> Actually, I have found that there is a slight alteration, in general, to
> rule. It's all a matter of ratios, actually. The first one to fall is the
> with the highest ratio of offense to defense (that is, the character that
> inflict the most damage compared to his hitpoints). IMC, one of the
> 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
> DMing skills now. But really, it all works in the context of my
> really]. The next biggest threat could inflict less damage per round, but
> 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
> are usually attacked as quickly as possible. They usually have a very high
> damage:defense ratio. OK, just my $.02

If I was attacking that group...I would never attack the target that could
do less damage and had less hp in a round...because in a few rounds when he
(the weaker) is dead...I'm now weaker and much less likely to survive to
kill the stronger (especially since I should probably be unaware of the
exact hp and such)...but if I spend the time killing the stonger...once
that's done...even though I'm now weaker (from damage, etc.) I still have my
best chance to win the fight overall...however...if I didn't know all the
numbers...I'd probably assume that the mage was more dangerous...if I knew
there was a mage...