I mistakenly re-rolled a 98 recently... on a Swashbuckler of all thing. But as far as I can think, I never legitimately rolled anything above that - and I roll quite a bit. I think I *once* got a 103 using the Automatic Re-roller tool from an old BioWare Forums member, and that was with about 20 rerolls per second for 8 hours uninterrupted! A bit ridiculous honestly.
Usually I try to have my characters at around 90ish overall stats, with these guidelines : - Dexterity to maximum available - Constitution max for warrior classes, 16 for anything else. * - Main Attribute maximum possible - Intelligence any multiplier of 5 (5, 10, 15), preferably 10 - Strength 12 or more - Charisma 9 or more - Wisdom 7 or more
In this particular order of importance, so essentially :
My mage/thief has 18 dexterity and intelligence, 16 constitution. Total roll is 91 This leaves another 39 points to spend on the remaining 3 stats. If I put 18 points of strength, I'd still be able to have a charisma of 14, keeping wisdom at 7.
If I feel like I don't need much health from the get-go, I'll lower my Constitution to 15 (will gain HP at consumption of tome of CON). I can spend my bonus point in Charisma if I feel like being a good party leader. Wisdom I couldn't care less about, with 3 tomes I can get that score to a nice 10 anyway. Stats would look like : 18, 18, 15, 18, 7, 15
* Now, suppose I'm an Illusionist/Thief Gnome. Shorties like their constitution, so I'll trade some Charisma into Constitution - I think Save throws scale till... 18? So I really don't require to raise it past 17. One additional Charisma point less for the bonus 1 intelligence from Gnomes, to get into stats that look like : 18, 18, 17, 19, 7, 12
OF COURSE, then I have to keep in mind the stat sacrifices in Baldur's Gate 2. If I'm a goodie, that's guaranteed Dex loss (shame, but 19 or 18 isn't that big of a difference). As for the other sacrifice? Well, there's always Watcher's Keep to recover what was lost, RIGHT?! Ha, ha... aww, my poor perfect stats
Five minutes ago i'd have said i never rolled above 97 but i just got a 98 \o/. and on a berzerker no less...i guess my Zerker>Druid fantasy is becoming a reality.
Five minutes ago i'd have said i never rolled above 97 but i just got a 98 \o/. and on a berzerker no less...i guess my Zerker>Druid fantasy is becoming a reality.
I did that combo just like last week, dualing at level 7. It's the most amazing class combo one can come up with, and completely sweeps through anything late-game BG1. Have fun!
Add in the Int manual in BG1 and you have 6, 11, 16... Mind flayers in BG2 do 5 Int damage with their special attack. If you have 15, you can take 3 hits, if you have 16, you can take 4.
When I can't fall asleep, I listen to music and try to get good rolls on my tiny smart phone screen. The screen is so small that it is difficult to read what the 18/xx values are. As mentioned above, it depends on the character type, but for IWDEE v1.4.0 I usually get about 2 rolls in the 90's (or above) per song. Sometimes I have gotten 4 rolls in the 90's in about 5 minutes. As expected, getting triple digits is really hit and miss (emphasis on miss). I usually settle for 93 or above with a strength score above 18/90. On a paladin I have rolled a 104 which took me about 2.5 hours of rolls. I also have rolled a 102 for a paladin in 5 minutes – an insanely lucky roll. I have a 101 half-orc Fighter/Cleric, 102 Kensai, a few rangers between 100 and 103. Sometimes I do not get triple digits for a week with lots of rolling. Anyways, in my experience, if you roll about1.5 rolls per second for about 5 minutes then you will probably get about 2 scores that are 90 or above. Check this out, to see how many times I can reroll in a minute (paced where I won’t miss a good roll) I just timed myself, and in 1 minute I rolled 76 rolls with the 43rd roll being 90 for an Elf F/M/C strength 18/88. What really sucks is if you miss a great roll because you are tapping the reroll button on autopilot.
I usually settle for 93 or above with a strength score above 18/90.
Why? And for that matter: Why does anyone care for the /XX extra strength score, especially when playing the whole trilogy? I mean, about halfway through the very first game, it won't matter at all whether you started with 18/01 or 18/100 or whatever 18/XX... So, for me, all I care about is the total point value of the character, and not the least about the /XX value...
I think the percentile strength matters more on IWD without the Tomes, but I haven't played that yet to be sure that there are no other STR bonuses that will compensate in time.
I autopilot past too many good rolls if my reroll time is less the somewhere in the 1 - 1.5 second range, slower if I am distracted by listening to music etc.
Maybe it is time to pull out the cheese-roll class and go for triple figures or bust. Which class is likeliest for the triple? Paladin is a strong call, cleric/ranger should have strong rolls too, and maybe an elven fighter/druid, or fighter/mage/thief?
I suspect paladin with the guaranteed 17 Cha and other decent minima is the way to go, but ready to be persuaded otherwise.
I think the percentile strength matters more on IWD without the Tomes, but I haven't played that yet to be sure that there are no other STR bonuses that will compensate in time.
I autopilot past too many good rolls if my reroll time is less the somewhere in the 1 - 1.5 second range, slower if I am distracted by listening to music etc.
Maybe it is time to pull out the cheese-roll class and go for triple figures or bust. Which class is likeliest for the triple? Paladin is a strong call, cleric/ranger should have strong rolls too, and maybe an elven fighter/druid, or fighter/mage/thief?
I suspect paladin with the guaranteed 17 Cha and other decent minima is the way to go, but ready to be persuaded otherwise.
Elf Ranger has the following *minimum* scores: S13 D13 C14 I8 W14 Ch8
That's 70 points right there... Average or well above in every single stat.
On the other hand, the paladin guarantees a 17, so you are looking at trying to get 5 other good rolls, rather than 6, and when looking for 100+ that might swing it?
On the other hand, the paladin guarantees a 17, so you are looking at trying to get 5 other good rolls, rather than 6, and when looking for 100+ that might swing it?
Someone on here explained how the rolling mechanism worked to me once, but I'm not comfortable enough with probabilities to explain it. Essentially, the point they reached was that the higher the minimum total, the more likely to reach a perfect score.
Try it... spend 10 mins on Pally's and 10 mins on Elf Rangers... you definitely hit more 90+ totals with the elf.
Ah, but I'm not looking for 90+, but 100+! In this case, the guaranteed 17 reduces the number of 6s that must be rolled on the other 5 stats. The guaranteed minima on 6 stats guarantee a good roll, but to hit 100+ I need to exceed that guarantee on essentially every stat, so it buys me much less.
I think I just persuaded myself that Paladin is the way to go, but only experimental evidence will suffice...
I think the percentile strength matters more on IWD without the Tomes, but I haven't played that yet to be sure that there are no other STR bonuses that will compensate in time.
There's enough STR raising items, by the end of my run through, the gauntlets of ogre power had been passed down to my cleric and cleric/mage.
Highest I've ever rolled was a 97 on a paladin pre-EE. Best roll I've gotten on the EE has been a Kensage with a 93 and a natural 18/00 strength. I almost clicked through it >.<
Highest I've ever rolled was a 97 on a paladin pre-EE. Best roll I've gotten on the EE has been a Kensage with a 93 and a natural 18/00 strength. I almost clicked through it >.<</p>
If 90+ is more likely, doesn't it follow that higher scores (100+) are also more likely?!
Not necessarily - let's set up a really horrible example to demonstrate.
Assume two broken new race/class combos. On guarantees 3x18 stats, 1x11, and 2x3, for a total minimum of 89. Woo hoo! Brokenness here we come
Second race/class combo guarantees 6x15 stats, across the board, for a minimum total of 90! Yes haw! Even more brokenness!
Now which is more likely to roll a 90+? I'm going to go with the one that can never fail, vs. the one that needs to hit its min figures which is very unlikely (much less than 1% chance) but still possible.
So which of these two paragons on brokenness is more likely to roll 100+?
I can work out the easy case! One character has 3 18s guaranteed, and two free rolls of 3+. With a minimum of 11 guaranteed from the final stat, I need roll only (100-83 = 17) on 6d6, which I can see scores just over 20% - and that's not all! If I roll only 16, I can still score 100+ by rolling 12+ on my 3rd stat, which has a change of 4.8% * 37.5%, and if I roll only a 15, then there is still a chance of rolling 13+ etc. Doing the math, this yields around 25% chance of rolling 100+
Math for the 6x15 stat character starts throwing around a lot more big numbers that cancel out, but basically I am looking for 10 bonus points by rolling some stats over 15 on 3d6. Most likely way to do this is 4x17, and 2x16, which has a probability of, being generous, 0.2^4 * 0.3^2, which is *much* less than 0.01%. Of course, this does not factor in our min 16, so let's see how that helps. On roll guaranteed 15, and 5x17+, = 0.2^5, which is still less than 0.01%. Adding up all the viable combinations will still not get us close to a 0.1% chance for this second character rolling 100+, the odds are really not that much different than for a regular character once we are looking for such an extreme roll.
So just because one set of stats guarantees a lower total more readily, is no guarantee that the same benefit applies when looking for extremely high rolls.
In the case of 100+ with legal rolls, the odds are low enough that it probably does not make much difference, although I thing the guaranteed 17 Cha from the paladin will go a long way to help.
Also, all my assumptions are based on roll 3d6, and round up to a stat minimum if you fail. I don't know the actual algorithm used by the game. Other reasonable choices would be 4d6 take the best three for each stat, rather than straight 3d6, and keep rolling until the character is legal, rather than rounding up stats that fail to reach the minimum - the latter would be less likely to inflate scores, but might have been to slow for generating legal paladins on PCs when the game was first released
Sorry for the wall of text, but it has been a little while since I dusted off my math skills, so I needed the practice
@Zosimus , did you program your formula to take into account the minimum roll? I think it's 72. All rolls lower than that have to be thrown out. Also, classes with minimum stats, such as a paladin's required 17 in charisma and 14 in wisdom, change the formula to make higher totals more likely.
@Zosimus , did you program your formula to take into account the minimum roll? I think it's 72. All rolls lower than that have to be thrown out. Also, classes with minimum stats, such as a paladin's required 17 in charisma and 14 in wisdom, change the formula to make higher totals more likely.
No, I simply used =int(rand()*6)+int(rand()*6)+int(rand()*6)+3 for each of the six stats. Then I copied that down the entire length of the sheet. Then I copied that and pasted values. Then I added a total column with a formula. Then I sorted the first 100,000 rows and threw out any row that had a total less than 90. Then I sorted the first 200,000 rows and threw out any row that had a total less than 90. Then I sorted the first 300,000 rows and threw out any row that had a total less than 90. Then the sheet was small enough to sort the whole thing.
Comments
I think I *once* got a 103 using the Automatic Re-roller tool from an old BioWare Forums member, and that was with about 20 rerolls per second for 8 hours uninterrupted! A bit ridiculous honestly.
Usually I try to have my characters at around 90ish overall stats, with these guidelines :
- Dexterity to maximum available
- Constitution max for warrior classes, 16 for anything else. *
- Main Attribute maximum possible
- Intelligence any multiplier of 5 (5, 10, 15), preferably 10
- Strength 12 or more
- Charisma 9 or more
- Wisdom 7 or more
In this particular order of importance, so essentially :
My mage/thief has 18 dexterity and intelligence, 16 constitution. Total roll is 91
This leaves another 39 points to spend on the remaining 3 stats. If I put 18 points of strength, I'd still be able to have a charisma of 14, keeping wisdom at 7.
If I feel like I don't need much health from the get-go, I'll lower my Constitution to 15 (will gain HP at consumption of tome of CON). I can spend my bonus point in Charisma if I feel like being a good party leader. Wisdom I couldn't care less about, with 3 tomes I can get that score to a nice 10 anyway. Stats would look like :
18, 18, 15, 18, 7, 15
* Now, suppose I'm an Illusionist/Thief Gnome. Shorties like their constitution, so I'll trade some Charisma into Constitution - I think Save throws scale till... 18? So I really don't require to raise it past 17. One additional Charisma point less for the bonus 1 intelligence from Gnomes, to get into stats that look like :
18, 18, 17, 19, 7, 12
OF COURSE, then I have to keep in mind the stat sacrifices in Baldur's Gate 2. If I'm a goodie, that's guaranteed Dex loss (shame, but 19 or 18 isn't that big of a difference). As for the other sacrifice? Well, there's always Watcher's Keep to recover what was lost, RIGHT?! Ha, ha... aww, my poor perfect stats
My top rolls:
97=Human Fighter
99=Half-Orc Fighter/Thief Multi
99=Half Elf Fighter/Mage/Theif
All 3 top rolls were made using the EE version of the game. Previously my highest roll was a 94 human fighter using the original game for 10 years.
and on a berzerker no less...i guess my Zerker>Druid fantasy is becoming a reality.
Don't ever make a bet with a tiefling. - Planar proverb.
- Intelligence any multiplier of 5 (5, 10, 15), preferably 10
What is the reason behind the 5 multiplier?
Mind flayers in BG2 do 5 Int damage with their special attack. If you have 15, you can take 3 hits, if you have 16, you can take 4.
I autopilot past too many good rolls if my reroll time is less the somewhere in the 1 - 1.5 second range, slower if I am distracted by listening to music etc.
Maybe it is time to pull out the cheese-roll class and go for triple figures or bust. Which class is likeliest for the triple? Paladin is a strong call, cleric/ranger should have strong rolls too, and maybe an elven fighter/druid, or fighter/mage/thief?
I suspect paladin with the guaranteed 17 Cha and other decent minima is the way to go, but ready to be persuaded otherwise.
S13 D13 C14 I8 W14 Ch8
That's 70 points right there... Average or well above in every single stat.
Edit:
Paladin minimums for comparison:
S12 D3 C9 I3 W13 Ch17 (57 total)
Try it... spend 10 mins on Pally's and 10 mins on Elf Rangers... you definitely hit more 90+ totals with the elf.
Alternatively... there's always the ctrl-8 cheat.
I think I just persuaded myself that Paladin is the way to go, but only experimental evidence will suffice...
Wish i could find that old thread...
Just ctrl-8 or eekeeper the sucker... better than spending hours clicking on the same page.
Assume two broken new race/class combos. On guarantees 3x18 stats, 1x11, and 2x3, for a total minimum of 89. Woo hoo! Brokenness here we come
Second race/class combo guarantees 6x15 stats, across the board, for a minimum total of 90! Yes haw! Even more brokenness!
Now which is more likely to roll a 90+? I'm going to go with the one that can never fail, vs. the one that needs to hit its min figures which is very unlikely (much less than 1% chance) but still possible.
So which of these two paragons on brokenness is more likely to roll 100+?
Well, using this site as a reference for odds:
http://gurpsland.no-ip.org/articles/d6chance.htm
I can work out the easy case! One character has 3 18s guaranteed, and two free rolls of 3+. With a minimum of 11 guaranteed from the final stat, I need roll only (100-83 = 17) on 6d6, which I can see scores just over 20% - and that's not all! If I roll only 16, I can still score 100+ by rolling 12+ on my 3rd stat, which has a change of 4.8% * 37.5%, and if I roll only a 15, then there is still a chance of rolling 13+ etc. Doing the math, this yields around 25% chance of rolling 100+
Math for the 6x15 stat character starts throwing around a lot more big numbers that cancel out, but basically I am looking for 10 bonus points by rolling some stats over 15 on 3d6. Most likely way to do this is 4x17, and 2x16, which has a probability of, being generous, 0.2^4 * 0.3^2, which is *much* less than 0.01%. Of course, this does not factor in our min 16, so let's see how that helps. On roll guaranteed 15, and 5x17+, = 0.2^5, which is still less than 0.01%. Adding up all the viable combinations will still not get us close to a 0.1% chance for this second character rolling 100+, the odds are really not that much different than for a regular character once we are looking for such an extreme roll.
So just because one set of stats guarantees a lower total more readily, is no guarantee that the same benefit applies when looking for extremely high rolls.
In the case of 100+ with legal rolls, the odds are low enough that it probably does not make much difference, although I thing the guaranteed 17 Cha from the paladin will go a long way to help.
Also, all my assumptions are based on roll 3d6, and round up to a stat minimum if you fail. I don't know the actual algorithm used by the game. Other reasonable choices would be 4d6 take the best three for each stat, rather than straight 3d6, and keep rolling until the character is legal, rather than rounding up stats that fail to reach the minimum - the latter would be less likely to inflate scores, but might have been to slow for generating legal paladins on PCs when the game was first released
Sorry for the wall of text, but it has been a little while since I dusted off my math skills, so I needed the practice
16-18-17-18-16-14
14-18-13-18-15-18
17-16-16-17-16-14
So I couldn't even roll a 97.
Oops - I am wrong, it is a 99 - close, but not close enough.
I don't recall ever rolling over 97, and that was for a Bard. You folks who routinely roll over 100 ever considered playing the lottery, maybe?
Then I copied that down the entire length of the sheet.
Then I copied that and pasted values.
Then I added a total column with a formula.
Then I sorted the first 100,000 rows and threw out any row that had a total less than 90.
Then I sorted the first 200,000 rows and threw out any row that had a total less than 90.
Then I sorted the first 300,000 rows and threw out any row that had a total less than 90.
Then the sheet was small enough to sort the whole thing.