Re: Are Multiple Attack rules broken?

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:18:03 +0000

> > I can't see anything in the rules to indicate that "roll"
>> automatically excludes bumps. For instance the result after bumps is
>> described as a "roll" on p67 (step d "Compare your result...").
>> Personally I would read both as applying to the result after bumps.
>
>Try step C:
>"Roll a die to determine your degree of success or failure, *then* apply any
>bumps." (emphasis mine).

i.e. the rules include applying bumps in the same step as rolling the die. It supports my point as well as it supports yours.

>Sure, you can apply bumps first, that is basically my first option under
>"out of rules".

My point is that it isn't clear that it IS "out of rules". The rules as written are not explicit on the point. And in the case where there is a serious disparity in abilities not taking bumps into account lead to the situation where it is significantly easier to attack a foe by going for multiple opponents.

>
>> I would add that if there is a clear imbalance in the primary
>> abilities as there is here it is probably better in most cases to
>> treat the lesser opponent as a follower.
>
>There may be good reasons for *not* treating an opponent as a follower to a
>greater opponent, even with a disparity in ability ratings. The
>circumstances of the contest, and the feelings that the narrator wants to
>evoke need to be taken into account.

Hence the qualification "in most cases".

-- 
--
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of 
immortality.  More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals 
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala 
Guide to Taoism_

Paul K.