[Bradd]

Suppose that you're attacked with a sword, then a pistol. How do you handle Full Defense?

1. Full Defense is an action; use the best kind of Full Defense versus each attack.

• Enemy #1 attacks with a sword.
• I interrupt with Full Defense, and defend with a Full Parry.
• Enemy #2 attacks with a pistol.
• I continue my Full Defense, and defend with a Full Dodge.

2. Full Dodge, Full Parry, and Gymnastic Dodge are different actions.

• Enemy #1 attacks with a sword.
• I interrupt with Full Parry and defend.
• Enemy #2 attacks with a pistol.
• I'm screwed, because Full Parry doesn't work against ranged attacks.

In my game, I went with the first ruling. Otherwise, it seems to me that Full Parry is almost always a bad idea: When can you be sure that there are no gunmen around?! That meant the option never got used, and so in the few cases where it actually was useful, everyone forgot about it. Full Parry ended up being useless extra bookkeeping.

I also think a careful reading of the RAW supports the first interpretation, but I'm not totally sure. Can anyone back it up or offer a strong argument against?

[Darkeus]

Hmmm....   Well, A full defense takes an action.  Actually, by RAW, you should not be able to take two Full Defense actions unless you have more than one Initiative pass.  That being said, I would have to go with ruling number two.  If Full Defense uses an action if it is used as an interrupt, then you have to have two actions to do so, and you give up two actions.  

Full Defense is not a continuation at all.

As for quotes from RAW:

"A character may invoke full defense against an attack at any point in
a Combat Turn, so long as the character is not surprised (see p. 165).
This means a character does not necessarily need to declare a full defense
and take a Complex Action in advance—he can instead declare
a full defense when attacked, even if it is not yet his Action Phase in
the turn. Going on full defense as an interrupt, however, uses up the
character’s next available action."

Bold font mine.  Note that teh RAW also state that Full Defense is a complex action.  This means that it cost you your whole action if you declare this on your turn.  Also note that full defense is just a declaration.  How you use that full defense is dependent on the next attack against you.  That means that if you declare that you are using Full Defense on your action, if you are shot at you will use Reaction + Dodge or Reaction + Gymnastics.

If you are attacked with melee then you can use Reaction + Dodge + Dodge or Melee skill * 2 or Gymnastics + Dodge.

Note that Gymnastics can be used against Ranged or melee but has no multiplier like Dodge or Parry in full defense.

[Bradd]

Note that the Full Defense action applies to all attacks until your next phase. SR4A, p. 160:

Characters who are expecting to be attacked can spend a Complex
Action and go on full defense until their next Action Phase.
Characters who choose this option focus all of their energy on dodging,
weaving, ducking, and blocking incoming attacks.

The rule you cited allows players to invoke Full Defense as an interrupt, but it doesn't otherwise change the way Full Defense works. It should still last until your next action phase (at which time you pay for it with a complex action).

My question is what happens when there's more than one attack during Full Defense. Do you choose the best defense for each attack separately, or do you choose one defense and apply it to all attacks? I prefer the former, but I'm not sure it's the intended reading.

[FastJack]

I'd say you choose one defense and apply it to all attacks. Switching from Parrying a melee weapon to Dodging gunfire is two separate types of actions and mutually exclusive.

[Mäx]

In my game, I went with the first ruling. Otherwise, it seems to me that Full Parry is almost always a bad idea

I have to disagree with this, as with the two weapon style maneuver you can full parry with one weapon and still attack your enemy with your other weapon.

[anotherJack]

My question is what happens when there's more than one attack during Full Defense. Do you choose the best defense for each attack separately, or do you choose one defense and apply it to all attacks? I prefer the former, but I'm not sure it's the intended reading.

I have to disagree with FastJack, I think you can switch as you wish from one defense style to another, it's more fairplay for players who may have improved the three skills, and more cinematic fun.
But don't forget the modifier for multiple defenses.

About the first question, "which is the best", it depends a lot on how your character is built. Generally, there's one of the three options which fits better with your character, because it's redundant with a skill he already has. Dodge is probably the most versatile of the three options, since it's the only use of this skill, but it may not be usefull if you already have one of the two others skills. I have an ork ass-kicker and an elf shaman-face. My ork is built with a great firepower in melee, good athletic skills, with high body and armure scores. No dodge for him, because he's made to endure, go quickly to contact, and can already dodge with gymnastic. On the other hand, my elf is bad in melee, low constituion, and he's not really athletic : so full dodge, ftw.

[Usda Beph]

I don't know the ruling but to me the FULL in full defense means you are applying all your atention to the act of defending. So if you are attcked by a sword wielding Troll FIRST then that is getting all your attention (And rightly so Yikes!) so the Elf with the SMG has to deal only with your armor & luck. Both attacks though broke down as seperate actions can (and often do) happen simo (Troll swings as the elf burps off some rapid fire doom). As a GM I'd let the player decide which damage he's full defending against and let fate deside if it was the right choice.

[anotherJack]

Full defense means you are applying all your atention to the act of defending, that's true, but it does not mean all your atention is applied to ONE attack. Anyway, full defense or not, unless you fail a surprise test, you always have a defense test, you "only" get a much better pool with the full defense option.

[Usda Beph]

I can understand that, I was just giving my spin on how it could be ruled. I have a good bit of GM/DM experience and gave my general idea. It is how I'd rule it, but I won't argue anothers concept.

[anotherJack]

No problem, but ruling it like this, you'd weaken a lot low body characters, since they couldn't defend themselve from more than one attack, and so enforce those with heavy armor stacking. Knowing that armor stacking already is a bit overpowered, I think it would unbalance too much these options. My two cents, if you ever rule it.

[Usda Beph]

Good point. I don't know the mechanics of this game yet. But Characters die, & a 'wimp' in a situation like I suggested IS proably going to expire under the way I see it. But that 'wimp' is also the character that I normally defend as a PC. You know a meat shield!

[anotherJack]

Yay, the wimp should die. Flash Gordon shouldn't 

[Bradd]

In my game, I went with the first ruling. Otherwise, it seems to me that Full Parry is almost always a bad idea

I have to disagree with this, as with the two weapon style maneuver you can full parry with one weapon and still attack your enemy with your other weapon.

That touches on another issue we've had in our game, and part of the reason I think you select "Full Defense" as your action and not "Full Parry" etc. The rules for two weapon style actually say that you get Full Defense for free when fighting with two weapon. I interpret this to mean that you can use Full Parry against your melee foes but also Full Dodge against ranged attackers.  It sounds weird at first, but I figure it just reflects that you only need part of your attention for the attacks, leaving you free to focus more on defense. (I personally visualize this as using the weapons to help deflect ranged attacks. There's a perfect example of this in Wanted, and of course The Phantom Menace.)

Anyway, I meant that Full Parry was a often poor choice compared to Full Dodge, if you have to choose one or the other for the full duration of your Full Defense action. You get great defense against melee attackers, but your ranged defense is (Reaction-3), which is a good way to get killed if there are any gunmen around.

[anotherJack]

That touches on another issue we've had in our game, and part of the reason I think you select "Full Defense" as your action and not "Full Parry" etc. The rules for two weapon style actually say that you get Full Defense for free when fighting with two weapon. I interpret this to mean that you can use Full Parry against your melee foes but also Full Dodge against ranged attackers.  It sounds weird at first

At secondth too. As far as I know, only adepts can do things like deflecting a projectile, and they do need an adept power. RAI, as I interpret them - but I may be wrong - simply means the character uses his second weapon to full parry in melee, or there is no reason for it to be limited to two weapons fighting style.

[Doc Chaos]

Yeah, we also handle it like that. You choose to go Full Defense and get both melee and ranged defense, whichever applies.