Why (some) people dislike Defenses.

76 posts / 0 new
Last post
First I want to say that I like how Saga calculates defenses.

There are three reasons I can see to not like defenses as opposed to saving throws. There is also a #0 but it is so trivial that it isn't a reason so much as an excuse.

#0: It is different. Yeah, I said it was pretty trivial.

1. Defenses are static.
--> A general dislike that if Player A has a higher X Defense than Player B, than Player A is never effected unless Player B is effected.

2. That players don't roll them. (Sort of like part 1)

3. How they are calculated. I.e. 10 (or d20 roll) + Heroic Level + Highest Class Bonus + Stat + Misc.

4. Defenses get too high.

So what are people's opinions for disliking Saga Defenses? Is it 1, 2, 3, 4, or a different thing that I didn't think of?

And if your reason is #0, well I don't care to read opinions on #0, sticking with a game and version you like is a wonderful thing, I urge you to go read one of the many 3.X forums on this message board.
So what are people's opinions for disliking Saga Defenses? Is it 1, 2, 3, or a different thing that I didn't think of?

People don't like it because Saving Throws are a D&D Sacred Cow. People seem to think that they have some sort of impact on thier save by rolling a die, rather then fate.

I prefer Saga, simply because it makes the adjucation of many things, especially mind affecting abilities, easier on a fundamental level.

If you roll a to "attack" someone's will defense in secret, you can easily say "He seems like a nice fellow", and then pass 1 note to the non-affected player. Asking everyone to roll a will save kinda lets the cat out of the bag right off the bat that something is fishy, and while some players can be expected and trusted not to metagame, others can't.
Above all else, the most dangerous thing that can ever be said during any sort of testing scenario is "It's just the test." Assumption that an issue, no matter how glaring, will be fixed in the final product is the most devastating assumption that any tester can make, and the most disastrous of excuses for any flaw.
Rebuttal: Let's look at Saves in 3.X. Let's say we have a Fighter 1 who just got enough experience to go to level 2. Let's pretend that that Fighter splits into two copies. One goes Fighter 2, the other goes Fighter 1/Barbarian 1. Before leveling up, each went through the same encounters and each overcame the same obstacles in the same manner. Now, the only difference is their classes.

Next it is Fighter 3 vs Fighter 1/Barbarian 2. Now the Fighter had a bonus on Reflex and Will saves, while the Fighter-Barbarian doesn't. But they've still done everything the same!

Er, this is confusing to me. It seems like you're only rationally reinterpreting the save rules halfway. I notice you don't say that the fighter/barbarian has a doubled Fort save, so you're already using a houserule. IMO, ignoring the high starting value is correct, otherwise by RAW you could inflate your saves ridiculously by taking 1 level in lots of classes, but you need to pay attention to the other part too.

(AFAIK, it's all houseruling, so if there's an official errata or other ruling on this I don't know about then sorry.)

Anyway, you need to not just skip the starting save numbers, but go all the way to the balanced rule that fits the mechanics, i.e. fractional calculation of saves:

Good saves are +1/2 per level, first (Character) level value 2, only whole numbers count;
Poor saves are +1/3 per level, first level value 1/3, only whole numbers count.

The "starting value 2" of good saves is just an artifact of first level, like 4xskill points. The same way a Rog1/Ftr1 has more skillpoints than a Ftr1/Rog1, the latter has a better fort save.

As for your actual question, I'm fine with the saga system. Speeding up combat is good, and perhaps the options for immediate actions, like counters in ToB, will allow a variety of defenses that players can choose to use or not, that will add to complexity and strategy instead of being "Roll well or it hurts you" which, frankly, isn't that fun.
Er, this is confusing to me. It seems like you're only rationally reinterpreting the save rules halfway. I notice you don't say that the fighter/barbarian has a doubled Fort save, so you're already using a houserule. IMO, ignoring the high starting value is correct, otherwise by RAW you could inflate your saves ridiculously by taking 1 level in lots of classes, but you need to pay attention to the other part too.

(AFAIK, it's all houseruling, so if there's an official errata or other ruling on this I don't know about then sorry.)

I wasn't using any house rulings, I know a Fighter 3 would have F +3/R +1/W +1, while a Ftr 1/Bbn 2 would have F +5/R +0/W +0.

However, I am going to edit my original posts to remove my rebuttals, since they aren't important, I am just trying to figure out what people who don't like defenses don't like defenses.
This is a good time to consolidate the mechanic for attacks, regardless of the type.

Why have 2 stats that represent your ability to completely dodge incoming attacks and have the mechanics for the two be directly inverse.
With this new mechanics there is no need for there to be a normal saving throw version and a ranged touch version of getting xd6 at a foe. There is only the normal attack roll (or more likley Spellcraft skill check).
I opened a whole thread to express my opinion about it, but anyway the first two points are the relevant ones for me:

1. Defenses are static.
--> A general dislike that if Player A has a higher X Defense than Player B, than Player A is never effected unless Player B is effected.

2. That players don't roll them. (Sort of like part 1)

I think we are underestimating the negative psychological impact of 2. Problem 1. is about the nature of a game of chance: that sometimes the lesser guy has a chance to be the one to perform better. Just a little variety, but since today I have never heard any single gamer complaining about it.

The secret rolls is a good point actually, but while for some situations it might be better for the story, from others it may not.
The speed up benefit is really minimal, as it applies only to mass effects, and rarely they manage to affect more than 4-5 targets at once anyway.

My concerns are because we're trading up two good-old fun things (1. and 2.) for a very minimal benefit, which in fact the vast majority of the gaming groups was not house ruling before we've heard that 4e was going to work this way.
#0: It is different. Yeah, I said it was pretty trivial.

1. Defenses are static.
--> A general dislike that if Player A has a higher X Defense than Player B, than Player A is never effected unless Player B is effected.

2. That players don't roll them. (Sort of like part 1)

3. How they are calculated. I.e. 10 (or d20 roll) + Heroic Level + Highest Class Bonus + Stat + Misc.

4. Defenses get too high.

0. This is probably the biggest reason, as most people don't like change.

1. Ya, you do lose out on the underdog making the "save" but more often than not, it falls into the averages.

2. That may be true (some will miss that), but the inverse is also true Saves makes magic casting really dull. What would they think if all attacks were against a rolled defense? Seems part of point 0.

3. Why would anyone want to keep the 3.x method of calculations? It's soo broken when multiclassing as the spread of high/low grows with each added class. Again still seems part of point 0.

4. That may be true, but that's still part of point 0. Confrontations with the BBEG become more epic, which is good. That and I am sure that there'll be plenty of magic to compensate.
1. Defenses are static.
--> A general dislike that if Player A has a higher X Defense than Player B, than Player A is never effected unless Player B is effected.

One of the blogs seem to indicate, that you make a different roll against the defenses of everyone caught in a fireball's explosion.
One of the blogs seem to indicate, that you make a different roll against the defenses of everyone caught in a fireball's explosion.

Barring the fact that this would be silly, since it's no different then every single player at the table making a saving throw, I see little reason why they would diverge from the saga system in this manner, if they do intend to change it. The saga method being, of course, roll once, compare to everyone's defenses. If it beats you, you get hit.

As for the "Underdog never makes the save"... Why would he? Why would the fighter with terrible dexterity ever get out of the way of the fireball when the rogue that's 5-6 times as dextrous doesn't? It makes zero sense. The only way that the fighter would realistically make it and the rogue not is if he had cover, was further away, or it caught the rogue by surprise (which would mean the rogue is flat footed, not just rolled poorly on his save.)
Above all else, the most dangerous thing that can ever be said during any sort of testing scenario is "It's just the test." Assumption that an issue, no matter how glaring, will be fixed in the final product is the most devastating assumption that any tester can make, and the most disastrous of excuses for any flaw.
Shouldn't it be about fun? Sure it's less work for the DM to just roll once and check defenses but you deny the lucky roll effect for the guy with the bad defense.

It's like the opposite of a save or die. It's no fun to roll a 1 and be removed from the combat. But it's also no fun if the DM just rolls once checks defenses and says "Right, Bob, Fred, Jill you suck it as usual and Sue gets a pass 'coz her ref is better and will always be better and there's nothing you can do about it."

But if Bob gets to roll and it's a 20, and it's a critical part of the fight where the battle's going to turn on the Fighter getting a lucky save, Bob just got ripped off on the chance to be the hero.

I guess this puts me in the "can't roll" category.
2. That players don't roll them. (Sort of like part 1)

This is the most significant. Saving throws are important. A single failed save can take you out of combat entirely (sleep, color spray), get you to turn on your friends (charm, dominate) or even kill you outright (slay living, finger of death).

It really sucks to have your character taken out in the first round of combat and not even get a chance to roll a single die. It amounts to the DM simply declaring you dead on the spot without any control or drama.

There's a lot more excitement to rolling your save than simply being told "The wizard casts sleep and you're knocked out."
One of the blogs seem to indicate, that you make a different roll against the defenses of everyone caught in a fireball's explosion.

Whether it is handled this way int he game or not, I am gonna do it this way in home games.

PCs caught in a Fire ball roll against all the PCs. PC casts Fireball against the enemy, roll once for the whole shebang. A little nblance? Nah, more like a movie in feel to me.
I think that you can have it both ways - if they're major characters in the scene, make individual rolls. If they're mooks/supporting characters, one roll does them all.

That way, the four PCs and Lord Evil all get individual rolls made, while the mob of orcs lives or dies together when the fireball hits.
I think that you can have it both ways - if they're major characters in the scene, make individual rolls. If they're mooks/supporting characters, one roll does them all.

That way, the four PCs and Lord Evil all get individual rolls made, while the mob of orcs lives or dies together when the fireball hits.

Its what I am thinking. Maybe one or two orcs runns screaming on fire or the like, while he rest all go AHhhh, and somersault through the air as if they were launchers when the pyrotechnics hit
I fall in the category of "Saving Throws and Armor Class are sacred cow". The defenses in SAGA work well imho. I am just a fan of keeping Saving Throws and Armor Class in D&D. They are part of the core staple of what I consider to be D&D.

Here comes the emo moment, hehe. Removing them might make the game better but I feel it would fall into the realm of stripping D&D from the game and turning it into a different fantasy RPG altogether.
I fall in the category of "Saving Throws and Armor Class are sacred cow". The defenses in SAGA work well imho. I am just a fan of keeping Saving Throws and Armor Class in D&D. They are part of the core staple of what I consider to be D&D.

Here comes the emo moment, hehe. Removing them might make the game better but I feel it would fall into the realm of stripping D&D from the game and turning it into a different fantasy RPG altogether.

They are definitely sacred cows to me.

What is especially funny to me is one of my best friends and a player in my group was born around 1980/81. I had been playing D&D for about three years by that point in time. Basically, for as long as he has been alive I have been playing D&D.

My point here, is he does not see Saving throws etc as being the "Sacred Cows" some of us 'old farts' do.

Oh well...Younger Generation. What are you gonna do?
2. That players don't roll them. (Sort of like part 1)

I'm going to ignore the dismissive nature of the last half of that line and say this is going to be the answer. I'm certainly on the fence myself and could easily be swayed if the system is much more elegant that the current one.

Of course, we don't have all the answers yet, so this may change, however...

This begins to make it feeling more and more like story-telling time where the Players get to watch the DM tell the story -- "John, Bob, Mike, you fail the save and your characters are impaled on the spiked stones, Don and Otto, your characters avoid the pain of impalement." Less fun than the players hootin' and hollerin' over a good die roll by the normally inept, or peein' and moanin' over a bad die roll by the normally adept. Taking that away seems like not as much fun, and it begins to feel like railroading a little more.

Under the current system (using shorthand for PC/NPC instead of PC's Player or NPC's Player)...

PC Caster make big boom; PC Caster rolls boom dice; DM rolls save. (both have action to take for this interaction.)
NPC Caster make big boom; NPC Caster rolls boom dice; PC Caster rolls save. (Both have action to take for this interaction.)

Other system...
PC Caster make big boom; PC Caster rolls boom dice; PC rolls ... hit? save? effectivitiy check? (PC has action of rolling dice, the DM just sits there recording what happens to the NPC.)
NPC Caster make big boom; NPC Caster rolls boom dice; NPC Caster rolls hit/save/effectivity check? (DM has action of rolling dice, and the player gets to sit there just recording what happens to their character.)

It seems like that would be the biggest thing to turn people off of the system.

Or maybe I'm blowing hot air.
One of the blogs seem to indicate, that you make a different roll against the defenses of everyone caught in a fireball's explosion.

That would make it quicker how?
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
That would make it quicker how?

I can answer that: Task Switching.
It's faster for one person to roll a die 10 times than it is for ten person to roll one die, rather strangely.
I guess it's a spotlight effect, of some sort.
Also, one problem with making the attack roll several times is that you may inadvertently give away information. For instance, suppose you fireball a room with 2 ogres and an invisible ogre mage. You're going to wonder a little when your DM calls for 3 attack rolls. You now in fact know that there's a 3rd creature in there.

When rolling saves, you don't.
When rolling saves, you don't.

Or you can just make one roll and apply it to everyone.

Or, your DM could roll an attack against the invisible one.

This gives away no more info than saving throws.

Try again.
Believe it or not combat will go alot longer with random defense rolls. I play Mutants & Masterminds and that system uses defense saves in combat. I have found that if players have hot dice and the DM has hot dice combat drags out a lot longer than it needs to. I know many will say that it should harder for NPCs and PCs to make these saves that not the case. I once played where I constantly hit the characters but they kept making their defense saves and were able deflect damage and the players were hitting the main bad guy and I was making my defense saves and was able to deflect damage. So in the end I fudged the dice and the bad guy missed a save that he really did not miss. My players soon quit the campaign and we went back to D&D. I definitly think that Armor class and saves are sacred cows. These set D&D apart from other RPGs they are the core of the game. Without them D&D is not D&D.
0. This is probably the biggest reason, as most people don't like change.

Definitely not the biggest reason. Some people don't like change for the sake of change, and some other people don't like sacred cows. I think they even each others out.
Rolling is important to me, and I think giving the players every chance to participate that you can is important. Plus, it gives them the feeling that they have some control of their character's fate, or at least an influence, whether they actually do or not. Plus, it may just be worth it for those moments when you know your save is low, you've just seen half your party taken out by the effect, and you've seen their rolls so you know you're going to need a 19 or 20... and you get it. Satisfaction times ten.
If it's going to be changed, then it should definitely be that the effect is rolled separately for each character, thus keeping the random chance aspect that is so integral to DnD.
AtmaWeapon, your comment of: "As for the "Underdog never makes the save"... Why would he? Why would the fighter with terrible dexterity ever get out of the way of the fireball when the rogue that's 5-6 times as dextrous doesn't? It makes zero sense. The only way that the fighter would realistically make it and the rogue not is if he had cover, was further away, or it caught the rogue by surprise (which would mean the rogue is flat footed, not just rolled poorly on his save.)" doesn't make sense to me. Random things always happen in life and DnD. Perhaps a draft of wind deflected the fireball just enough so that the fighter had a better chance of success, or the rogue slipped, or any number of possible random happenstances that could save/kill a character. Maybe the rogue accidentally dodged into the fireball, but ended up blocking the fighter. Perhaps later the rogue then takes credit for saving the fighter. Now, a couple of random rolls have spurred more roleplaying and party interaction, something I always consider a plus in my games.
Definitely not the biggest reason. Some people don't like change for the sake of change, and some other people don't like sacred cows. I think they even each others out.

Not really, WotC isn't making a change for the sake of change.

Look, reasons we'll see defenses over Save are pretty reasonable.

1. Casters now roll there magic attacks, and can crit with them. Since spells are going to be magic attacks, it makes sense that the defense is static like it is for every other attack. Also I hate playing a caster when all my special abilities depend on the defenders die roll.

2. Having the initiator make the roll is ideal, it reduces the number of rolls in the game especially on the DM's part. They will not support seperate functions within the same rule set (meaning that players do it one way and DM's another). You might see them in a return of UA or something.

3. Consistency. Defenses are used to resist any type of influences whether attacks, poison, or persuasion... Meaning you cut out resistence type skills (sense motive) and use Will defense and the like as the DC. Everything is on the same page. It's better, and doesn't make D&D any less D&D.

4. The Saga format is much more multiclass, and high level creation friendly. That is hefty boon in and of itself. Making character creation easier and quicker aides the DM and players alike.

It's the future, either adapt or stick with Basic, 1e, 2e, 2eR, or 3.x. I have most of them, if I want to play them same setup why buy yet another edition? I am glad they are taking the game in a new route, it's about time Magic and Traps/environment got an overhaul and with that the clunky save and skill system with it.
My group's played Saga with both rolled defenses and set (standard rules) defenses.

Keep in mind, it's just switching around who's making the role. In 3.5 the attack is a set value and the defense is rolled. In Saga the defense is a set value and the attack is rolled. The impact made on gameplay by switching them is pretty much zero, it just may or may not save time depending on who's making more rolls.

What I prefer in theory is to have both defenses and attacks rolled. This makes for a lot more variability in what can happen and makes it more difficult to get defenses that only a natural 20 can hit.

What we found when we play tested this, however, was that the amount of extra time required to roll all those defense to compare bogged down gameplay to an unexpectedly large degree. Already knowing what a player's defenses are means being able to attack them with 20+ monsters in hardly more time than it would take you to attack with 5. For someone who loves large scale encounters, it's a useful thing.

But that's all rather off-top. I fail to see why having the attacker roll and the defender static is any different than having the attacker roll and the defender static aside from allowing the attacker to score a critical hit (since critical defenses don't exist) meaning a little more danger for the PCs.
I too like both attack and defense rolled in theory, it's how it's done in Conan. I love that game, it's a lot of fun. Problem is that combat is slow, especially when getting into large scenes (happens a lot in Conan). So if it's going to go one way, Static is the best for the standard setup.

I think they should put an quick option in the DMG on making the Defenses rolled, that way those that want that thrill will at least be acknowledged without forcing everybody into that mechanic. It's actually something I'd use for duels and the like.

I love your sig by the way Subedei.
As for the "Underdog never makes the save"... Why would he? Why would the fighter with terrible dexterity ever get out of the way of the fireball when the rogue that's 5-6 times as dextrous doesn't? It makes zero sense.

Actually it makes TOTAL sense. There are a lot of factors that come into play when caught in that fireball, including luck. Why would the fighter get out of the way when the rogue doesn't? The fighter happened to notice it first and started his defensive moves before the rogue. The rogue was a little distracted...the fighter just got plain lucky. These are the things that make the game feel like you are in a fantasy adventure. This is why the better player in a sport does not ALWAYS win. This is why the underdogs always have a chance.
But isn't that represented by the attackers roll being weaker?
Or you can just make one roll and apply it to everyone.

Or, your DM could roll an attack against the invisible one.

This gives away no more info than saving throws.

Only the DM really can't roll because he probably doesn't know the PCs attack roll modifier. And if he asks for it he gives away information.

One roll for everyone doesn't work well, because it makes area save or dies absolutely devastating.
There's a lot more excitement to rolling your save than simply being told "The wizard casts sleep and you're knocked out."

But it's more fun for the player to declare he is casting sleep, and then roll a 20 on his magic check and know he has affected the enemy, instead of declaring he's casting a sleep spell, and the DM quietly rolls behind his screen, looks up and says "None were affected".
Theres no reason to make different attack roles. The wizard casting whatever spell only does it once so one attack role. If his spellcraft for instance is good enough to only beat two out of four then to affect the last two he will need to try harder, or in game terms roll higher.

Running both SAGA and 3.5, I find the SAGA game allows for fun combat but gets back to the RP part of the game quickly.
Static Defenses are completely 100% identical to Armor Class. If fighters get to make a roll for their attacks and try to overcome their opponent's armor, wizards should be able to do the same. Otherwise, you might as well drop the basic 10 armor everyone gets, make attack bonuses static and roll 1d20+AC to figure out whether or not a fighter's target gets out of the way.
Otherwise, you might as well drop the basic 10 armor everyone gets, make attack bonuses static and roll 1d20+AC to figure out whether or not a fighter's target gets out of the way.

Which is a variant in UA (where static defences/saves first appeared).

People seem to forget that this static defence/saves thing is nothing new.
I too like both attack and defense rolled in theory, it's how it's done in Conan. I love that game, it's a lot of fun. Problem is that combat is slow, especially when getting into large scenes (happens a lot in Conan). So if it's going to go one way, Static is the best for the standard setup.

I think they should put an quick option in the DMG on making the Defenses rolled, that way those that want that thrill will at least be acknowledged without forcing everybody into that mechanic. It's actually something I'd use for duels and the like.

I love your sig by the way Subedei.

I love Conan too and I agree combat gets way to slow because of all the dice you roll. I think what makes D&D great is focusing to hit a specific number. All other game makers have tried to capture that simple mechanic and failed.
Only the DM really can't roll because he probably doesn't know the PCs attack roll modifier. And if he asks for it he gives away information.

Why wouldn't the DM know that stat, he should have a basic set of stats for each player...

One roll for everyone doesn't work well, because it makes area save or dies absolutely devastating.

I really doubt we'll see many AoE save or die spells...
I love Conan too and I agree combat gets way to slow because of all the dice you roll. I think what makes D&D great is focusing to hit a specific number. All other game makers have tried to capture that simple mechanic and failed.

I think that here-in lies the true nature of the discussion. The idea of combat dice rolls are two fold, to adjudicate while still incorporating the random element. We roll dice to represent randomness, but the more dice we roll the less fluid combat becomes. There is nothing technically better or worse give in the addition of a secondary random value to the AC system, the issue lies in the trade-off of getting a better representation of the random element vs. the amount of time it takes to plow through the fight.

If you look at the d10 ST system by White-Wolf they follow the random attack/defense and damage/mitigation aspect of combat to the exclusion of speedy resolution. Thus most combats in this system tend to look like tennis matches ("I got 3 to hit", "I got 2 to dodge", "I have 4 to damage", "I have 3 to soak") So that in essence you roll a total of four times to adjudicate a single health point loss. IMO this is too much, it works for this system, but it's too slow.

By consolidating the combat mechanics down to a single roll per attack (and now with fewer attacks if they indeed use the SWSE system) combat becomes quicker. I think this illustrates NOT a better system, but that different people prefer different trade-offs. If WOTC wants to please both side of the isle on this one the system should work optionally in both ways.

Group A likes static defense with dynamic attacks, thus using the current AC system. Group B likes both to be dynamic and instead uses an afore-mentioned optional rule and drops the base AC10 and instead uses contested rolls. The system should be designed to handle either option with minimal fuss all around. Game design should not be considered in terms of "my option over your option" (although this can often be the case) but rather should be approached as a simple streamlining of choices that ends in the desired effect. We have the technology, we can do both


--KS
You are basicly saying to each his own. This is like what Green Ronin did with the Mastermind Manual. Mutants & Masterminds does not have AC or HP but the manual allowes the GM to add them to their campaign.
But it's more fun for the player to declare he is casting sleep, and then roll a 20 on his magic check and know he has affected the enemy, instead of declaring he's casting a sleep spell, and the DM quietly rolls behind his screen, looks up and says "None were affected".

Sure, but it's worse to get KOed without ever rolling a single die.
Sure, but it's worse to get KOed without ever rolling a single die.

How is it any worse than when you are KO'd by a melee or ranged attack? You don't get a die roll there...
How is it any worse than when you are KO'd by a melee or ranged attack? You don't get a die roll there...

Yeah, exactly, I'm glad you keep consistently pointing this out, maybe some day people will actually read it and understand.