@Kamehouse - I know you think that the math backs you up, and that clearly 99% of the people in this thread must be lying, but the roller is much friendlier than you give it credit for. For starters, all rolls less than 75 are instantly thrown out and rerolled. It happens so fast you don't even see it, so it effectively doesn't happen. Go ahead and see what that does to the odds when you toss out everything on the bell curve left of a 75.
Next, consider stat minimums based on racial and class restrictions. If you look through all the super high rolls again, you'll find that a lot of them are for Paladins, and for elven Rangers (or Ranger/Clerics, which is even easier to roll).
Finally, go download one of the stat rolling utilities. They work faster than you could hit the reroll button normally, but even at their slowest setting, you can see just how quickly the numbers climb. I've set mine to run while I'm at work, and come back to some monster stats which made me go, "Wasn't this supposed to take a couple hundred years?"
All I'm saying is, if you had a bit more anecdotal information to bring to the table, instead of just calculating the raw statistics of rolling a 6 on 18 dice, you might hesitate a bit before calling everybody in this thread a liar.
So a total of 95. That took me approximately two hours of rerolling, and I still think I got lucky (I was aiming for a total of 93). Getting a high total for a half-orc cleric/thief is a lot harder than getting a high total for a paladin or a ranger (especially an elf ranger) because those classes have high minimum ability requirements.
Off-topic, I had originally planned for my PC to use flails/morningstars, eventually dual-wielding them. But it turns out that the only weapons swashbucklers may specialize in are thief weapons, which except for clubs and quarterstaves are all forbidden to clerics. I ended up choosing the quarterstaff specialization for my PC, since for some reason magic clubs are as rare as magic katanas in BG1&2.
Your odds aren't taking into account that anything below a 75 is thrown out, but more importantly...
On a class with a minimum requirement anything rolled lower than the minimum requirement is instantly bumped up to the minimum.
So for a paladin with requirements 9 in constitution, 12 in strength, 13 in wisdom, and 17 in charisma.
If you rolled a 3-16 for charisma you still get a 17. Classes with several min requirement stats like paladin or ranger / cleric are going to have a lot easier time.
On the other side of things how many people physically rolled 100+, and how many people were using an auto roller?
Personally used an auto-roller; got 101 on a human Ranger recently. After maybe 8 hours, rolling maybe 10 times per second? That's well over 200,000 rolls, so not something I'd remotely want to do by hand. (On the other hand, I don't know exactly when it hit 101, so there's that to consider.)
I definitely don't see the difference between an auto roller and just shift-F8 or whatever the short cut is.
I also don't buy any RP involvement for allocation after the first 2 dozen rolls; if you care about RP then let go of the need to play completely unrealistic characters.
I love getting high rolls, but certainly wouldn't put hours towards it.
I'm a bit stuck at the moment though, I'm thinking about a level 6 berserker/9 Druid but optimal stats start at 18/xx, 18, 18, 3, 18, 17 which is 92. Not sure I have the patience for it honestly.
I've only gotten a sum of 100 *once*. I've never been able to recreate it. Most of the time, the best sum I can get is 94, and that is with *much* rolling. But my reroll finger is akin to someone addicted to slot machines. I think I enjoy the game more rolling characters than actually playing them xD
I definitely don't see the difference between an auto roller and just shift-F8 or whatever the short cut is.
One is blatant cheating. The other one isn't. It may seem a flimsy justification to you, but it's more than enough for me. I don't care for having weak PCs in a single-player RPG, and I refuse to go below 9 in a stat. I want a certain minimum for physical stats for, say, a Fighter. If I don't have it, I feel as if I'm handicapping myself, which is not how I want to play. On the other hand, I don't want my characters to below average or just average in their mental stats, either. If my PC is supposed to win the game, then I want my Child of Bhaal to be the best of them. Otherwise, it doesn't feel right.
@Rhyme: As you can read in my post, I also mentioned the 75 minimum and the requirements for paldins an alike even I did not calculate them (calculating this is hell, but I will try it when I have the time). Even it would reduce the average rolls needed to get to 10% - what is more than to expect - the pure number of values much higher than 100 even for paladins an ranger, the values you can see for fighters, people sayind they got those values after x rolls and the stupid 18/00 thiefs or less than 75 rolls concentrated here tell me and every intelligent human being that most of these people her a lying. Yes, I call them liar.
@moopy: Just a little correction. If the program rolled a 3-16 for charisma for a paladin you don't get a 17. The stat is not set to the minimum but is rerolled until the requirement is fullfilled. But you are right to state that this influences the average values needed.
@IDanielHolm: In my opinion an autoroller is cheating, too. This does not depend on why you use a tool but that you use a tool to get a advantage in a game. But thats just my personal opinion -and most other player in the wold, whatever.
I definitely don't see the difference between an auto roller and just shift-F8 or whatever the short cut is.
I don't use either (and more than a couple minutes rolling is all I'll put in, so my powergamer willpower is low), but IIRC doesn't the F8 trick force you to have an 18/00 strength, even for classes who normally max at 18 - likes Bards?
@IDanielHolm: In my opinion an autoroller is cheating, too. This does not depend on why you use a tool but that you use a tool to get a advantage in a game. But thats just my personal opinion -and most other player in the wold, whatever.
It isn't cheating. It is simply automating the process. If you had the patience, you could keep clicking for weeks on end to arrive at the same result. It is within the game's parameters to come up with the results you're hearing of. It is more than possible to get a 100+ roll within the first ten rolls -- it is simply unlikely.
Thus, it isn't cheating. Whether that justification works for you is, of course, your own beeswax.
same old argument over and over again... Cheating-not cheating, shift+f8, RPing, powergaming, "working" for the good stats... pffffff.... Who cares, it's not a race, everyone plays as they like!
But again, it's always good to have a heated debate about a pointless issue
@Kamehouse You're probably just too negative that you can attract bad luck in your rolls. :-) I've had a 98 once, 97 thrice, and 90's that I've already lost count...to top that, I had 102 with my half-elf archer just recently. Whether you or anyone else believe it or not, we, who were lucky (and patient) enough to get very high rolls...I guess I could also say this on their behalf - we don't care. You probably feel very "smart" right now sarcastically contradicting other people, throwing in some math, having lottery as an analogy, and saying bad things like "stupid", "idiots", and "liars" just to make yourself seem relatively superior. I don't mind most of what you say to be honest, but the latter...blatantly calling other people liars for getting high rolls? I refuse to be called as such. Normally, I would just let that go...but to get that from someone like you? You should get warned, if not immediately banned for being unnecessarily rude.
@Senash: You are absolutely right, who cares. It's not as one would get a beneficial adventage over other by this, so whatever. It's just that not you roll the stat, but the autoroller...
@fredamora: I'm very sorry to have hurt your feelings. But if I call someone cought lying in such a ragged way stupid - as the one who claimed to have rolled 18/00 for a thief or the one who claimed to have rolled less than 75 - it's just stating a fact. And as long the odds are so strong agains the mass of highest values gathered here, I claim the right to blame most of them lying. If it would be only you doing so, and as I don't know you that good like you me, I'd say "grats". But all of these, no. If you refuse to be called a laier, prove me wrong.
To all those who had the standing to admit never having rolled more than 94, 98 or whatever normal value or just read this, don't feel unhappy. Most of those overstats are not real.
----------
Cynicism my armor, sarcasm my sword and irony my shield.
@Kamehouse Haha who do you think you are anyway? On a normal day, I'd like to say that your accusations don't deserve anyone's attention, and why would I want to prove myself to a complete stranger. But let's make an exception today. How could I prove that I have the stats then? A saved file? A screenshot? Oooh..on the other hand, for someone as hard-headed as you are...I doubt you'd run out of excuses like how would I know if you didn't use Shadow Keeper, or what if you Photoshopped it? Like I'd waste my time photo-editing or setting up BG:EE Shadow Keeper for you.:D But I'd really want to break this cynicism armor of yours. Would you be so kind to help me out? :-) If a saved file or screenshot is good enough for you, I guess I could spare a little time uploading. If not, then there's no point going into this. Even if I were to prove myself to you, you would just continue with your unneeded accusations that I may not be lying but *surely* others are. There's just no winning against this topic. But let me tell you, with so many people playing games with stat rolling esp Baldur's Gate, and with hundreds if not thousands of times one could have had stat rolled...you shouldn't be surprised if some were lucky enough. Maybe you should try a good-alignment playthrough in real-life sometimes, maybe luck will be more generous to you by then. :-) And oh, I forgot to mention I also had 99 in TOEE if my memory serves me right...don't count that one though, it's been a long time.
@ElysianEchoes I share your sentiments. I really enjoy creating characters and rolling stats. I didn't want to admit it to myself at first, but knowing someone else who feels the same...yeah, I guess I've spent more time in BG:EE stat rolling and setting up character portraits than actually playing the game.:D
Sorry, I didn't mean to open a can of worms. When I brought up auto-rollers, it was more to say, "Even if you don't want to put in the time and effort to prove that these rolls aren't as uncommon as your statistics say they should be, you can turn on an auto-roller, and the auto-roller will produce results that you thought were incredibly unlikely." I didn't mean to imply that certain rolls were due to an auto-roller (though this thread exploded with new high rolls shortly after one was published here on the forums), or to make a judgment on the auto-roller one way or another.
@fredamora: I'm very sorry to have hurt your feelings. But if I call someone cought lying in such a ragged way stupid - as the one who claimed to have rolled 18/00 for a thief or the one who claimed to have rolled less than 75 - it's just stating a fact. And as long the odds are so strong agains the mass of highest values gathered here, I claim the right to blame most of them lying. If it would be only you doing so, and as I don't know you that good like you me, I'd say "grats". But all of these, no. If you refuse to be called a laier, prove me wrong.
You clearly don't understand statistics. What you have in this thread is a subset of the entire forum. A small subset. (The forum is also a subset of the entire Baldur's Gate fandom.) This thread is called "The most ridiculous stats you have rolled for a Baldur's Gate character" -- it naturally attracts the end of the curve that DID get those high rolls. The vast majority of players don't come to the forum, and the vast majority of forum-goers don't come to this thread.
This is like looking at a picture of a squad of cheerleaders in front of a city sign, and complaining that clearly this is a manipulated picture, because not all people living in that city are cheerleaders (and backing this up with census data from the city), and the statistical likelihood of a group of 20-random people being cheerleaders is insanely low.
The next time you wish to call someone a liar based on nothing but statistics, LEARN STATISTICS FIRST.
@lDanielHolm: Nice story. It would just be hard to get a squad of cheerleaders to a city sign if there were only 3 cheerleaders in the world. Learn realism first. (Or zero in case of the 18/00 thief or the sub 75 roll.) And you are wrong if you think my opinion is only based on statistics. That is only a little fact to underline the obvious. It is sometimes hard to tell if someone is telling the truth. But sometimes it is not. Take a close look at what someone writes, and why. I just don't let me fool by people who carry their lies to excess by stating "I did it in 3 tries." or "I try to get 100+." soon followed by "Oh, I got 102!". No, say what you want, I don't believe. And everyone with a little brain and knowledge of human nature will thin twice before believing it, too.
@Kamehouse: You are ignoring my point. I am not saying there are no liars in this thread; I am saying you cannot base your opinion that they are liars on a flawed understanding of statistics. And yes, when you say this:
And as long the odds are so strong agains the mass of highest values gathered here, I claim the right to blame most of them lying.
Yeah, I skipped that because it doesn't actually make sense. You are insinuating that getting a high roll -- 95+ -- is equivalent to having only "three cheerleaders in the world". Which just doesn't fly. Even by your own estimation, a 100 happens, on average, about 1 out of 50,000 rolls. We have maybe 3 or 4 dozen people in this thread claiming a 100 or above. How many hundreds of people have seen this thread? How many of those have spent hours upon hours rolling and rolling to get good statistics? I know I've spent many, and I only hit 100+ after using an auto-roller overnight (so after hundreds of thousands of rolls).
If people only rolled once, and couldn't reroll, you might have a case, but since they can roll as many times as they want to...
And I'll note that I've not seen anyone claiming 102+. Which, incidentally, is when your own estimation jumps up to one in 6.5 million rolls.
By human rolling (me) after 4 hours of "lifetime accumulated" rolling Cleric/Ranger these are some high rolls: 96 points with 18/90 and with 18/66 95 points with 18/92 (playing with this one) 93 with 18/00
But, as I played, I rolled a bit each time before playing the game (slot machine addiction effect, as others have
mentioned) and now have done 6 hours of "lifetime accumulated" rolling Cleric/Ranger:
96 points with 18/00
So that's 18's in all stats except CHA 6 And now I'm done rolling (famous last words)! Until wanting to try another Class, that is...
Took me a week to get these stats. I also rolled a 18/96 STR but the Wisdom was 8. Accidentally deleted that character and made this Kensai. Right now she is 8th level and I JUST found the Katana +1 in the Bandit Mine.
Comments
Next, consider stat minimums based on racial and class restrictions. If you look through all the super high rolls again, you'll find that a lot of them are for Paladins, and for elven Rangers (or Ranger/Clerics, which is even easier to roll).
Finally, go download one of the stat rolling utilities. They work faster than you could hit the reroll button normally, but even at their slowest setting, you can see just how quickly the numbers climb. I've set mine to run while I'm at work, and come back to some monster stats which made me go, "Wasn't this supposed to take a couple hundred years?"
All I'm saying is, if you had a bit more anecdotal information to bring to the table, instead of just calculating the raw statistics of rolling a 6 on 18 dice, you might hesitate a bit before calling everybody in this thread a liar.
19 strength
18 dexterity
16 constitution
6 intelligence
18 wisdom
18 charisma
So a total of 95. That took me approximately two hours of rerolling, and I still think I got lucky (I was aiming for a total of 93). Getting a high total for a half-orc cleric/thief is a lot harder than getting a high total for a paladin or a ranger (especially an elf ranger) because those classes have high minimum ability requirements.
Off-topic, I had originally planned for my PC to use flails/morningstars, eventually dual-wielding them. But it turns out that the only weapons swashbucklers may specialize in are thief weapons, which except for clubs and quarterstaves are all forbidden to clerics. I ended up choosing the quarterstaff specialization for my PC, since for some reason magic clubs are as rare as magic katanas in BG1&2.
Your odds aren't taking into account that anything below a 75 is thrown out, but more importantly...
On a class with a minimum requirement anything rolled lower than the minimum requirement is instantly bumped up to the minimum.
So for a paladin with requirements 9 in constitution, 12 in strength, 13 in wisdom, and 17 in charisma.
If you rolled a 3-16 for charisma you still get a 17. Classes with several min requirement stats like paladin or ranger / cleric are going to have a lot easier time.
On the other side of things how many people physically rolled 100+, and how many people were using an auto roller?
I also don't buy any RP involvement for allocation after the first 2 dozen rolls; if you care about RP then let go of the need to play completely unrealistic characters.
I love getting high rolls, but certainly wouldn't put hours towards it.
I'm a bit stuck at the moment though, I'm thinking about a level 6 berserker/9 Druid but optimal stats start at 18/xx, 18, 18, 3, 18, 17 which is 92. Not sure I have the patience for it honestly.
@moopy: Just a little correction. If the program rolled a 3-16 for charisma for a paladin you don't get a 17. The stat is not set to the minimum but is rerolled until the requirement is fullfilled. But you are right to state that this influences the average values needed.
@IDanielHolm: In my opinion an autoroller is cheating, too. This does not depend on why you use a tool but that you use a tool to get a advantage in a game. But thats just my personal opinion -and most other player in the wold, whatever.
Thus, it isn't cheating. Whether that justification works for you is, of course, your own beeswax.
But again, it's always good to have a heated debate about a pointless issue
You're probably just too negative that you can attract bad luck in your rolls. :-) I've had a 98 once, 97 thrice, and 90's that I've already lost count...to top that, I had 102 with my half-elf archer just recently. Whether you or anyone else believe it or not, we, who were lucky (and patient) enough to get very high rolls...I guess I could also say this on their behalf - we don't care. You probably feel very "smart" right now sarcastically contradicting other people, throwing in some math, having lottery as an analogy, and saying bad things like "stupid", "idiots", and "liars" just to make yourself seem relatively superior. I don't mind most of what you say to be honest, but the latter...blatantly calling other people liars for getting high rolls? I refuse to be called as such. Normally, I would just let that go...but to get that from someone like you? You should get warned, if not immediately banned for being unnecessarily rude.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/10937/utility-bgee-autoroller-v2
@Senash: You are absolutely right, who cares. It's not as one would get a beneficial adventage over other by this, so whatever. It's just that not you roll the stat, but the autoroller...
@fredamora: I'm very sorry to have hurt your feelings. But if I call someone cought lying in such a ragged way stupid - as the one who claimed to have rolled 18/00 for a thief or the one who claimed to have rolled less than 75 - it's just stating a fact. And as long the odds are so strong agains the mass of highest values gathered here, I claim the right to blame most of them lying. If it would be only you doing so, and as I don't know you that good like you me, I'd say "grats". But all of these, no. If you refuse to be called a laier, prove me wrong.
To all those who had the standing to admit never having rolled more than 94, 98 or whatever normal value or just read this, don't feel unhappy. Most of those overstats are not real.
----------
Cynicism my armor, sarcasm my sword and irony my shield.
Haha who do you think you are anyway? On a normal day, I'd like to say that your accusations don't deserve anyone's attention, and why would I want to prove myself to a complete stranger. But let's make an exception today. How could I prove that I have the stats then? A saved file? A screenshot? Oooh..on the other hand, for someone as hard-headed as you are...I doubt you'd run out of excuses like how would I know if you didn't use Shadow Keeper, or what if you Photoshopped it? Like I'd waste my time photo-editing or setting up BG:EE Shadow Keeper for you.:D But I'd really want to break this cynicism armor of yours. Would you be so kind to help me out? :-) If a saved file or screenshot is good enough for you, I guess I could spare a little time uploading. If not, then there's no point going into this. Even if I were to prove myself to you, you would just continue with your unneeded accusations that I may not be lying but *surely* others are. There's just no winning against this topic. But let me tell you, with so many people playing games with stat rolling esp Baldur's Gate, and with hundreds if not thousands of times one could have had stat rolled...you shouldn't be surprised if some were lucky enough. Maybe you should try a good-alignment playthrough in real-life sometimes, maybe luck will be more generous to you by then. :-) And oh, I forgot to mention I also had 99 in TOEE if my memory serves me right...don't count that one though, it's been a long time.
@ElysianEchoes I share your sentiments. I really enjoy creating characters and rolling stats. I didn't want to admit it to myself at first, but knowing someone else who feels the same...yeah, I guess I've spent more time in BG:EE stat rolling and setting up character portraits than actually playing the game.:D
This is like looking at a picture of a squad of cheerleaders in front of a city sign, and complaining that clearly this is a manipulated picture, because not all people living in that city are cheerleaders (and backing this up with census data from the city), and the statistical likelihood of a group of 20-random people being cheerleaders is insanely low.
The next time you wish to call someone a liar based on nothing but statistics, LEARN STATISTICS FIRST.
If people only rolled once, and couldn't reroll, you might have a case, but since they can roll as many times as they want to...
And I'll note that I've not seen anyone claiming 102+. Which, incidentally, is when your own estimation jumps up to one in 6.5 million rolls.
96 points with 18/90 and with 18/66
95 points with 18/92 (playing with this one)
93 with 18/00
But, as I played, I rolled a bit each time before playing the game (slot machine addiction effect, as others have
mentioned) and now have done 6 hours of "lifetime accumulated" rolling Cleric/Ranger:
96 points with 18/00
So that's 18's in all stats except CHA 6
And now I'm done rolling (famous last words)! Until wanting to try another Class, that is...
Aranneas Stalker 107 after 5-10 rolls
cyberarmy Thief 106 18/100
TheCoffeeGod 103 18/100
beerflavour F/C/M 102
Eightgallon 102 after 0,5 h
fredamora Archer 102 18/89 (after telling he would try to get over 100 / 19 h later)
Papy_Silk 102 after 3h
Twilight_Fox Thief 102
UnknownQuantity Ranger 102
brother of IDanielHolm F/M/T 101
Key_Strokes 101 18/94
moopy Cavalier 101 18/50
Ossory Mage 101
Dogmatix Paladin 100
ElysianEchoes F/M 100 18/84
IDanielHolm Fighter 100 18/100
Key_Strokes 100 18/91
Kurumi 100 18/99