For spells that depend on caster experience level, are archers and paladins treated same way as clerics and sorcerers?

So for example a spell dealing x points per level would deal the same amount if cast by a level 10 archer and a level 10 sorcerer?

If this is true, then wouldn't this mean, that once the archer gains enough levels to cast all spells, the sorcerer becomes completely obsolete. The archer has all the abilities of a sorcerer without any of the disadvantages...

Only Clerics and Sorcerors can cast lvl 6 and 7 spells. And they have a much larger mana pool. So no, they don't become obsolete.
EDIT: that should be lvl 8 and 9 spells, not 6 and 7.

What do you mean larger mana pool? spell points are calculated same way for archers and sorcerers (depending on level + Intellect)... So a sorcerer and archer of same level and same intellect would have same number of spell points.

Yes, you're right - must have confused it with another game. Mana pool is only dependent on the character level, and INT or PER stats.
But Archers and Paladins can't cast lvl 8 and 9 spells.

Yeah but by then the mage can cast much more powerful spells than lightning bolt. I found that archers and paladins definitely feel weaker in terms of spells due to their limited spell selection.

True, so this means the mage is more powerful, only because he can cast higher level spells than the archer... Which brings me to my point, that in this case, the mage is only more powerful so long as he can cast higher level spells, and as soon as they both reach level 9 spells, the only advantage of a mage would have been lost...

But since the archer can't cast level 8-9 spells, the mage still retains some advantage, albeit arguably it's just a small one (I think you can get good damaging level 1-7 spells, especially with skill potions.. + all the 'utility' spells are there). In return the archer gets *much* higher combat skills, better weapons, and much better armor and hit points.

This is all true. But I found that by the time I got my archer's best spells, they weren't really that useful anymore. It was usually better to have the archer attack than cast anything, because at that point I was having my mage blast away with some seriously powerful magic that far outclassed the earlier spells.

To me, the spells my archer got were almost just a convenience feature. I could use my archer to cast some of the weaker spells if necessary so my mage was free to throw around something more powerful.

It's true that there are some good spells at levels 6 and 7, but by the time my archer got those it was already really late in the game. The delay in acquiring spells for the archer really means they are outdated by the time the archer is able to cast them. If the archer got the spells at the same level as the mage, then I would agree with you that they're a better class to pick, but getting more powerful spells as soon as possible is a much bigger advantage in my opinion.

So in a nutshell, by the time the archer becomes "better" than the mage, it's pretty much game over anyway...

They're just apples and oranges in comparison.

Archers get better weapons, weaker spells. They'll probably deal more damage in the long run.

Wizards get stronger spells, can target multiple enemies with strong damage and can make the biggest difference in combat with enemies who have some physical weapon immunities.

The wizard's Inferno spell and Implosion spell can mean a huge difference in a battle -- archer doesn't get them.

I tend to use my archer to teleport, jump, guard dog and deal minor damage to physical-resistant creatures. My sorcerer sits and waits until a massive boom is needed. (classic nuke character)

Same goes for paladin and cleric. The paladin can heal a bit when needed, but the cleric can do huge heal when needed by far better.

In general, my paladin and archer are vastly better than my cleric and sorcerer. But without the cleric and sorcerer, I think my party would have failed. When you nee them, they're there.

Guys, I understand all this. I have both an archer and sorcerer in my party.

I think I wasn't too clear on my post. My point is only that the archer is exactly just as good as a sorceror at the act of spellcasting. Specifically, he gets same number of spell points and his spells do same amount of damage.

So the "only" advantage of the sorceror is that he can cast spells that an archer can't. An advantage that is very significant at the beginning (and in practice throughout the game) but theoretically gets smaller as the archer approaches higher spell levels, and would have disappeared completely had he been able to cast level 9 spells. (The fact that he can't means that sorceror retains a small advantage).
so while at the beginning it's "apples and oranges", later they become very similar.A a level 100 archer is *exactly* same as a level 100 sorceror who cant cast 8-9 level spells.

But like Waltorious said, this high level is not really reached in a normal game until the very end. Had all characters started the game at level 50, things would have been different.

(Please note it's slightly different for clerics/paladins. Clerics gain levels much faster, so always retain a theoretical significant advantage).

Again, this is just some random theoretical musings on my part. The point of which is that the archer/palading spellcasting should have been nerfed: only half spell points, and only taken at half level when calculating damage dealing (so a spell dealing 1-6 damage per level would do 1-6 x 4 for a level 4 sorceror but 1-6 x 2 for a level 4 archer).

I've heard that in World of Xeen, the archer does indeed get half the spell points but otherwise can cast all the same spells as the sorcerer, which actually means that archers are a much better choice. The spell points don't end up mattering much, and the better combat skills are really useful. But it's been a really long time since I've played so I won't know for sure until I replay it.