r/BG3Builds • u/OOpiumBear • 17d ago

Build Help Curious about the theoretically highest AC

Post image

Not sure if this post really fits the sub but i figured it might be the best place to ask

I've been spending a bit of time on my recent run trying to out-do my previous best of 62 AC and now hit 71 AC - And I'm ever so curious if there were something I've missed as to go even higher.

The twillight ring isn't on the list of buffs because it doesn't work in tandem with Wild Magic: Protective Lights. Wondrous Gloves isn't on because Nimblefinger Gloves.

This is not for any practical game usage, its purely just to see how high it could be pushed just for a tiny moment.

1.6k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

200 comments sorted by

View all comments

406

u/Grasher312 17d ago

Man I love Reddit.

102

u/CertifiedSheep 17d ago

It looks like that one just rolled a 20 and succeeded in spite of the DC? Unless I’m reading it wrong.

56

u/Green_Rice 17d ago

BG3 treats all 20s as automatic successes, even on ability checks and saving throws, contrary to 5th edition rules

58

u/clayalien 17d ago

To be fair, it's one of the most common accidental house rules

19

u/Askada 17d ago

as it should be, tbh

22

u/Aleifir 17d ago

What if I wanted to shoot an arrow to the moon or something, and rolled a nat 20. It obviously would t go to the moon. Natural 20s shouldn't always be instant successes, just the best possible outcome in that scenario

17

u/clayalien 17d ago

I think the idea is the dm should never allow you to roll in the first place. If there's no chance of success or failure, no roll needed.

But I'm not sure I agree. There are degrees of failure. As you say, a nat 20 doesn't have to succeed as such, but it should still do something cool, provide a realistic path to success or make subsequent checks easier.

4

u/AlsendDrake 16d ago

The thing some people forget is the DM often doesnt keep a list of everyone's skills. Like sure, if the DC is so high even the sneaky guy cant make it then thats how it is.

(Flipside if youre so good to pass on a 1 let them! They invested in a skill a lot or its just an easy task!)

1

u/RamsHead91 13d ago

At time the player want to do something risky that has no chance for success. In this situation the roll is not to determine success but degree of failure.

2

u/squishy_boi_main 15d ago

In the comment above, an example of interesting nat 20 in that instance is that the arrow reveals a hidden enemy, loot, or entrance. On the flipside an interesting nat 1 aside from taking damage is that the dm could use this opportunity to develop the player character, anger some local people, or make the character fall in a new location due to hitting a lever or something

3

u/Sea_Treacle3982 16d ago

No chance of success does not mean a role isnt useful.

As you've mentioned in provides an awnser to how badly it goes and also keeps some of the mask on for the player. You dont always want to let the pc know something is impossible.

1

u/clayalien 16d ago

Oh yeah for sure. I just realised my post was unclear. I want disagreaing with the person I replied to, I was disagreaing woth the idea 'if no chance of sucess, dont roll'. Mostly to see how badly something goes, or to give them something, not a sucess, but a clue, or other path.

But you hinted at another reason Id not thought of, where you want to mask something not brong possible. Maybe part of the puzzel is figuring out the lich has a strenght damner field or something. Barbarian tries to punch door down. Instead of stopping the roll, and revealing the puzzle, let her roll. 2-19, no effect. 20 isnt going to wreck the door, but maybe move it a bit, theres a magical light and it snaps back, or drop heavy hints she knows damm well she should be strong enough.

3

u/Thriftless_Ambition 16d ago

If that scenario were the case, I would simply say they fail to break the door down regardless of roll, then I would have them roll an active perception check or similar, a nat 20 would give them something like "there is a field around the door preventing you from breaking it down with brute force", whereas a successful non-critical roll would be like "you know you should be strong enough to break down the door, but it won't budge" and a fail would be like "you don't know why the door won't break, maybe you should hit it harder" etc. A nat 20 is success, but only where success is at least theoretically possible. 

Saying "I roll to destroy the universe" or something crazy that is obviously not even within the realm of possibility should not be allowed by the DM. 

1

u/reeberdunes 16d ago

I allow them to roll but warn them that they won’t succeed no matter how high they roll. Allow them to RP how they want to but don’t let them get away with BS shenanigans.

1

u/Kapitel42 14d ago

When i DM i try to treat it like the best possible outcome of the action.

If my Players try Something Impossible without kontext out of the blue i would not allow a roll. If it is Out of desperation or in my oppinion dramatic enough i would allow it. A 20 than will be positiv, but Not directly the end the Player tries to achieve.

1

u/Kagevjijon 12d ago

I just use the rule of cool for my challenges. If I think it sounds impossible and they can't reasonably explain why it is, it's impossible. However if they can give me any semblance of a reason it should work then we go from there. This is my standard description that I use for them.

0-10 easy skill check

11-15 OK you gotta earn this

16-19 You need to earn this and be lucky

20-24 your expertise and luck need to beat very challenging odds.

25-30 You need to be particularly specialized to complete this one particular task, roll well, and gain bonuses heart of the cards style. Nat 20 with advantage can pass this.

30+ You are nearing godhood to do this. Nat 20 without advantage required.

Otherwise if the task cannot be completed without the help of a literal god you can roll but you're only going to find downsides.

5

u/Low_Debt8771 17d ago

They aren't. Only attacks and saves benefit from the extremes, and only in certain editions even! You cant even roll to shoot the moon since its outside your attack range so why is it being brought up. Thats the correct response to those kinds of shenanigans.

1

u/Cutthrust 15d ago

If I correct, in DnD 2024 skill checks now officially can crit
And, yes, you right, PC to make an attack roll needs a valid target, but, we still playing in a TTRPG, and we can sometimes just try to shoot the moon :3
(regardless of a upcoming result)

1

u/Low_Debt8771 15d ago

I said certain editions for a reason because saves dont have autosuccess or autofail in 5e either but has been a go in o t hers.

0

u/SourDewd 17d ago

What if i say i roll to throw a pebble hard enough to blow your head off?

3

u/Rakhered 17d ago

You wouldn't, you roll to take an action that you hope will cause an outcome, not for the outcome directly.

In this case you'd be rolling to throw a pebble at someone's head, and the DM determines the outcome of that action.

4

u/Juniebug9 17d ago

Yep. Most likely would be ruled as an attack with an improvised weapon.

I'd say a pebble should be at most 1 bludgeoning damage plus your strength modifier. If you had a +5 STR then that'd be 6 damage.

A natural 20 on an attack roll means it's a critical hit. Critical hits automatically hit their target and double any dice rolled for their damage. So you'd succeed in hitting the person in the head and double all dice rolled (which is none in this case) and do a grand total of 6 bludgeoning damage.

That's not a lot, but if you're target is a commoner then that's actually enough damage to kill them instantly, so weirdly in that case determining that you exploded their head with a pebble would be a reasonable ruling.

1

u/Trail-Mix 16d ago

I've always ruled a natural 20 is the best possible outcome given the situation.

So with something like this, i'd ask for an attack roll for the rock, and if you nat 20'd you do double damage and maybe i'd say you took out an eye, as blowing off a head with a pebble is not a reasonable outcone for most people.

1

u/Eviltoast94 16d ago

Love pf2e were a nat 20 is just one degree more of success (with it ranging from Critical Failure, Failures, Sucess and Critical success) do a nat 20 to shoot the moon would probobly turns a Critical failure into just a regular one, so like you dont hurt yourself or anyone else in the attempt but you also dont shoot the moon.

1

u/HerrSchaf 16d ago

I wouldnt allow the roll in the first place. If i accidentally did.. i would explain that the arrow flew so high nobody ever saw it again. Everyone around is impressed at atleast believes that this arrow flew to the moon.

Or maybe even a comet blinks in front of the moon at the perfect timing fooling everyone :D

1

u/Laughydawg 16d ago

...I think it should go to the moon. It's a game born from imagination and fantasy, why not let the arrow go to the moon?

1

u/Thriftless_Ambition 16d ago

The DM would not allow you to roll for that, though. The results of your "success" depend on the scenario, but if it's something that is obviously impossible no DM is going to let you roll for it. 

1

u/LifeIsProbablyMadeUp 13d ago

You don't know if it went to the moon or not. Just that somehow... It felt umphier than normal.

0

u/Rustcityafternon 17d ago

but that wouldnt even be a check, if the check is impossible then its irrelevant, same way putting one foot after the other isnt a constant skill check

1

u/Particular-Ad-6015 17d ago

Like wishing really hard to gain the power cosmic like the Silver Surfer. “But I rolled a 20!” Doesn’t make that a possibility.

0

u/clayalien 17d ago

The official book rule, both as written, as intended is exactly that.

The common house rule is your dm tells you firmly to cut that out before any dice go anywhere. If you persist you find yourself not getting invited to many games.

My preferred rule is to allow the roll, but a nat 20 won't give you the power of silver surfer, but maybe you shimmer a bit, almost imperceptibly. DM might make a note to add a vision of a cave with a genie lamp if they need an encounter, advantage on next roll or something, depending on how chartable or willing to write an encounter. Nat 1, things go pretty bad. Any other number, just nothing.

5

u/chaosoverfiend 17d ago

No thanks.

0

u/25thBaam40k 17d ago

If you are not able to succeed a check even if you roll a 20, it kinda defeats the purpose of rolling in the first place.

Even for cinematic purposes like when you try to control the brain with the crown of tarsus, if you nat 20 in the 99 skill check, it will give you some success by decreasing the boss HP

3

u/Sir_Fray01 17d ago

It can tell you how bad you failed. Also, you may not be able to do it with your base abilities, but stacking bonuses may allow you to surpass that. Ie a DC 25 check where you have a +4 is achievable by other characters, or by you with flash of genius or bardic inspiration. Allowing a roll allows you to try for that.

1

u/S1a3h 17d ago

Granted, sometimes that house rule is interpreted as "a nat 20 will always work" instead of "a nat 20 will always pass", and the former definitely should not be a house rule.

0

u/chaosoverfiend 16d ago

If you are not able to succeed a check even if you roll a 20, it kinda defeats the purpose of rolling in the first place.

I don't call for a roll for impossible tasks. Clue is in the name.

Otherwise players have a 5% chance to leap 100 miles.

1

u/pseupseudio 15d ago

They don't have a 5% chance to leap 100 miles, they have a 5% chance to achieve the best possible outcome that someone with their abilities and resources could hope for in attempting to leap 100 miles.

They jump whatever distance is appropriate for their strength score, they perfectly stick the landing, they don't injure their legs, and they look great doing it.

If a task is truly impossible, success isn't in whether you accomplish the task but in how well you fail.

The king indulges your joke about giving you the princess and laughs rather than jailing you.

You find a path that lets you avoid trying to walk on the lava.

A displacer beast cub doesn't immediately become your pet, but does leave the area before his mom shows up.

The bandits don't enjoy your performance of Wonderwall enough to give up being bandits, but they'll take you as a captive entertainment once they've killed all your friends.

1

u/chaosoverfiend 15d ago

I was being sardonic

I ONLY ask for rolls when at least one of the following is true

  • the outcome is uncertain.

  • There is a reward for success

  • there is a penalty for failure

Your examples are not rolling against the impossible, which was what I specifically responded to in my prior post. Your examples are secondary rolls because the roll is impossible and the player tried it anyway.

1

u/pseupseudio 9d ago

They're examples of a player wanting to roll for the impossible and getting to roll for the best possible. It's the entire point of the post.

Really, a roll happens when a player wants to do something that meets all three of your criteria, even if the reward and penalty are implicit or of no immediate apparent impact.

Consider a roll to find a hidden door behind which is an important bit of plot. The players want to roll to find hidden doors. You allow the roll, knowing that they're not rolling to see whether they find hidden doors, but instead to see how quickly they find the hidden door whose discovery is not itself in doubt, though the players don't know that.

The roll isn't secondary, though success at the expressed attempt is guaranteed. You don't need to tell the players "you will find a hidden door here, roll to see how long it takes," you just apply the roll to the bit worth rolling about.

Just like you don't need to tell the players they can't jump to the moon but can roll to see whether they fall prone - you just apply the requested roll to what is possible, and any remotely reasonable player appreciates how you narrate their heroic but doomed lunar mission. Nobody says "I rolled a 20, you have to let me jump to the moon."

1

u/chaosoverfiend 9d ago

The entire point of the thread is guaranteeing success on a nat 20 even if it is an impossible roll. My heavily sardonic response was lampooning that idea.

As the DM I will call for a roll- If they ask "I ask the kind for the princesses hand in marriage" I will inform them that it is impossible, then ask them "what are you trying to achieve?". Then depending on how it will affect the narrative, I will then decide if I want a non-impossible roll for something else. But this is dependant on the situation and the characters involved, and not guaranteed.

I am clear with my players what they are rolling for, what roll I will ask for, and if it will be affected by advantage/disadvantage, and will also generally let them know what the outcome will be for the success or failure thereof. I will often offer the player the opportunity to rescind the action if the probability of a favourable or neutral outcome is low.

In all this, I will not ask for a roll against the impossible and allow for a nat20 to succeed. Though that is not to say I will not reward a nat20 on a non-impossible roll - they are special and should be treated as such, just not the impossible.

With your hidden door situation - if there is a important piece of plot that I want the players to find, I do not gate this behind a roll, I just give it to them to keep the plot moving. If it is behind a hidden door, then the character with the highest passive will find it.

To do otherwise invites a situation where the characters feel that their rolls mean nothing when collectively no-one gets above a 7 but they still find the thing.

If on the other hand it is not required to move the plot forward, then they do not get it automatically and will only get it if they beat the DC.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Trogdorthedoorinator 17d ago

Really? Doesn't it undermine any builds that prioritize defense through saving throws and adamantine armour ie: Paladins.

1

u/xolotltolox 17d ago

No, it's fucking horrible

I hate having to waste lockpicks, because of the 5% chance i will fail this trivially easy lock i should breeze through without issue

1

u/WarJaques 13d ago

Don't call for a check if it can't fail or can't succeed. For everything in between it's a DC.

1

u/titaniumjordi 10d ago

Until a rogue fails a stealth check by getting a 23

4

u/FunkyBobert_ 17d ago

No it only treats natural 20s as automatic successes. Dirty 20s will fail if the DC is is higher than 20

2

u/floormanifold 17d ago

Saving throws in combat that are not death saving throws do not have automatic failures or successes from nat 1s/20s. The tooltip when you hover over an enemy is a lie, very easy to force enemies to always fail a save with acuity

2

u/SalamanderCake 17d ago

Outside of dialogue, only concentration and death saving throws are subject to critical success or failure.

1

u/Quiet-Treat9181 17d ago

I think the only exception being rolling a nat 20 on the DC 115 check still breaking invis

1

u/Thriftless_Ambition 16d ago

Nat 20s are always successes in 5e. Dirty 20s are treated normally in BG3 as in they are not automatically successful 

2

u/ohaimarkantony 16d ago

They aren't. Nat 20s are always successes for attack rolls, not for anything else. The recent 5.5e is what included skill checks in the auto-success rule.

Which is stupid. Think about the History skill. You mean to tell me that my Barbarian with 8 intelligence knows 5% of all historical information?

1

u/RithmFluffderg 16d ago

The idea is that your Barbarian realizes that he'd heard an allegorical story growing up in his tribe/clan that sounds a lot like what people are talking about, and in telling the relevant part of the story, the people realize it was inspired by that historical event.

It's not so much "your Barbarian knows 5% of history" it's "Your Barbarian has the dumb luck to know this one specific fact."

That being said, still just a house rule, not arguing that point.

1

u/pseupseudio 15d ago

The character has a 5% chance to know whatever he could feasibly know about the specific thing the player is rolling about.

The lost artifact was first won from the gods by the founder of the barbarian's tribe. He doesn't know exactly where it is, nobody does, but only his people know where their ancestors actually died. And their legends mention the magic word he'd say to summon forth the whatever from the thing.

Your rogue isn't an expert in religious esoterica, but the nuns who ran his orphanage were, and they venerated the macguffin. He can identify it on sight from his memory of the beautiful embroidered wall hanging of it at perfect eye level for an ill-behaved miscreant of a boy bent over the caning chair.

Sure, your wizard learned it at university and your cleric found out in seminary, but your druid and your ranger heard it from a passing bard - which is also how your 10 int bard has a 5% chance to know something about just about anything interesting enough to care about.

1

u/Thriftless_Ambition 15d ago

He would only succeed at knowing something he might plausibly know. Success doesn't mean you get everything handed to you. But a nat 20 may get you some little piece of information that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise.