> Actually, I have found that there is a slight alteration, in general, to that
> rule. It's all a matter of ratios, actually. The first one to fall is the one
> with the highest ratio of offense to defense (that is, the character that can
> inflict the most damage compared to his hitpoints). IMC, one of the characters
> had the capacity to inflict enormous amounts of damage (something like 2d4+10 in
> a hit), but could also take huge amounts (due to certain magical factors, he had
> equivalent hp of around 170. [Yeah, I know, you guys have no respect for my
> DMing skills now. But really, it all works in the context of my campaign...
> really]. The next biggest threat could inflict less damage per round, but only
> slightly less. The thing is, he had far fewer hit points, and so it was worth it
> to try to get him out of the fight as quickly as possible. That's why the mages
> are usually attacked as quickly as possible. They usually have a very high
> damage:defense ratio. OK, just my $.02

Which is just so unfair. I mean, when you're mage you already have
incredibly low resistance to damage, what with no armor and low hit
points. And if that ain't bad enough, everyone attacks you first. Not to
mention all those coins you have to spend on research, while the other's
are just hoarding gold, since they've already gathered all the mundane
equipment they could ever need. But I just happen to like mages.
*sigh* Well, I guess I could always play a bard...

- the Falcon