the Falcon wrote:
> > 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).

> 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...

OK, this is one of my favorite topics. The big difference between a mage
and a fighter, IMO, is preparation. That is, a fighter can pick up a
sword and armor and just swing it and be as effective as always.
However, the more time a mage has to work with, the more effective he'll
be. That is, there are a slew of defensive and support magics a mage can
throw up to make himself more or less invincible. On top of that, he has
to have his spellbook ready and have the right things memorized. But, if
that mage does get the chance to prepare, to cast all of those spells
and position himself, and if he knows that he's going to need to fight,
there is nothing that can stop him. AND, with the right divination
spells, there's no reason why the mage shouldn't know everything he
needs. So, my maxim has always been that a well played mage will never
be defeated by anyone else. (Of course, a mediocrely played one will
drop quite fast vs. any opponent, as I've also seen many times (an 11th
level Wizard PC getting dropped by the 4th level goblin magician in the
WotS adventure)).