> From: "Alexandre Lanciani" <alexanl_at_...>
>Subject: Re: multiple attacks
> Indeed the rules seem to discourage such a tactics. Not only you take a
>penalty (*) but the opponents all defend with their best roll and you only
>get to divide your bid between them, in sum doing no more (generalized)
>total damage than if you just attack one opponent, but with a lot of
>disadvantages.
>
> So why should one opt to attack (or, rather, act against) multiple
>adversaries rather than taking them one at a time?
For dramatic effect and/or to save time. For example. 1 hero, 1 child and
two assassins trying to kill the child. The hero acts first. He could take
them out one at a time or cleave them in two with a single blow. If
successful this prevents them killing the child ...
It seems reasonable realistic to me. It should be ludicrously difficult. I
might add bonuses and/or edges for using area effect weapons.
Thom