapon you want to use. This can be a problem if you find a neat weapon with interesting properties, but you weren't psychic enough to know that and therefore didn't put proficiency in the weapon type.
* In the sorcerer case, on the other hand, the game gives you the full details of each spell you can pick (aside from some edge cases, which can be fun to explore if you're like me). Hence, the choice of which spell to pick feels meaningful, unlike the choice of weapon proficiencies. (There's still the issue that a spell that looks good on paper might not be good in practice, and vice versa.)
I still maintain that weapon proficiencies, like how Baldur's Gate and its sequel do thins, are bad game design. (And I note that the problem is actually worse in BG2 than in classic BG1 because of how they split the weapon proficiencies into more categories.)
But its not about damage output on wizards. In a system based on spells per day, you will only kill the really tough foes. Critter is left to the warriors.
Or, against those weaker enemies, you can either:
* Take advantage of the fact that spell resources are segregated by spell level (something that never made sense to me), and use your lower level spells against weaker enemies.
* Look for spells that are specifically good against groups of lower level enemies, like Death Spell.
Thats by the way a fix of the EEs; in the original game Cavalier was stuck as a level 9 spellcaster after level 17, Armor of Faith (the one thing Inquisitor is missing in comparison to Cavalier) only ever gave 10% damage reduction.
Unless you stacked it, though I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble.
(Remember that Armor of Faith stacks in classic but not enhanced. Personally, I prefer having this spell, and many other short-duration spells, stack.)
But most importantly you can dualclass. Berserker(9)/Cleric is just awesome, gets 3 rages (you usually only need one anyway), a lot more hitpoints (especially also from constitution beyond 16), can have percentile strength (thats a 18/xx score), and with dualweapon and an Improved Haste from a friendly wizard you get up to 7 attacks per round (ignoring dualwielding haste weapons like Belm or Kundane, who are pretty rare anyway and are limited to +2).
Btw Berserker(9)/Druid isnt nearly as good. You only can dualwield Clubs and Scimitars. And as a Druid, you cannot buff yourself as a warrior. Also, the Druid kits arent just fluff, they actually change a lot, so they are interesting to pick.
Are levels 8 and 9 of Berserker worth being weak for longer?