>warrior/thief/ranger/whatever. Does the average mage without
>ABS have all the tools it needs to defeat the average warrior,
>of equal skill, 50% of the time? I think it does.

And I would say no. A mage like that is absolutely dependant on opportunism. A warrior isn't. Sure, a mage *could* go 50/50 or even win 100% by being extra cautious, but that's not the question. In my experience, with mages and non-mages, is that mages without at least some extra protections are too fragile to be scary (unless you have no saves and get surprised and slept). I mean, as a *bard* with a nightwalker in the daytime, a couple of times I out-melleed a hero transmuter with a/b/s who froze me, but failed to soften/decalc me before he got wittled down. And I had crappy saves. Now imagine if I was a warrior with decent saves and he had no a/b/s... he wouldn't stand a chance.

Do you think Lightmage is just an idiot, because he has said that you need a/b/s as a shifter. Overall I think that while there certainly are a number of different cases where mages can win without a/b/s, they can't get in there and mix it up, and absolutely must rely on opportunism. By contrast, most melee classes can accept a wider variety of fights and have a pretty even chance. A full a/b/s mage is probably more on the overpowered side, and that's why they shouldn't be given a/b/s all the time. But without at least something they are definitely lacking.

Lastly, you're forgetting that anyone can pretty easily prepare to fight a mage by gearing for svs, which can really ruin the mage's chances.