I'm fairly new to the game, but I managed some decent rolls I guess, as I was playing around with different character builds for a bit before I started my actual playthrough. The highest roll I ever had was for an archer character with a total score of 96, it seems very easy to hit 90+ rolls for Rangers, as they have high minimal ability figures. I also rolled a juicy 93 twice for a berserker.
@hellwalker31 If you reduce a stat and keep one point unspent, hitting CTRL-8 will reset the stats to all 18's and you will still have the unspent point.
Oh, and I meant the one point as an example. You can stock however many points you want this way.
Chance of a perfect roll as a half-orc: about one in 5*10^12 for most classes, about one in 3*10^12 for a shaman, about one in 1*10^12 for a shadowdancer. Assuming you haven't tweaked the race/class eligibility rules, of course.
Given the number of players that have ever played this game, and how many times they've rolled stats ... I don't know about that "had to happen eventually" part. After all, most players don't roll millions of times.
I do use the reroller while I'm watching TV so I do have a LOT of rolls. I've no idea how many. No mods at all other than I gave Gorion a bag of holding using Keeper and I've installed Xan's New Groove neither of which should have changed anything in Candlekeep. If I've done it once, it means that anybody CAN. The dice have no memory. I'll certainly be exporting this character for future use perhaps for a solo run.
The strange thing is that having such a roll doesn't have much more of an impact than having a roll in the nineties as having a high intelligence isn't important to a cleric and high charisma is of minimal importance.
What it does show is that it IS possible, just very, very, very unlikely.
There was a mod once that increased stats by one, the idea being that youy could play BG2 with the stats that you would have had if you had played BG1. If I had installed that in BG1, it would have made this result far more likely, but I didn't. I think that it was a sub-race mod which probably won't work in EE.
Could turn into a pretty obnoxious character from an RP standpoint, though. I can imagine he/she strutting about Candlekeep singing:
"Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way
I can't wait to look in the mirror
Cause I get better looking each day
To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man
Oh Lord It's hard to be humble,
But I'm doing the best that I can"
Chance of a perfect roll as a half-orc: about one in 5*10^12 for most classes, about one in 3*10^12 for a shaman, about one in 1*10^12 for a shadowdancer. Assuming you haven't tweaked the race/class eligibility rules, of course.
Given the number of players that have ever played this game, and how many times they've rolled stats ... I don't know about that "had to happen eventually" part. After all, most players don't roll millions of times.
Statistically, yeah, it was bound to happen. Odds are just a trend, its not like all those rolls HAVE to happen before the super rare result pops up.
With some players rerolling untold billions of times with cheats like the reroller mod, yes, it was bound to happen even if most players barely reroll at all.
Ironically I'd be less excited to play a 108 because it feels too perfect, fake. It's not really logical but it's kinda like rolling manually instead of using a reroller, you want it to be legit/well-deserved somehow.
Last time I rolled a 97, I was very happy with it. Funny how the mind works.
After 20 years of BG i’ve come to the conclusion that keeping average or even bad stats makes for the most fun/rewarding/memorable characters i’ve ever played.
Coming back to that 108 roll, I just thought of something based on a conversation on another site.
The game uses a conventional PRNG for the process, and everything is deterministic once it starts rolling a set of scores. The initial random seed locks it in. There are about 10^14 ways to roll 18d6, of which exactly one is the 108 total (on a race with net neutral stat modifiers). Just how many possible random seeds are there? Well, that depends on the underlying math. If it's using a 32-bit integer, there are only about 4*10^9 of those. Which leaves something like a 1 in 25000 chance that the 108 is one of them. Rolling a 108 is most likely literally impossible on a 32- bit system.
If it were possible at all, it would be about as common as a 103+ roll should be.
On the other hand, the current version of the EE is only for 64-bit system. If the random number generator uses 64-bit integers, that's more than 10^19 possible seeds. Of which we can expect a hundred thousand or so to generate the 108 roll. Now possible, and actually about as unlikely as it should be.
I rolled a real (no-reroller) 100 on an elven ranger/cleric. Thats my best of all time, real *WOW* moment. I believe my former bests were like 97 on a paladin and 96 on an Elven F/T/M.
I rolled a real (no-reroller) 100 on an elven ranger/cleric. Thats my best of all time, real *WOW* moment. I believe my former bests were like 97 on a paladin and 96 on an Elven F/T/M.
Getting 100 for a ranger-cleric isn't that hard with a re-roller, but without using a re-roller it is certainly a *WOW* moment. I've only done it once.
High totals are rare because of the process.
- Roll 3d6 in order for the stats.
- If a stat doesn't meet the minimum values required for that race/class combination, reroll until it does.
- If the total is 75 or more, display the result of that roll. Otherwise, discard everything and restart from the top.
If you just rolled 3d6 in order, the distribution of values would look approximately like a normal distribution (a classic bell curve), with mean 63 and standard deviation approximately 7.25. By requiring a minimum of 75, we're cutting off the distribution to only include the tail; 95% of it is just gone, and we're in the region where probabilities sharply decline with every point added. The game hides this from you with all those silent rerolls, but that's what's going on under the hood.
High totals are rare because of the process.
- Roll 3d6 in order for the stats.
- If a stat doesn't meet the minimum values required for that race/class combination, reroll until it does.
- If the total is 75 or more, display the result of that roll. Otherwise, discard everything and restart from the top.
If you just rolled 3d6 in order, the distribution of values would look approximately like a normal distribution (a classic bell curve), with mean 63 and standard deviation approximately 7.25. By requiring a minimum of 75, we're cutting off the distribution to only include the tail; 95% of it is just gone, and we're in the region where probabilities sharply decline with every point added. The game hides this from you with all those silent rerolls, but that's what's going on under the hood.
After 20 years of BG i’ve come to the conclusion that keeping average or even bad stats makes for the most fun/rewarding/memorable characters i’ve ever played.
I agree. I usually never reroll and i cheat in the stats that I want with EEKeeper. Stats that I have decided even before starting the game and that have a total about or even less then the average of the NPCs total.
I have fun playing, not pressing a reroll button over and over, RL time is too valuable for that, I also find that minmaxing is the real powerful thing, an average total Charname can be perfectly functional if the points are allocated in the right way in almost all the possible builds, you maybe will get a Mage without that 18WIS so useful to cast the spell with the same name, but there are potions for it and if the PI casts the Wish a single potion will last you until the last battle or your Fighter will lack that .xx STR that any way does not bother me at all as I mainly play SoA that has items that override even the .00 roll (in BG1 the tome does it).
Not minmaxing would make the game harder, so more interesting to play, let's say limiting ourselves to x rolls (like 10 or 20) taking the best one as it is, without redistributing the points, as a 80-85 roll is almost as good as a 108 one if properly minmaxed, after all Charname is only 1 in a 6 people party and as long as his stats are minmaxed the impact of a 95 roll over a 80 roll will be really minimal on the party effectiveness.
After 20 years of BG i’ve come to the conclusion that keeping average or even bad stats makes for the most fun/rewarding/memorable characters i’ve ever played.
I agree. I usually never reroll and i cheat in the stats that I want with EEKeeper. Stats that I have decided even before starting the game and that have a total about or even less then the average of the NPCs total.
I have fun playing, not pressing a reroll button over and over, RL time is too valuable for that, I also find that minmaxing is the real powerful thing, . . .
I'm not so much a glutton for punishment that I'll embark on a game with abilities that are sub-par for adventuring. No, I want good stats, but more importantly I want realistically good stats, with no obvious min-maxing or just cheating myself any stats I want. That's why my personal take is pretty much the direct opposite of gorgonzola's: I'll Reroll dozens, scores, even hundreds of times, but I won't move any points from one stat into another. So every memorable character is the result of a natural roll, and not some munchkin with 4 Charisma. Yes, it takes time to get good (or even "acceptable") stats, but when I finally get some, I feel rewarded for my patience, and the character I play is more meaningful to me as a result. My best one ever? A Fighter/Thief/Mage, with stats of 16/18/17/14/14/16. Even years later, I still have old Eraglar memorized.
I'll Reroll dozens, scores, even hundreds of times, but I won't move any points from one stat into another. So every memorable character is the result of a natural roll, and not some munchkin with 4 Charisma. Yes, it takes time to get good (or even "acceptable") stats, but when I finally get some, I feel rewarded for my patience, and the character I play is more meaningful to me as a result.
Not minmaxing would make the game harder, so more interesting to play
Even with average stats you don't have to put 4 points into CHAR, it is perfectly possible to have good value for the stats that matter for the particular class without having some stats too low to be not realistic, Misc at that regard is an exception, the NPCs have very credible stats and Charname can follow their example unless you want, for RP reasons, to play a Charname particularly low on a certain stat i.e. a Berseker with very low WIS and INT, strong in the body and not in the mind, easy to rage and very blood thirsty. And then you have to RP that toon in the proper way, always leading his team to a furious charge, no matter what it will cost...
I understand the kind of satisfaction you get rolling over and over the stats without minmaxing and finally getting an acceptable roll, it is not my cup of tea, but I see how it can be your cup. As I am a power gamer that also cares about RP I use self restrain when I use EEkeeper to "roll my stats" so at the end the result is probably similar, I just find boring what you find rewarding and at the end satisfactory...
Comments
Oh, and I meant the one point as an example. You can stock however many points you want this way.
I was using a reroller to get it but it can't have rolled more than five times when it came up.
Given the number of players that have ever played this game, and how many times they've rolled stats ... I don't know about that "had to happen eventually" part. After all, most players don't roll millions of times.
The strange thing is that having such a roll doesn't have much more of an impact than having a roll in the nineties as having a high intelligence isn't important to a cleric and high charisma is of minimal importance.
What it does show is that it IS possible, just very, very, very unlikely.
There was a mod once that increased stats by one, the idea being that youy could play BG2 with the stats that you would have had if you had played BG1. If I had installed that in BG1, it would have made this result far more likely, but I didn't. I think that it was a sub-race mod which probably won't work in EE.
EDIT
Just looked up the mod. It is FinnJO's Subrace Mod.
http://www.baldursgatemods.com/forums/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=4
"Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way
I can't wait to look in the mirror
Cause I get better looking each day
To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man
Oh Lord It's hard to be humble,
But I'm doing the best that I can"
Statistically, yeah, it was bound to happen. Odds are just a trend, its not like all those rolls HAVE to happen before the super rare result pops up.
After all, I have 97. made
Last time I rolled a 97, I was very happy with it. Funny how the mind works.
The game uses a conventional PRNG for the process, and everything is deterministic once it starts rolling a set of scores. The initial random seed locks it in. There are about 10^14 ways to roll 18d6, of which exactly one is the 108 total (on a race with net neutral stat modifiers). Just how many possible random seeds are there? Well, that depends on the underlying math. If it's using a 32-bit integer, there are only about 4*10^9 of those. Which leaves something like a 1 in 25000 chance that the 108 is one of them. Rolling a 108 is most likely literally impossible on a 32- bit system.
If it were possible at all, it would be about as common as a 103+ roll should be.
On the other hand, the current version of the EE is only for 64-bit system. If the random number generator uses 64-bit integers, that's more than 10^19 possible seeds. Of which we can expect a hundred thousand or so to generate the 108 roll. Now possible, and actually about as unlikely as it should be.
Getting 100 for a ranger-cleric isn't that hard with a re-roller, but without using a re-roller it is certainly a *WOW* moment. I've only done it once.
The boys are back in town
The boys are back in town
I said
The boys are back in town
The boys are back in town
A very good roll but not rare. Enjoy.
- Roll 3d6 in order for the stats.
- If a stat doesn't meet the minimum values required for that race/class combination, reroll until it does.
- If the total is 75 or more, display the result of that roll. Otherwise, discard everything and restart from the top.
If you just rolled 3d6 in order, the distribution of values would look approximately like a normal distribution (a classic bell curve), with mean 63 and standard deviation approximately 7.25. By requiring a minimum of 75, we're cutting off the distribution to only include the tail; 95% of it is just gone, and we're in the region where probabilities sharply decline with every point added. The game hides this from you with all those silent rerolls, but that's what's going on under the hood.
Filthy Hobbitses! Lol 😆
I agree. I usually never reroll and i cheat in the stats that I want with EEKeeper. Stats that I have decided even before starting the game and that have a total about or even less then the average of the NPCs total.
I have fun playing, not pressing a reroll button over and over, RL time is too valuable for that, I also find that minmaxing is the real powerful thing, an average total Charname can be perfectly functional if the points are allocated in the right way in almost all the possible builds, you maybe will get a Mage without that 18WIS so useful to cast the spell with the same name, but there are potions for it and if the PI casts the Wish a single potion will last you until the last battle or your Fighter will lack that .xx STR that any way does not bother me at all as I mainly play SoA that has items that override even the .00 roll (in BG1 the tome does it).
Not minmaxing would make the game harder, so more interesting to play, let's say limiting ourselves to x rolls (like 10 or 20) taking the best one as it is, without redistributing the points, as a 80-85 roll is almost as good as a 108 one if properly minmaxed, after all Charname is only 1 in a 6 people party and as long as his stats are minmaxed the impact of a 95 roll over a 80 roll will be really minimal on the party effectiveness.
I'm not so much a glutton for punishment that I'll embark on a game with abilities that are sub-par for adventuring. No, I want good stats, but more importantly I want realistically good stats, with no obvious min-maxing or just cheating myself any stats I want. That's why my personal take is pretty much the direct opposite of gorgonzola's: I'll Reroll dozens, scores, even hundreds of times, but I won't move any points from one stat into another. So every memorable character is the result of a natural roll, and not some munchkin with 4 Charisma. Yes, it takes time to get good (or even "acceptable") stats, but when I finally get some, I feel rewarded for my patience, and the character I play is more meaningful to me as a result. My best one ever? A Fighter/Thief/Mage, with stats of 16/18/17/14/14/16. Even years later, I still have old Eraglar memorized.
Even with average stats you don't have to put 4 points into CHAR, it is perfectly possible to have good value for the stats that matter for the particular class without having some stats too low to be not realistic, Misc at that regard is an exception, the NPCs have very credible stats and Charname can follow their example unless you want, for RP reasons, to play a Charname particularly low on a certain stat i.e. a Berseker with very low WIS and INT, strong in the body and not in the mind, easy to rage and very blood thirsty. And then you have to RP that toon in the proper way, always leading his team to a furious charge, no matter what it will cost...
I understand the kind of satisfaction you get rolling over and over the stats without minmaxing and finally getting an acceptable roll, it is not my cup of tea, but I see how it can be your cup. As I am a power gamer that also cares about RP I use self restrain when I use EEkeeper to "roll my stats" so at the end the result is probably similar, I just find boring what you find rewarding and at the end satisfactory...