Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Larian: It's ok to let chars always win/lose rolls

All of this is misdirection. A reasonable person doesn't bother setting a DC for jumping to the moon or surfing on clouds.

What's being done has to still be in the realm of possibility.

Sometimes people do surprising and amazing things. It's the sort of thing where, afterwards, a person says, "Wow, I couldn't have done that if I was trying."

Is one in twenty too often for real life? Sure. But we're approximating in a fantasy world using a D20. The statistical long run is hardly noticeable in the here and now. Additionally, the character doesn't roll for *everything* the character does, only the highlights that are featured in the story.

In other words, I think we're somewhat overthinking this issue.


So make the AC 70. Or 1,000. It's the same argument.

*

For what it's worth, I don't care. I have no skin the auto success or failure of the rolls. Whatever. I just don't think the issue is being argued fairly. That's all.

Yes, exactly! Some things are impossible, and therefore by definition shouldn't be possible 5% of the time.

I agree that players shouldn't even have to roll for impossible tasks (except maybe to determine the degree of failure), but Larian doesn't know what every character's bonus will be. So if they have a DC 35 (or 25, or 30) check, they need to let you roll even if your bonus is +0. But such a character shouldn't succeed on a 20; that just cheapens the effort another player spent getting their bonus to +16

It's not the same argument because AC is actually representing a contested check, but is simplified so that the players & the DM don't have to "roll for defense." The enemy is actively trying to not be hit, whereas a tightrope isn't actively trying to shake someone off.
AC is effectively taking 10 on a check: 10 + armor + dex. Instead (and as some other rpgs do), the attacker could roll 1d20+attack bonus, and the defender could roll 1d20+AC bonus. The "natural 20=auto hit" rule simulates the defender rolling low on their d20.

E.g., An enemy has AC 30 and you have a to-hit bonus of 9. Without the auto-success-on-natural-20 rule, that player couldn't hit the enemy.
But in reality the enemy is trying to not be hit, and could mess up. We swap over to the 'contested attack' system, and the enemy rolls a 2 (so AC check of 2+20=22) and the player rolls a 19 (to-hit- of 19+9=28), which means they've hit!

And because of Bounded Accuracy, pretty much all ACs will be between 7 and 30, so we don't worry about edge cases like someone having an AC of 50. Practically by definition, it's impossible for someone to have that large of an AC in 5e. But it's *not* impossible for an ability check to be that high, because, as you say, some things aren't in the realm of possibility.

...and you've answered your "what about" right here, in your first line. If it's impossible, that's what the DM is going to tell the players, at least, the good ones will. Others will say "Well, it's not in the PHB, so go ahead".