Quote from Kaeporo;443809:
Melee: Race determines effectiveness (through weapon selection and skill load times)
Range: Race determines effectiveness and flexbility (Damage output is largely identical, though elves sport greater DPS and mobility)
Magic: Race determines efficiency (lower mana consumption versus greater AP investment)
Alchemy: Largely equal
The thing is, for melee and range, race potential for damage is set in stone. No amount of AP will change your place in the race rankings, only in your personal performance. Mana efficiency for magic, however, when one thinks long-term, is really only important in the sense that you probably want enough of a mana pool to cast your most expensive spell at least twice before potting, and mana can go even higher than that; the difference in mana costs are noteworthy more on a scale of convenience than they are on a scale of performance, especially now that the game has more mana herbs than it knows what to do with. However, as far as potential magic
damage is concerned, all the races are fairly equal. The more int-giving skills come out, the less teeth-pulling all races have to do to get max INT, and 600 is a feasible threshold for all the races regardless.
I guess the point I'm making is that the disadvantage of a giant mage is one of convenience, as opposed to the disadvantage of a melee elf, which is one of accessibility, numbers and mechanics. So, really, magic was originally (as in, before alchemy came along) and still continues to be one of the two "great equalizers" of the four fighting styles, with alchemy splitting equality right down the middle.