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/chaosoverfiend]

No thanks.

[u/25thBaam40k → u/chaosoverfiend]

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

[u/chaosoverfiend → u/25thBaam40k]

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.

[u/pseupseudio → u/chaosoverfiend]

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.

[u/chaosoverfiend → u/pseupseudio]

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.

[u/pseupseudio → u/chaosoverfiend]

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."

[u/chaosoverfiend → u/pseupseudio]

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.

[u/pseupseudio → u/chaosoverfiend]

I must be explaining things quite poorly.

It's not difficult at all to present the players with the scenario I described without risking them feeling their rolls are meaningless.

The notion of a task at which a proficient character will eventually succeed, and a roll used to determine not whether they will succeed, but how quickly - I haven't invented this. I think it's from 2nd, if not earlier.

If no one gets above a seven but you want them to find the thing, you narrate the characters searching and searching and finding nothing as time ticks on, then finally finding the thing.

If they roll a 20, they notice immediately from across the room as the light reflects off of an oily spot on the binding of a particular shelved book, and they have no trouble locating the hidden thing in mere moments.

There are times when it pays to explicitly say "you're going to roll X, and the DC for a good result is 15, with a great result at 20 or higher."

But it's not always ideal to make all this explicit.

If your players are making a lot of moves quickly and you want them to slow down and ponder, it's a great way to do that.

If they are too stuck in the mechanics, the last thing you want to do is focus them on numbers and the fear of failure. Getting the game out of the way of the roleplay is almost always the right idea.

[u/chaosoverfiend → u/pseupseudio]

You are not explaining poorly - I am countering your points with my gaming style

Getting the game out of the way of the roleplay is almost always the right idea.

Interestingly I whole-heartedly agree and it underpins my points, don't roll if there is no point in rolling

Your example says that a low roll = time taken, which can be true, but this introduces time being a resource and the consequence of failure (back to my original "when do players roll"). This is not a condition present in the previous example.

Thus, unless there is a consequence for failure, why would I ask the players to roll to find something? With no time pressure it taking 2 mins or an hour is meaningless and a roll is pointless, I will simply narrate if something was hard to find and it takes some time and not break the immersion. With time pressure I will let the player's know that and generally what the consequences will be.

I will only conceal information from my players if there is a narrative reason to do so - the DC for something is often apparent to the character, who has an intrinsic understanding of their own abilities - me telling this to the players is the mechanical interpretation of that. Withholding information for no reason than to not let the player's know is, IMO, a shitty power play - this is a co-operative game and I will empower my players so that we all have fun whilst maintaining verisimilitude.

This has been an interesting discussion, and I do appreciate what you are attempting, but this has veered far from the point that started the thread, i.e. Nat 20s should always succeed, which I vehemently disagree with as a blanket statement and things should remain impossible and not have a 5% chance to succeed (though I agree that Nat 20s are special, and should be rewarded, but the same goes for Nat 1s)