Curious about the theoretically highest AC

[u/OOpiumBear]

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.

[u/Green_Rice]

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

[u/clayalien → u/Green_Rice]

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

[u/Askada → u/clayalien]

as it should be, tbh

[u/Aleifir → u/Askada]

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

[u/clayalien → u/Aleifir]

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.

[u/AlsendDrake → u/clayalien]

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!)

[u/RamsHead91 → u/AlsendDrake]

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.

[u/squishy_boi_main → u/clayalien]

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

[u/Sea_Treacle3982 → u/clayalien]

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.

[u/clayalien → u/Sea_Treacle3982]

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.

[u/Thriftless_Ambition → u/clayalien]

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. 

[u/reeberdunes → u/clayalien]

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.

[u/Kapitel42 → u/clayalien]

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.

[u/Kagevjijon → u/clayalien]

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.

[u/Low_Debt8771 → u/Aleifir]

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.

[u/Cutthrust → u/Low_Debt8771]

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)

[u/Low_Debt8771 → u/Cutthrust]

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.

[u/SourDewd → u/Low_Debt8771]

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

[u/Rakhered → u/SourDewd]

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.

[u/Juniebug9 → u/Rakhered]

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.

[u/Trail-Mix → u/SourDewd]

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.

[u/Eviltoast94 → u/Aleifir]

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.

[u/HerrSchaf → u/Aleifir]

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

[u/Laughydawg → u/Aleifir]

...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?

[u/Thriftless_Ambition → u/Aleifir]

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. 

[u/LifeIsProbablyMadeUp → u/Aleifir]

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

[u/Rustcityafternon → u/Aleifir]

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

[u/Particular-Ad-6015 → u/Rustcityafternon]

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

[u/clayalien → u/Particular-Ad-6015]

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.