What are ways to always roll a natural 20?

[Graypairofsocks]

What are ways to force a natural 20 on attack rolls or saving throws?

[ThisIsZen]

Well, you put your dice in the microwave...

[Draconium]

The first thing that comes to mind for me: Greater deities always get the maximum roll possible on checks, attacks, saving throws, and damage. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#alwaysMaximizeRoll) However, I have a feeling you're asking for a way a player can conceivable do it...

[Graypairofsocks]

The first thing that comes to mind for me: Greater deities always get the maximum roll possible on checks, attacks, saving throws, and damage. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#alwaysMaximizeRoll) However, I have a feeling you're asking for a way a player can conceivable do it...

That doesn't actually count as rolling a natural 20 for attack rolls as they don't auto succeed, it is more like taking 20 on an attack roll.

[Cruiser1]

What are ways to force a natural 20 on attack rolls or saving throws?
Cast Surge of Fortune (CC), then choose to discharge that buff to get the effect of a true natural 20 on an attack roll or saving throw (or skill check, ability check, or spell penetration check) within the next round.

[LTwerewolf]

That doesn't actually count as rolling a natural 20 for attack rolls as they don't auto succeed, it is more like taking 20 on an attack roll.

I think you missed an important part, because that's exactly what it tells you it does.



When a greater deity makes a check, attack, or save assume a 20 was rolled and calculate success or failure from there. A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit.

The only reason you're rolling for a success or failure is a crit confirmation, not if you hit.

[LudicSavant]

The only reason you're rolling for a success or failure is a crit confirmation, not if you hit.

And if you use something like Sense Weakness, you don't have to roll for crit confirmation either.

[Graypairofsocks]

I think you missed an important part, because that's exactly what it tells you it does.



The only reason you're rolling for a success or failure is a crit confirmation, not if you hit.

There are multiple ways to interpret that.

One of them was to assume that Greater deities always hit, and that they have to roll to check for crit confirmation.

Another was to assume that Greater Deities are treated as if they rolled a 20 (without the normal effects of a nat 20) and they are rolling to check for a critical threat.

The FAQ supports the second interpretation (and was written by one of the authors of the book).

[Andezzar]

The only reason you're rolling for a success or failure is a crit confirmation, not if you hit.No, the rules are explicit. You roll to see if the attack is a critical threat (i.e. has the possibility of becoming a critical hit through the confirmation roll). The normal confirmation roll again is an attack roll so it automatically succeeds.

[ExLibrisMortis]

A spell clock of surge of fortune could get you one natural 20 per turn, since it takes an immediate action to get the effect. Other than that, I can only think of greater deities.

[Pluto!]

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n158/hstein3/d20.jpg
>_>

[TheTeaMustFlow]

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n158/hstein3/d20.jpg
>_>

First game I ever played, after everyone had rolled for stats we noticed that one of the dice we'd all used was all sixes. I still wonder if anyone noticed and just 'forgot' to mention it.

[tomandtish]

I caught a player in a tournament game once using dice that had multiple sides (but not all) at the highest value. So the D20 had five 20s, the D6 had 2 6s, etc. We got him kicked out.

[Pluto!]

Someone in my group had a few of those real old d20s that just went 0-9 twice in two different colors. I don't mean to throw accusations around but I don't think either he or anyone else ever remembered to explicitly delineate which color meant what before rolling.

...which may have had something to do with the sheer number of fights ending on one of his lucky crits.

[daremetoidareyo]

Complete scoundrel to the rescue:

Better Lucky than Good - If you roll a natural 1 when making an attack roll, you can expend one luck reroll as a swift action to instead treat the roll as a natural 20.

Dumb luck - If you roll a natural 1 when making a saving throw, you can expend one luck reroll as an immediate action to instead treat the roll as a natural 20.

Dumb luck pairs with residual rebound (UA) pretty well, especially if you're a second level rogue with the spell reflection acf for evasion.

[Elkad]

Someone in my group had a few of those real old d20s that just went 0-9 twice in two different colors. I don't mean to throw accusations around but I don't think either he or anyone else ever remembered to explicitly delineate which color meant what before rolling.

...which may have had something to do with the sheer number of fights ending on one of his lucky crits.

I still use those D20s for single rolls (and I've discarded all my D10s, those are an abomination). Roll a d6 with them (or any other die), it's much easier than the 2-color method, or trying to see those tiny plus signs next to half the numbers. If I'm rolling multiple attacks at once, I'll grab the modern d20s just to avoid color-matching all my d20+d6 pairs.

I once (early in the 2e era) played in at a club where the DM actually required the d20+d6 roll, as it made it easy for him to see whether your roll was greater or less than 10 from the other end of the table.
He turned out to be fond of stat checks. "Roll under your dexterity or fall in the pit". I had a D6 that was numbered 1-3 twice. Despite 2 DMs and a dozen other players at the table, I used it for every one of those "roll low" checks without being found out.

[RoyVG]

A Coup de Grace is in some way a natural 20, both for threatening and confirming at critical hit at the same time. Probably not what you are looking for. So getting someone helpless effectively gives you natural 20's on attack rolls

[Diarmuid]

I still use those D20s for single rolls (and I've discarded all my D10s, those are an abomination). Roll a d6 with them (or any other die), it's much easier than the 2-color method, or trying to see those tiny plus signs next to half the numbers. If I'm rolling multiple attacks at once, I'll grab the modern d20s just to avoid color-matching all my d20+d6 pairs.

I once (early in the 2e era) played in at a club where the DM actually required the d20+d6 roll, as it made it easy for him to see whether your roll was greater or less than 10 from the other end of the table.
He turned out to be fond of stat checks. "Roll under your dexterity or fall in the pit". I had a D6 that was numbered 1-3 twice. Despite 2 DMs and a dozen other players at the table, I used it for every one of those "roll low" checks without being found out.

Congrats for cheating...???

[LanSlyde]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_control


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIpDVd1IKFQ



This question is so open ended your going to get an array of answers and most likely exactly 1 of them might be what you meant.


Disregard that, just noticed the OP got banned already.

[Graypairofsocks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_control


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIpDVd1IKFQ



This question is so open ended your going to get an array of answers and most likely exactly 1 of them might be what you meant.


Disregard that, just noticed the OP got banned already.

I think you're the second person who fell for that avatar trick.

[nedz]

Someone in my group had a few of those real old d20s that just went 0-9 twice in two different colors. I don't mean to throw accusations around but I don't think either he or anyone else ever remembered to explicitly delineate which color meant what before rolling.

...which may have had something to do with the sheer number of fights ending on one of his lucky crits.

I have some of these, but I've been using them so long I know which is which. Painted = +10 FWIW.

I did once have a near TPK when the parties fighter missed on every attack. He was using an unpainted d20 without realising and needed an 11 to hit :smallamused:
I re-ran the fight.

[Tuvarkz]

Unless this is strictly 3.5, for PF there is:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle/archetypes/paizo---oracle-archetypes/cyclopean-seer-oracle-archetype
1/day as immediate action, automatically determine the result of a roll (Ofc, this also means you can force it as a natural 20) before the roll is made. This must be applied to an action taken by the character itself, and can't affect others' rolls.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/c-d/cyclops-helm
Similar as previous link, but limited to attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks or saving throws
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/race-traits/numerological-gift-dhampir---ru-shi
You roll 3d6 to determine a numerological totem. 1/day, when you roll that specific number on a d20, you can treat the roll as a natural 20-No action necessary.

[Graypairofsocks]

And if you use something like Sense Weakness, you don't have to roll for crit confirmation either.

I had forgotten about that spell till you posted about it.


No, the rules are explicit. You roll to see if the attack is a critical threat (i.e. has the possibility of becoming a critical hit through the confirmation roll). The normal confirmation roll again is an attack roll so it automatically succeeds.

The Confirmation roll isn't automatically successful.


Complete scoundrel to the rescue:

Better Lucky than Good - If you roll a natural 1 when making an attack roll, you can expend one luck reroll as a swift action to instead treat the roll as a natural 20.

Dumb luck - If you roll a natural 1 when making a saving throw, you can expend one luck reroll as an immediate action to instead treat the roll as a natural 20.

Dumb luck pairs with residual rebound (UA) pretty well, especially if you're a second level rogue with the spell reflection acf for evasion.

Those look nice, but they only help if you roll a natural 1.

[Andezzar]

The Confirmation roll isn't automatically successful.Actually it is:
When a greater deity makes a check, attack, or save assume a 20 was rolled and calculate success or failure from there. A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit.
To find out if it’s a critical hit, you immediately make a critical roll—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made.

[Graypairofsocks]

That maximization means their roll is treated as if it was a 20, except for the Auto-success of a natural 20.
They still roll a d20 and if it comes up 20 they auto-succeed.

[Twurps]

No one mentioned 'hunter's mercy' so far? It doesn't make you roll a 20, but your next hit is automatically a crit, so for most intents and purposes it's the same thing.

[Graypairofsocks]

No one mentioned 'hunter's mercy' so far? It doesn't make you roll a 20, but your next hit is automatically a crit, so for most intents and purposes it's the same thing.

Not really.
You need a bow, and you have to be able to hit the creature.

[Andezzar]

That maximization means their roll is treated as if it was a 20, except for the Auto-success of a natural 20.
They still roll a d20 and if it comes up 20 they auto-succeed.Not quite:
They do not roll to hit, because they always hit ("assume a 20 was rolled"). This is an auto-hit as normal for rolled 20s.
Then you have to check if this attack is a critical threat, which it normally would automatically be on a 20 ("A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit"). This requires you to roll a x - 20 depending on the threat range of the weapon. Now you have a critical threat. To confirm this threat you would normally make another attack roll which you can forgo as all attack rolls are assumed to be 20s (which automatically hit).

In summary deities automatically hit, but have a chance of scoring a critical hit equal to their weapon's threat range.

[Graypairofsocks]

Not quite:
They do not roll to hit, because they always hit ("assume a 20 was rolled"). This is an auto-hit as normal for rolled 20s.
Then you have to check if this attack is a critical threat, which it normally would automatically be on a 20 ("A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit"). This requires you to roll a x - 20 depending on the threat range of the weapon. Now you have a critical threat. To confirm this threat you would normally make another attack roll which you can forgo as all attack rolls are assumed to be 20s (which automatically hit).

In summary deities automatically hit, but have a chance of scoring a critical hit equal to their weapon's threat range.

One of the Authors of the book clarified how it worked in this FAQ (archive.wizards.com/dnd/files/DeitiesDemigodsFAQ10252002.zip).

[Andezzar]

As always, FAQ are not RAW. I agree that this is probably the intention of WotC, but the rules don't say that and FAQs cannot change rules. That is what errata are for.

The FAQ also contradicts itself:
No matter what that die roll is, you still use a value of 20 for the value of the die roll when determining what Armor Class the attack hitsWhich means it hits any arbitrarily high AC.

In the very rare case that a maximized attack roll would not be sufficient for a hit, the deity still hits if he or she rolls a natural 20 for his attack roll.

[Graypairofsocks]

As always, FAQ are not RAW. I agree that this is probably the intention of WotC, but the rules don't say that and FAQs cannot change rules. That is what errata are for.

The FAQ also contradicts itself:


No matter what that die roll is, you still use a value of 20 for the value of the die roll when determining what Armor Class the attack hits

Which means it hits any arbitrarily high AC.


In the very rare case that a maximized attack roll would not be sufficient for a hit, the deity still hits if he or she rolls a natural 20 for his attack roll.


It seems to be RAI in this case, as the guy who writes the FAQ was one of the authors of "Deities and Demigods".
The ruling in the FAQ doesn't really change the rule from the book, it just seems to be a clarification.

I don't really see what the contradiction is.
The value of the die roll is treated as 20 in determining what Armor Class the attack can hit.
The d20 die is rolled to check for a natural 20 (and to check if it threatens a crit).

[Andezzar]

A 20 on the d20 hits any AC no matter how high it is, unless you want to interpret "use a value of 20 for the value of the die roll when determining what Armor Class the attack hits" to mean you assume that the attack roll (i.e. including all modifiers ) is treated as 20, which is much lower than what you would get with an actual roll. For deities the bonuses alone are larger than 20. So there cannot be any "case that a maximized attack roll would not be sufficient for a hit".

[Graypairofsocks]

A 20 on the d20 hits any AC no matter how high it is, unless you want to interpret "use a value of 20 for the value of the die roll when determining what Armor Class the attack hits" to mean you assume that the attack roll (i.e. including all modifiers ) is treated as 20, which is much lower than what you would get with an actual roll. For deities the bonuses alone are larger than 20. So there cannot be any "case that a maximized attack roll would not be sufficient for a hit".
An attack roll is a d20 roll + attack bonus.
Using a 20 for the die roll means their attack roll is 20 + their attack bonus.
That 20 doesn't count as a natural 20, and they still roll a d20 to check for it.

If the opponents AC was larger than 20 + attack bonus then their maximized attack roll wouldn't hit, unless they rolled a natural 20.

[Andezzar]

That is not what the first quote from the FAQ nor the actual rules say. The rules clearly say that deities do not roll to see if an attack hits, but to determine if the successful attack is a critical threat. The confirmation roll again automatically succeeds.

[Graypairofsocks]

That is not what the first quote from the FAQ nor the actual rules say. The rules clearly say that deities do not roll to see if an attack hits, but to determine if the successful attack is a critical threat. The confirmation roll again automatically succeeds.
Nowhere in the rules (or FAQ (http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/files/DeitiesDemigodsFAQ10252002.zip)) does it say that you don't roll to see if the attack hits.
They say you use a value of 20 for the die roll, they do not say it is treated as a natural 20.
An attack Roll is the Die roll + attack bonus. If the attack roll (not the die roll) is equal to the AC then attack hits.




Does the always maximize roll ability of greater deities
mean that these beings always receive a natural 20 on
every attack and saving throw roll? If so, doesn’t that
mean that a greater deity will always hit on an attack, will
always threaten a critical hit, and will always make its
saving throw? If this is the case, why doesn’t Deities and
Demigods specifically state under the entry for each
individual greater deity that the deity always hits, always
threatens a critical hit, and always makes its save, much
as these entries say that the deity always deals a certain
amount damage on a successful attack due to its
maximize roll ability?

Deities and Demigods does not say greater deities always
hit, always threaten a critical hit, and always make their
saving throws because they don’t always hit, don’t always
threaten a critical hit, and don’t always make their saving
throws. The description of the always maximize roll ability
on page 26 of Deities and Demigods tells you to roll a die
when a deity attacks. The die roll must indicate a threat
before the deity can deal a critical hit. (No matter what that
die roll is, you still use a value of 20 for the value of the die
roll when determining what Armor Class the attack hits.)
Note that the deity also maximizes its confirmation roll when
it achieves a threat, so it is virtually assured of confirming the
critical hit. In the very rare case that a maximized attack roll
would not be sufficient for a hit, the deity still hits if he or
she rolls a natural 20 for his attack roll. As Deities and
Demigods notes in the section on attacks on page 26, no deity
automatically misses on a roll of a natural 1, so a greater
deity does not automatically miss if he or she rolls a natural 1
on his or her attack roll.
Likewise, a greater deity does not get a natural 20 and an
automatic success on any saving throw, but it is never at risk
of automatically failing on a roll of a natural 1. As with
attacks, if a die result of 20 is not sufficient for a successful
saving throw, a greater deity still has a chance to roll a die
and automatically succeed with a natural 20.



The first sentence of the answer says that their attacks do not auto-hit.


Deities and Demigods does not say greater deities always
hit, always threaten a critical hit, and always make their
saving throws because they don’t always hit, don’t always
threaten a critical hit, and don’t always make their saving
throws. This does not contradict the rules.

This part of that FAQ answer implies (and almost says) that their Confirmation rolls do not automatically succeed:


Note that the deity also maximizes its confirmation roll when
it achieves a threat, so it is virtually assured of confirming the
critical hit.

[daremetoidareyo]

Those look nice, but they only help if you roll a natural 1.

They literally double your chances of getting a 20.

[gtwucla]

I caught a player in a tournament game once using dice that had multiple sides (but not all) at the highest value. So the D20 had five 20s, the D6 had 2 6s, etc. We got him kicked out.

What is a D&D tournament? Just curious. I never thought of D&D as something you get good at, but a tournament seems to imply otherwise...

Also, if you want to roll nothing but 20s, why roll anything at all? Why even have a random element to the game.

[Graypairofsocks]

They literally double your chances of getting a 20.

Useful, but wasn't really what I was wondering about.

Is there a way to force a roll of natural one (on yourself)?

[ExLibrisMortis]

That's a very nice FAQ quote. It's also in direct contradiction with the rules.

SRD: "Greater deities (rank 16-20) automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll. Calculate success, failure, or other effects accordingly. When a greater deity makes a check, attack, or save assume a 20 was rolled and calculate success or failure from there. A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit. This quality means that greater deities never need the Maximize Spell feat, because their spells have maximum effect already."

Deities & Demigods: "Greater deities (rank 16–20) automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll. Calculate success, failure, or other effects accordingly. For instance, when a greater deity makes an attack roll, assume you rolled a 20 and calculate success or failure from there. You should roll the d20 anyway and use that roll to check for a threat of a critical hit. This quality means that greater deities never need the Maximize Spell feat, because their spells have maximum effect already."

First: They get the best possible result. That is, you get a natural 20.
Second: Assume a 20 was rolled. That is, you get a natural 20.
Third, exception: A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit. That is, no auto-crit, despite the natural 20.

I'm sure that whoever wrote the FAQ was using their own, reasonable, playtested and balanced interpretation, but it does not match what the rules say. There is only one exception, and all other rolls assume you get the best result, and that it was rolled (that is, natural).

[zergling.exe]

That's a very nice FAQ quote. It's also in direct contradiction with the rules.

SRD: "Greater deities (rank 16-20) automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll. Calculate success, failure, or other effects accordingly. When a greater deity makes a check, attack, or save assume a 20 was rolled and calculate success or failure from there. A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit. This quality means that greater deities never need the Maximize Spell feat, because their spells have maximum effect already."

Deities & Demigods: "Greater deities (rank 16–20) automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll. Calculate success, failure, or other effects accordingly. For instance, when a greater deity makes an attack roll, assume you rolled a 20 and calculate success or failure from there. You should roll the d20 anyway and use that roll to check for a threat of a critical hit. This quality means that greater deities never need the Maximize Spell feat, because their spells have maximum effect already."

First: They get the best possible result. That is, you get a natural 20.
Second: Assume a 20 was rolled. That is, you get a natural 20.
Third, exception: A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit. That is, no auto-crit, despite the natural 20.

I'm sure that whoever wrote the FAQ was using their own, reasonable, playtested and balanced interpretation, but it does not match what the rules say. There is only one exception, and all other rolls assume you get the best result, and that it was rolled (that is, natural).

They are using the same language as skills do for Taking 10 and Taking 20, just that some rolls (like attack and save rolls) auto succeed on a 20. Would it not be possible to lean that they figured to treat as Taking 20 on a skill roll, where you don't automatically succeed?


Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10.
...
Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

[ExLibrisMortis]

They are using the same language as skills do for Taking 10 and Taking 20, just that some rolls (like attack and save rolls) auto succeed on a 20. Would it not be possible to lean that they figured to treat as Taking 20 on a skill roll, where you don't automatically succeed?
That's a possibility, I suppose. The fact that they didn't modify the phrasing to suit the special consequences of a natural 20 on attack rolls and saves, suggests either carelessness, or a different intention. Based on the FAQ, I'd say the former - it's happened before. It doesn't change the RAW, but it suggests a direction to houserule in. Even with houserules, I'd still allow greater deities to auto-succeed on attack rolls (and saves, allowing for an epic no-save metamagic feat to affect deities), simply because it's in line with the kind of power I expect from a deity.

In other words, while some might see the auto-successes as a disfunctional interpretation, counter to RAI and possibly RAW, I think it's a functional, RAW-correct interpretation, regardless of RAI.

[Andezzar]

They are using the same language as skills do for Taking 10 and Taking 20, just that some rolls (like attack and save rolls) auto succeed on a 20. Would it not be possible to lean that they figured to treat as Taking 20 on a skill roll, where you don't automatically succeed?First of all taking 10 and taking 20 are for skill checks only. Attack rolls and saves explicitly work differently, they auto-succeed/auto-fail on 20s and 1s respectively. That does not happen with skill checks. Without any rule saying that the auto-hit rule is removed the assumed 20 has it just as a rolled 20.

But more importantly taking 20 does not represent a single attempt. It is literally attempting the task as often as it takes to succeed,.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.So taking 20 is not even remotely similar to the ability of deities.

[Graypairofsocks]

That's a very nice FAQ quote. It's also in direct contradiction with the rules.

Whether or not it contradicts the rules depends how you read it.


SRD: "Greater deities (rank 16-20) automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll. Calculate success, failure, or other effects accordingly. When a greater deity makes a check, attack, or save assume a 20 was rolled and calculate success or failure from there. A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit. This quality means that greater deities never need the Maximize Spell feat, because their spells have maximum effect already."

Deities & Demigods: "Greater deities (rank 16–20) automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll. Calculate success, failure, or other effects accordingly. For instance, when a greater deity makes an attack roll, assume you rolled a 20 and calculate success or failure from there. You should roll the d20 anyway and use that roll to check for a threat of a critical hit. This quality means that greater deities never need the Maximize Spell feat, because their spells have maximum effect already."

First: They get the best possible result. That is, you get a natural 20.
Second: Assume a 20 was rolled. That is, you get a natural 20.
Third, exception: A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit. That is, no auto-crit, despite the natural 20.

First point:
The best possible result on a attack roll is 20 + attack bonus.
A natural 20 requires the result of the die roll to be 20.
Second point:
It doesn't say whether this is a natural 20 or not.
According to the FAQ it isn't.
Third point:
I agree.


I'm sure that whoever wrote the FAQ was using their own, reasonable, playtested and balanced interpretation, but it does not match what the rules say. There is only one exception, and all other rolls assume you get the best result, and that it was rolled (that is, natural).

The guy (Skip Williams) who wrote the FAQ was actually one of the 3 (main?) writers of "Deities and Demigods".

[zergling.exe]

First of all taking 10 and taking 20 are for skill checks only. Attack rolls and saves explicitly work differently, they auto-succeed/auto-fail on 20s and 1s respectively. That does not happen with skill checks. Without any rule saying that the auto-hit rule is removed the assumed 20 has it just as a rolled 20.

But more importantly taking 20 does not represent a single attempt. It is literally attempting the task as often as it takes to succeed,.So taking 20 is not even remotely similar to the ability of deities.

I was just pointing out a similarly worded bit in the rules that might help understand where the developers took the inspiration from. Nowhere did I say that attack and saves don't auto-succeed on rolling 20 (I mentioned specifically that they do), so I don't know why you are going off at me.

[ExLibrisMortis]

First point:
The best possible result on a attack roll is 20 + attack bonus.
No, the best possible result on an attack roll is a success: a hit.

A natural 20 always hits, by definition. It has a 100% success rate.
A total of 20 + attack bonus does not always hit, because it can't hit an AC of 21 + attack bonus. It does not have a 100% success rate, but a lower one.
A 100% success rate is better than any lower success rate.
Ergo, a natural 20 is better than a 'plain' 20.


A natural 20 requires the result of the die roll to be 20.
Second point:
It doesn't say whether this is a natural 20 or not.
According to the FAQ it isn't.
You get to "assume you rolled a 20". If you absolutely require a physical die roll for that, rather than a conceptual die roll, you can roll a d20 until you roll a natural 20, or use a D20 with 20 20s. I don't want to bother with that - I rolled a 20, and the game proceeds knowing that proposition to be true.


The guy (Skip Williams) who wrote the FAQ was actually one of the 3 (main?) writers of "Deities and Demigods".
Which makes him a biased source, if anything. He's not interpreting what he wrote, he's rephrasing his original thoughts. That's more informative from a RAI perspective, or if you care about reconstructing the design history of the game, but means nothing from a RAW perspective.

[Andezzar]

First point:
The best possible result on a attack roll is 20 + attack bonus.
A natural 20 requires the result of the die roll to be 20.
Second point:
It doesn't say whether this is a natural 20 or not.Actually it does:
When a greater deity makes a check, attack, or save assume a 20 was rolled and calculate success or failure from there.

A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit.
So we are instructed the die roll comes up a twenty and to calculate from there. That means we have to assume it is an automatic hit.

According to the FAQ it isn't.And that contradicts the RAW making the answer irrelevant except as a houserule suggestion.


The guy (Skip Williams) who wrote the FAQ was actually one of the 3 (main?) writers of "Deities and Demigods".So? Does it mean he always wrote what he intended to mean? Does that mean he correctly remembers everything he or one of the other two guys wrote? Does it mean he can change the rules without using the proper form (i.e. errata)? Of course not. What's in the FAQ is nothing more than one of his houserules unfortunately.

[Graypairofsocks]

Actually it does:

So we are instructed the die roll comes up a twenty and to calculate from there. That means we have to assume it is an automatic hit.
See the bolded part of this sentence.

For instance, when a greater deity makes an attack roll, assume you rolled a 20 and calculate success or failure from there.
This implies that you don't assume the roll is a natural 20.
Note that this wording is only present in "Deities and Demigods" (and "Faiths and Pantheons), but not the SRD.



And that contradicts the RAW making the answer irrelevant except as a houserule suggestion.
Whether it contradicts the RAW or not depends upon how you read it.


So? Does it mean he always wrote what he intended to mean? Does that mean he correctly remembers everything he or one of the other two guys wrote? Does it mean he can change the rules without using the proper form (i.e. errata)? Of course not. What's in the FAQ is nothing more than one of his houserules unfortunately.
I don't think he is changing the rules. He just seems to saying what he meant by them.

[Andezzar]

See the bolded part of this sentence.

This implies that you don't assume the roll is a natural 20.
Note that this wording is only present in "Deities and Demigods" (and "Faiths and Pantheons), but not the SRD.The whole rule applies to skill checks as well. With skill checks there is no auto-success on a 20. The SRD has a similar line which includes skill checks in the example as well. Then it makes sense. Even if you do not include rolls without auto-success on a twenty this does not say that a failure is possible on an attack roll. You calculate accordingly and get 0% chance of failure.

[Graypairofsocks]

The whole rule applies to skill checks as well. With skill checks there is no auto-success on a 20. The SRD has a similar line which includes skill checks in the example as well. Then it makes sense. Even if you do not include rolls without auto-success on a twenty this does not say that a failure is possible on an attack roll. You calculate accordingly and get 0% chance of failure.
Yes, it applies to skill checks as well.

Sometimes the phrasing of abilities in differs in the SRD and in the actual book.
Both are valid examples.

However in the example given in "Deities and Demigods" (and "Faiths and Pantheons") it mentions only attack rolls.
It doesn't say to treat it as a natural 20, and it says to calculate success or failure.
This means that the attack rolls can fail to hit.

While it could be interpreted in a different way, the interpretation I am giving is the one is supported by an official source.

[nedz]

I don't think he is changing the rules. He just seems to saying what he meant by them.

Or there could have been a debate between the three of them on some point, which he lost, but then he posts his view in the FaQ ? We just don't know.

We do know that there was a huge flame war between him and people quoting RAW in which he frequently disagreed with the RAW - even for rules he had written.

All ancient history but FaQ != RAW.

[Andezzar]

It doesn't say to treat it as a natural 20, and it says to calculate success or failure.It does not use the term natural 20, but what is a natural 20? It is a 20 that you rolled. The rules tell us to assume that the deity rolled a 20. So we have to assume it is a natural 20. The only way to achieve a non-natural 20 according to the rules is by calculating dice roll + modifiers and getting 20.


While it could be interpreted in a different way, the interpretation I am giving is the one is supported by an official source.The FAQ is published by WotC, but it has no bearing on the rules. The rules are in rulebooks and errata.

[Graypairofsocks]

Or there could have been a debate between the three of them on some point, which he lost, but then he posts his view in the FaQ ? We just don't know.
Until we find out about something like that happening we have to assume it didn't.


We do know that there was a huge flame war between him and people quoting RAW in which he frequently disagreed with the RAW - even for rules he had written.

All ancient history but FaQ != RAW.
Where did that happen?

[Andezzar]

Until we find out about something like that happening we have to assume it didn't.Whether that happened or not has no bearing on the rules. The rules say one thing Skip Williams says something else. Since he did not do that through the proper channels (i.e. errata), whatever he says has no bearing on the rules either.

The rules clearly state that the non-roll should be treated as a roll of 20. A roll of 20 on an attack roll means you automatically hit and you causes a critical threat. The rules explicitly say that the non-roll works differently in regards to the latter and say nothing about behaving differently concerning the former. How do you deduce that the non-roll would not auto-hit?

[Graypairofsocks]

It does not use the term natural 20, but what is a natural 20? It is a 20 that you rolled. The rules tell us to assume that the deity rolled a 20. So we have to assume it is a natural 20. The only way to achieve a non-natural 20 according to the rules is by calculating dice roll + modifiers and getting 20.
It isn't explicitly stated to be a natural 20.
The part of it that says to calculate success or failure implies that it isn't .
So you don't have to assume it is one.

Unrelated, but I think there are ways to make a 20 on the die roll for the attack roll and not have it count as a natural 20.

The FAQ is published by WotC, but it has no bearing on the rules. The rules are in rulebooks and errata.
They do have bearing on rules, whether or not they are RAW.
They are official answers about the game rules, which means they are rulings on them.

[Andezzar]

It isn't explicitly stated to be a natural 20.
The part of it that says to calculate success or failure implies that it isn't .
So you don't have to assume it is one.Implication is not a statement. The actual statement is to assume you rolled a 20 which is identical to saying you got a natural 20, unless the rules specify the differences.

Also you can still fail an attack on a natural 20. Failure is not limited to not hitting. The target could have a miss chance, be immune to the damage or negate the attack in some other way (e.g. abrupt jaunt).


Unrelated, but I think there are ways to make a 20 on the die roll for the attack roll and not have it count as a natural 20.Please name one.

[Graypairofsocks]

Implication is not a statement. The actual statement is to assume you rolled a 20 which is identical to saying you got a natural 20, unless the rules specify the differences.

Also you can still fail an attack on a natural 20. Failure is not limited to not hitting. The target could have a miss chance, be immune to the damage or negate the attack in some other way (e.g. abrupt jaunt).
A miss chance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#concealment) is only rolled after a successful attack roll.
In the case of immunity to the type of damage, the attack roll still can succeed but fail to deal damage.
Abrupt Jaunt was published afterwards, and I think you activate it before you make the attack roll.

Please name one.

I said unrelated because I couldn't remember any. It was really just an aside point.
If I do somehow think of one I will post it, but it is unlikely.


Whether that happened or not has no bearing on the rules. The rules say one thing Skip Williams says something else. Since he did not do that through the proper channels (i.e. errata), whatever he says has no bearing on the rules either.
It does have bearing on the rules because it is official answers about the rules.
Going by strict reading of the Primary source rule only the 3 core rule books count as primary sources for anything.
Thus the FAQ can change rules that are not in the 3 core books.

[martixy]

I would have to agree with Ex and Andy.

Without any other qualifications, just look at the first sentence.
"[...] automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll."
The best possible result of an attack roll is hitting. The best possible result on a saving throw is saving. The best possible result on a damage roll is rolling the highest value your die will allow.

That really is all there is to it.

Though, TBH, I'm a fan of the "non-automatic success without a natural 20" concept.

[Platymus Pus]

There are ways to always roll 10 but it's stupidly feat heavy

[Graypairofsocks]

I would have to agree with Ex and Andy.

Without any other qualifications, just look at the first sentence.
"[...] automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll."
The best possible result of an attack roll is hitting. The best possible result on a saving throw is saving. The best possible result on a damage roll is rolling the highest value your die will allow.

That really is all there is to it.

Though, TBH, I'm a fan of the "non-automatic success without a natural 20" concept.

The best possible result of a roll is getting the largest number on it.
Success occurs if the resulting number is larger than or equal to the DC you are trying to beat.

That isn't really all there is to it, there is the official game rules FAQ which was written by one of the writers of the book.
That rules document agrees with me.

[Andezzar]

The best possible result of a roll is getting the largest number on it.
Success occurs if the resulting number is larger than or equal to the DC you are trying to beat.Except for attack rolls or saves. They are successful regardless of DC/AC on a 20, which is the best possible result of a roll.


That isn't really all there is to it, there is the official game rules FAQ which was written by one of the writers of the book.
That rules document agrees with me.That is not a rules document. At best it is a commentary on a rules document. The rules documents are Errata, Core books (PHB, DMG, MM1) and source books. The primary source rule even gives us a hierarchy for those documents. FAQ aren't even in that hierarchy.

[Graypairofsocks]

That is not a rules document. At best it is a commentary on a rules document. The rules documents are Errata, Core books (PHB, DMG, MM1) and source books. The primary source rule even gives us a hierarchy for those documents. FAQ aren't even in that hierarchy.
It says it is the Official Rules FAQ, and it was given by an official source.
Where could I find this statement for which are the rule documents and their hierarchy?
The Primary source rule only says that the Core books are primary sources, it doesn't say anything about the other books.

[Andezzar]

Where could I find this statement for which are the rule documents and their hierarchy?
The Primary source rule only says that the Core books are primary sources, it doesn't say anything about the other books.The core books are the primary source for their content, so nothing can override them except errata. According to the Primary Source rule from the PHB and DMG errata the PHB is the primary source for "all the rules for playing the game". What happens if you roll a 20 on an attack is part of playing the game. No other document can override that. The deity rules give you the best possible result (as if you had rolled a 20), which means you hit any AC.

[Platymus Pus]

Isn't that natural 20's only? The "best possible result", not you always getting 20 which would no longer be the best result when it is the only one.
It'd always crit, but I don't know about always hitting.

[Andezzar]

Isn't that natural 20's only? The "best possible result", not you always getting 20 which would no longer be the best result when it is the only one.
It'd always crit, but I don't know about always hitting.We had that before. The rule instruct us to assume the deity rolled a 20. If anyone rolls a 20 that is a natural 20, unless the result (including modifiers) is 20. That latter obviously is nonsense, because with modifiers greater than 20 a 20 in total definitely is not best possible result.

[Graypairofsocks]

The core books are the primary source for their content, so nothing can override them except errata. According to the Primary Source rule from the PHB and DMG errata the PHB is the primary source for "all the rules for playing the game". What happens if you roll a 20 on an attack is part of playing the game. No other document can override that. The deity rules give you the best possible result (as if you had rolled a 20), which means you hit any AC.

Yes, but other sources can provide exceptions to those rules.

[Andezzar]

Yes, but other sources can provide exceptions to those rules.But only if they tell us what those exceptions are. The deity rules tell us to get the best possible result of a roll and that we are to assume the deity rolled a 20. There is no instruction to treat the assumed roll of 20 any different than an actually rolled 20. An actually rolled 20 automatically hits or passes a save. There is no exception.

[Pippin]

A spell clock of surge of fortune could get you one natural 20 per turn, since it takes an immediate action to get the effect.
Can't we set it to trigger whenever we do something that's not even worth an immediate action? Like when we inhale or exhale?

Edit: nvm, you're talking about the spell Surge of Fortune itself. Sorry for the spam :v

[Graypairofsocks]

Can't we set it to trigger whenever we do something that's not even worth an immediate action? Like when we inhale or exhale?

Edit: nvm, you're talking about the spell Surge of Fortune itself. Sorry for the spam :v

Might be possible, Spell Clock is worded in a bizarre way.

Assuming I am understanding it correctly:
If you had a way to get an extra attack on a critical threat(Like Lightning Mace) you could have it trigger when you attack someone.
Get another clock that had some spell in it which could give you an immediate action, and set it to trigger when you attack someone.
You could get a (potentially) infinite amount of attacks that way, but you would need to carry 2 magical clocks around with you.

There is probably some more efficient way to do that.

[The Viscount]

Using rebuking/ general undead controlling means, gain access to as many Vasuthants (MMIII) as you can. Three times a day (but only once per round) each one can force a reroll as a free action. Get enough of them and you can ensure you roll a 20 (or a 1 which you convert to 20 as mentioned previously).

[Graypairofsocks]

But only if they tell us what those exceptions are. The deity rules tell us to get the best possible result of a roll and that we are to assume the deity rolled a 20. There is no instruction to treat the assumed roll of 20 any different than an actually rolled 20. An actually rolled 20 automatically hits or passes a save. There is no exception.

The Deities and Demigods FAQ provides the exception.
By RAW it doesn't contradict a primary source as Deities and Demigods doesn't count as one.

[Andezzar]

The Deities and Demigods FAQ provides the exception.
By RAW it doesn't contradict a primary source as Deities and Demigods doesn't count as one.That is total nonsense. There is only one source for how deities roll (or don't roll) in Deities and Demigods so there is no conflict of rules. An FAQ cannot change the rules any more than I can change the rules by writing conflicting rules down. Errata can change rules, nothing else.
I am tired of this discussion.

[Graypairofsocks]

That is total nonsense. There is only one source for how deities roll (or don't roll) in Deities and Demigods so there is no conflict of rules. An FAQ cannot change the rules any more than I can change the rules by writing conflicting rules down.

It isn't necessarily changing rules, as the rules text about the rolls is vague enough for it to be clarifying (or adding on to) what it meant.
Although, why can't it change (or provide exceptions for) the rules? It is an official rules document.


Errata can change rules, nothing else.
I am tired of this discussion.
Where does it say only errata can change rules?

The casting time for Quickened spells was changed to a Swift action outside errata.
Various creatures, spells, and items were changed in their reprinting, which were outside errata.

[Talakeal]

I have always been baffled by the online communities refusal to acknowledge the FAQ. I mean, I can see if it made a mistake or was trying to change the rules, but if it is simply trying to clarify an ambiguous rule I don't understand why one wouldn't utilize it.


In my mind, a roll which has been made to count as a 20 due to an ability, including a greater deity's, is not a "natural" 20.

I can see how one would argue otherwise as the term "natural" is never defined, but that leads down a weird rabbit hole. For example, the terms "dice" "roll" and "20" are, to my knowledge, never defined, and if you can't fall back on the common usage of the terms then you are stuck with a game that is either completely arbitrary or completely unplayable.

[Graypairofsocks]

I have always been baffled by the online communities refusal to acknowledge the FAQ. I mean, I can see if it made a mistake or was trying to change the rules, but if it is simply trying to clarify an ambiguous rule I don't understand why one wouldn't utilize it.
I think it was because they dislike the FAQ's rulings.


In my mind, a roll which has been made to count as a 20 due to an ability, including a greater deity's, is not a "natural" 20.

I can see how one would argue otherwise as the term "natural" is never defined, but that leads down a weird rabbit hole. For example, the terms "dice" "roll" and "20" are, to my knowledge, never defined, and if you can't fall back on the common usage of the terms then you are stuck with a game that is either completely arbitrary or completely unplayable.

It is worth noting those other abilities I have seen explicitly state that it counts as a Natural 20.

[Bucky]

DM fiat can force any roll to be a natural 20.

[137beth]

That is not what the first quote from the FAQ nor the actual rules say. The rules clearly say that deities do not roll to see if an attack hits, but to determine if the successful attack is a critical threat. The confirmation roll again automatically succeeds.


That's a very nice FAQ quote. It's also in direct contradiction with the rules.

SRD: "Greater deities (rank 16-20) automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll. Calculate success, failure, or other effects accordingly. When a greater deity makes a check, attack, or save assume a 20 was rolled and calculate success or failure from there. A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit. This quality means that greater deities never need the Maximize Spell feat, because their spells have maximum effect already."

Deities & Demigods: "Greater deities (rank 16–20) automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll. Calculate success, failure, or other effects accordingly. For instance, when a greater deity makes an attack roll, assume you rolled a 20 and calculate success or failure from there. You should roll the d20 anyway and use that roll to check for a threat of a critical hit. This quality means that greater deities never need the Maximize Spell feat, because their spells have maximum effect already."

First: They get the best possible result. That is, you get a natural 20.
Second: Assume a 20 was rolled. That is, you get a natural 20.
Third, exception: A d20 should still be rolled and used to check for a threat of a critical hit. That is, no auto-crit, despite the natural 20.

I'm sure that whoever wrote the FAQ was using their own, reasonable, playtested and balanced interpretation, but it does not match what the rules say. There is only one exception, and all other rolls assume you get the best result, and that it was rolled (that is, natural).
Well, something positive came out of this thread: I learned something about the rules that I didn't know despite having been exposed to it for years. Turns out I'd been reading that passage incorrectly for the last 10 years. I had (mis-)read it the same way the FAQ's author apparently read it, and I still like my (mis-)reading more. However, now that I am taking another look at the text, I see you are right: the actual rules text does not say what I thought it said for all these years.
Thanks, internet!

[Graypairofsocks]

Well, something positive came out of this thread: I learned something about the rules that I didn't know despite having been exposed to it for years. Turns out I'd been reading that passage incorrectly for the last 10 years. I had (mis-)read it the same way the FAQ's author apparently read it, and I still like my (mis-)reading more. However, now that I am taking another look at the text, I see you are right: the actual rules text does not say what I thought it said for all these years.
Thanks, internet!
You weren't really misreading anything. The rules text is vague enough for multiple readings.
One reading is interpreting the d20 roll as a natural 20, another is just taking the value of the roll as 20 (without the auto-success of the natural 20).
However the FAQ clarifies which reading is the correct one.
It is also worth noting that the FAQ author was actually one of the writers of that book.

[137beth]

It is also worth noting that the FAQ author was actually one of the writers of that book.

You keep saying that. I don't actually see anything in the FAQ document indicating who the author of the FAQ was, so I don't know if one of the authors of the book also authored the FAQ or whether you are just making it up. Or, possibly, I'm just overlooking an indication of who the author is. Could you please point out where you determined the FAQ's author?

In any case, assuming you are correct and one of the book's primary authors also wrote that FAQ, that doesn't necessarily mean the FAQ's author wrote the rule we're arguing about. It could have been written by one of the other two primary authors, or a freelancer who contributed to the project. Or, all three lead designers of the book may have argued over that particular rule, and the FAQ author was outvoted, making the text in the book the actual RAI and the FAQ wrong.

[Graypairofsocks]

You keep saying that. I don't actually see anything in the FAQ document indicating who the author of the FAQ was, so I don't know if one of the authors of the book also authored the FAQ or whether you are just making it up. Or, possibly, I'm just overlooking an indication of who the author is. Could you please point out where you determined the FAQ's author?
One of the authors of "Deities and Demigods" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deities_%26_Demigods#3rd_Edition_Dungeons_.26_Drag ons)(see the author column) was Skip Williams.

The Author of the FAQ for it was also Skip Williams (he wrote most of the earlier FAQs).
You can download the FAQ here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) (direct link (http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/files/DeitiesDemigodsFAQ10252002.zip)).
If you look at the first page of that pdf you can see that his name is mentioned as the guy who wrote it.


In any case, assuming you are correct and one of the book's primary authors also wrote that FAQ, that doesn't necessarily mean the FAQ's author wrote the rule we're arguing about. It could have been written by one of the other two primary authors, or a freelancer who contributed to the project. Or, all three lead designers of the book may have argued over that particular rule, and the FAQ author was outvoted, making the text in the book the actual RAI and the FAQ wrong.
We could guess that it is RAI for the wizard to have good fortitude and reflex saves, but it wasn't fixed in the errata because of a disagreement.
However nothing at all suggests that is case, so we can't assume that is the RAI.

It is the same principle here.

[Andezzar]

The Author of the FAQ for it was also Skip Williams (he wrote most of the earlier FAQs).
You can download the FAQ here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) (direct link (http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/files/DeitiesDemigodsFAQ10252002.zip)).
If you look at the first page of that pdf you can see that his name is mentioned as the guy who wrote it.The FAQ document does not actually say that it was written by Skip Williams. It only mentions that you can contact him, if you have questions not covered by the document and that the document is based on D&D written by him (among others).



We could guess that it is RAI for the wizard to have good fortitude and reflex saves, but it wasn't fixed in the errata because of a disagreement.
However nothing at all suggests that is case, so we can't assume that is the RAI.

It is the same principle here.We have no indication that the stuff written in the FAQ is RAI of the rules in Deities and Demigods either. Not hitting on a 20 is not RAW. Telling us to play it that way contradicts the rules in Deities and Demigods and the PHB. That is a rules change and so belongs into an errata document. It is totally counterintuitive to assume that the intention of a rule is the opposite of the written rule.

Once again the written rules are that you assume you rolled a twenty, which is a natural twenty (there is no other way) and automatically hits and that we are to use the best possible result of a roll, which again is a hit. There is no leeway.

The FAQ are not rules themselves, at best they are commentaries on rules, so they cannot supersede actual rules.

[Graypairofsocks]

The FAQ document does not actually say that it was written by Skip Williams. It only mentions that you can contact him, if you have questions not covered by the document and that the document is based on D&D written by him (among others).

A lot of the Entries in the FAQ were taken from the Sage's Advice Column in Dragon magazine.
This FAQ's answers were taken from the Sage advice column in Dragon Magazine #300. That article was written by Skip Williams.

However I can't find anything online detailing the "Sage's Advice" column in that issue.
Even if I found a Picture of that article, I don't know if I would be allowed to post it.


We have no indication that the stuff written in the FAQ is RAI of the rules in Deities and Demigods either. Not hitting on a 20 is not RAW. Telling us to play it that way contradicts the rules in Deities and Demigods and the PHB. That is a rules change and so belongs into an errata document. It is totally counterintuitive to assume that the intention of a rule is the opposite of the written rule.
We have don't really have indication that anything is RAI. The closest you can get is designer word.

The rules can change outside of errata.

It isn't the opposite, see below.

Once again the written rules are that you assume you rolled a twenty, which is a natural twenty (there is no other way) and automatically hits and that we are to use the best possible result of a roll, which again is a hit. There is no leeway.
I realized something on taking a close look:


"Greater deities (rank 16–20) automatically get the best result possible on any check, saving throw, attack roll, or damage roll. Calculate success, failure, or other effects accordingly. For instance, when a greater deity makes an attack roll, assume you rolled a 20 and calculate success or failure from there. You should roll the d20 anyway and use that roll to check for a threat of a critical hit. This quality means that greater deities never need the Maximize Spell feat, because their spells have maximum effect already."
See that Bolded part? Looking at it by a Strict reading of RAW it says to assume you rolled a 20 on the attack roll.
If you roll a 20 on the die roll it counts as a natural 20.
This means that by RAW (if you ignore the FAQ) not only does the attack not auto hit, they can't even hit themselves.
This is also in blatant contradiction to the sentence immediately previous to it (the underlined one).
However due to the rules of "General -> Specific -> Exception" (I am paraphrasing the name) it will override the underlined sentence.
This is because it is more specific, and it provides an exception to the rule explained in the underlined sentence.

Thus by RAW deities can't hit anything with an AC > 20.


The FAQ are not rules themselves, at best they are commentaries on rules, so they cannot supersede actual rules.
Can you prove this?

[Andezzar]

I mentioned that problem days ago. It is not clear whether the rule means assume having rolled a 20 including modifiers or assume a 20 on the d20 alone. The former obviously makes any deity always miss on AC 21 and above and the latter means it is treated as a natural 20. Neither of those readings support a miss if the AC is higher than the deity's AB+20.

As for the FAQ not being rules themselves, I don't have any quote claiming they are not, but the FAQ does not claim to be rules, it merely claims that you may find answers to your questions about Deities and Demigods in the document and what to do when you don't.

The PHB and other books on the other hand explicitly say they are rules.

Together, these three volumes comprise the core rules for the Dungeons & Dragons game.
The name Frequently asked Questions also does not imply any rules content. It means the questions (and answers) about a subject (in this case the rules).

Rules changes outside of errata makes about as much sense as saying campaign promises are the law already. Especially in D&D which gives us a clear hierarchy of rules. Yes the primary source rule should make the casting time change of feather fall etc. impossible. Primary source for Fatherfall is the PHB, the PHB is the primary source for all the rules for playing the game., the PHB sets the casting time of Featherfall to a free action, with the exception in the description of the spell that this free action can be taken outside one's turn. CArc or the other books introducing immediate actions cannot change that.

[137beth]

A lot of the Entries in the FAQ were taken from the Sage's Advice Column in Dragon magazine.
This FAQ's answers were taken from the Sage advice column in Dragon Magazine #300. That article was written by Skip Williams.

However I can't find anything online detailing the "Sage's Advice" column in that issue.
Even if I found a Picture of that article, I don't know if I would be allowed to post it.
For the record, issue 300 can be found on the Paizo store (http://paizo.com/products/btpy7zjk?Dragon-Issue-300). They even still have it in print. I don't have that issue, though, and the product description doesn't say anything about a Sage's Advice column in that issue, so I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.

In any case, what we actually have to determine RAI is RAW. RAW isn't necessarily always RAI, but it's the closest thing we have.