All of these points were beat to death earlier in the discussion. The rule is full of ambiguities, and ultimately we couldn't even agree on which readings are reasonable, let alone which is the rule as intended. Why resurrect a controversial thread that's been cold since September?
I've seen a lot of thread necromancy lately. I know it's easy to do here because the archives are shallow, and you don't have to dig too deep to find a discussion from last year. But please, don't reignite controversies unless you have something definitive to add. Don't just repeat things that have already been said. (For that matter, don't just repeat things in current threads either if you can avoid it, although I know that we all get caught up in it sometimes.)
Thread necromancy is a bit of a Catch-22. Some people don't want old threads reopened, others don't want people starting new threads when the argument's already been discussed. Sometimes, new information comes to light (e.g. errata or official rulings) and it hasn't been publicized. Sometimes, it helps to shed new light on old problems and maybe spark an official ruling. Other times, it's just beating a dead horse. Those dead horses won't beat themselves, you know!
FWIW, here are my two cents (reasonable minds can differ)...
I tend toward the benefit of the defending player in my rulings. So if you choose full defense, you get full defense to everything coming in. You're eating negative modifiers from multiple attackers and giving up your own offensive efforts for any given pass. Those are pretty big losses, so I don't feel bad giving a corresponding benefit (in this case, enhanced die pools for more than just one incoming attack). Plus, it's a bit more theatrical. Dodge the adept's glowing fist, slap aside the spurs of the nearby samurai, then twist just enough that the sharpshooter's bullet goes by your ear. That's good stuff! Here are the options, as I see them...
1. Full defense, full dodge: ranged = Dodge + Reaction, melee = (Dodge + Dodge + Reaction) or (Dodge + Melee Skill + Reaction)
2. Full defense, gymnastic dodge: ranged = Gymnastics + Reaction, melee = (Gymnastics + Dodge + Reaction) or (Gymnastics + Melee Skill + Reaction)
3. Full defense, full parry: ranged = Reaction, melee = (Melee Skill + Melee Skill + Reaction)
You have to choose one full dodge, gymnastic dodge, or full parry) when you select Full Defense. When you pick one, you exclude the option to use the others. However, within each, you choose the die pool appropriate to the type of attack you're facing. So a character who chooses full dodge and who faces one ranged attack and two melee attacks must use Dodge + Reaction against the ranged attack, but could choose between Dodge + Dodge + Reaction or Dodge + Melee Skill + Reaction for each melee attack. They could choose Dodge + Dodge + Reaction for one melee attack and Dodge + Melee Skill + Reaction for the other melee attack, or stick with one of the possible die pools for both.
So why would anyone choose Full Parry if they're essentially going commando against ranged? If they have a huge melee skill and are facing multiple melee attackers, with a goal of survival over winning. Maybe to maximize a specialization. It's a very focused choice that makes sense in focused situations, not so much sense outside of them. Still, it's nice to have options!
