It's strange that this should come up now, as I was looking through the FAQ the other day, and thought I was still not completely clear about exactly how followers worked for Multiple attacker penalties, However when I read it again more carefully as I tried to frame a question to post here it all fell into place. The key being that followers reduce the penalty for being attacked by multiple opponents, but don't reduce the penalty for attacking multiple opponents in one action.
Dealing with Bryan's example first...
>Now Dan wants to join the combat. The goal is for Bob to have no
>penalty against the third attacker, and only -3 against the fourth.
>Dan can't add his AP to Bob at this point. He could augment him, or
>loan him AP I suppose. How would you rule what is sufficient
>commitment to count as a third defender?
I'd agree Dan can't just add his AP to Bob, P67 seems clear that this is only an option at the start of a contest. So it looks like either Loaning AP or Augmenting, would be appropriate. The description of loaning AP on p71 seems more concerned with a PC loaning AP to another PC, rather than followers. It doesn't suggest what happens to the loaner if the main actor loses the contest, whereas the rules on augmentation p80 are explicit that the augmentor suffers defeat as normal. However if you justify the loaning of AP's by saying Dan is joining the contest then having him suffer any consequences of defeat seems more than justified.
-- +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Tim Ellis EMail tim_at_... | | What is the use of a book without pictures or conversations? | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Powered by hypermail