What is the maximum possible when playing the dice? (I already made 98, does it reach 100?)

Arcanjo

I already got 98 in the data (BG1: EE, BG2: EE). I do not know if it's possible to reach this with everyone! Some classes seem to have a harder time reaching these values. But it was VERY rare!

Would it be possible in sorts with the data to come 100? or 98 is the maximum (For all classes)?

ThacoBell

108 is a max roll.

Grond0

That's generally true, though not always. All statistics have a base maximum of 18, but some races and classes have adjustments to that, both up and down. If you have a class with a high minimum - like the 17 charisma for paladins for instance - that makes it a lot easier to roll a high total.

Khyron

While 108 (give or take for class/race specifics) is theoretical maximum, i have never seen anything higher than 98 - and only once that, in all my time since i started playing BG some 20 years ago.

But rerolling past 95 or so, just seems like a waste of time tbh.. maybe a FMC would benefit from 18,18,18,18,18,18.. but it does seem a bit excessive if you ask me.

Balrog99

Khyron said:

While 108 (give or take for class/race specifics) is theoretical maximum, i have never seen anything higher than 98 - and only once that, in all my time since i started playing BG some 20 years ago.

But rerolling past 95 or so, just seems like a waste of time tbh.. maybe a FMC would benefit from 18,18,18,18,18,18.. but it does seem a bit excessive if you ask me.

Blasphemy! Must keep rolling................

Chronicler

I've heard that the odds of rolling 108 are worse than the odds of winning the lottery.

I've rolled 100 on a stalker.

Borek

CTRL + 8 at char selection (if the console is enabled)...honestly if you are gonna roll-scum until getting 95+ just use the console/EE Keeper and save yourself the pain.

As for high natural numbers then it depends almost entirely on the class you pick, since many will have 15 minimums in 1 or 2 stats, and that can dramatically improve the over-all score.

dunbar

The in-built class minimums actually make the rolls 'artificially' high. I tried doing it the old school way once with my PnP die and 3D6 per stat were bad enough but 1D18 was a disaster!

Chronicler

Borek said:

CTRL + 8 at char selection (if the console is enabled)...honestly if you are gonna roll-scum until getting 95+ just use the console/EE Keeper and save yourself the pain.

As for high natural numbers then it depends almost entirely on the class you pick, since many will have 15 minimums in 1 or 2 stats, and that can dramatically improve the over-all score.

Notably it also gives you 18/00 strength, which can be a pretty dramatic difference for a lot of the non-warrior classes that could only achieve 18 naturally.

borntodie

Chronicler said:

I've heard that the odds of rolling 108 are worse than the odds of winning the lottery.

I think the game rolls 3d6 for each stat? Without minimum scores, one in every [100*6^(6*3)] rolls is going to be a perfect all-18 score and 18/00 strength: one in every ten million billion. With minimum scores, your odds will look a little better, but not much..

On the upside, if you're going to walk to Alpha Centauri and roll the dice once for every step along the way, you should statistically see about four perfect rolls.

Grond0

borntodie said:

Chronicler said:

I've heard that the odds of rolling 108 are worse than the odds of winning the lottery.

I think the game rolls 3d6 for each stat? Without minimum scores, one in every [100*6^(6*3)] rolls is going to be a perfect all-18 score and 18/00 strength: one in every ten million billion. With minimum scores, your odds will look a little better, but not much..

On the upside, if you're going to walk to Alpha Centauri and roll the dice once for every step along the way, you should statistically see about four perfect rolls.

That seems a bit pessimistic to me. Exceptional strength isn't relevant to the majority of characters and minimum scores will make a considerable difference. I suspect your chances of an all 18s roll is probably more like one in 30 million million - should be one along any moment now .

RVNS

Highest I have ever seen is a 101 which wasn't even rolled by me. I think personal best is 98 or 99 and I have certainly seen low nineties.

Kennis

Autoroller got to 102. I never expected to get that high. Just for an Elven Swashie.

karnor00

Best I’ve seen is 103 after leaving the auto roller on all weekend.

And while 108 is the theoretical maximum, it may not be possible to actually achieve this. BG2 uses pseudorandom numbers and there may not be a possible sequence which results in a 108 roll.

ChiefBigFeather

The best I ever did was 88 with str 18/00 on my kensai (dualed to mage).

Durmir46

Got myself a 99 bard
All 18 but wisdom 9.

When I get a roll of 97 or over, I export them lvl 1. I want to try LoB from lvl 1, so I need the very best! So far I have a gnome F/M with 98, a C/R 98, a half-orc F/T 97 and the bard. 2 more ! Hopefully a sorcerer and a dwarven defender for a perfectly balanced butt-kicking session. No hamster needed.

jsaving

Also keep in mind that the game is much, much easier to play if you roll high. That can be either a good or a bad thing depending on your playstyle, but if you want to be challenged then you'll likely have to up the difficulty level (as Durmir suggests).

ThacoBell

karnor00 said:

Best I’ve seen is 103 after leaving the auto roller on all weekend.

And while 108 is the theoretical maximum, it may not be possible to actually achieve this. BG2 uses pseudorandom numbers and there may not be a possible sequence which results in a 108 roll.

There is at least one confirmed 108. @JuliusBorisov linked a tweet somewhere on these forums a while back.

ArchGhost

I've rolled about 5 or 6 in the 96-98 range (always eleven sorcerers or Gnomish cleric/mages), and a single 101 Cavalier, but i don't really like paladins so i didn't think it was too special (and I will usually CRTL-8 them anyway to avoid MAJOR frustration with their core stats or just to put 18/00 on whatever the rest of their roll is).

i don't really pay much attention to the total just the stat spread I want for those casters:

STR 9+ on sorc, 15+ on c/m
DEX 18 (or 19 on elf)
CON 16
INT 18
WIS 18
CHA whatever (i think elf bumps this to minimum 8 or 9?)


My best were

C/M
STR 16
DEX 18
CON 18
INT 19
WIS 17
CHA 10

Sorc
STR 15
DEX 19
CON 18
INT 18
WIS 18
CHA 10

As much STR as possible for carry weight and in case of C/M, to wear gear like Plate or tower shields.
DEX maxed is no brainer for ranged THACO and AC bonus.
Yeah, the CON is superfluous but I'd rather have them nearer to 19 or 20 if I happen to take them to the Machine of Lum the Mad or through BG1, instead of wasting those 2 point in CHA, which is frankly all or nothing in BG2 (it's much cooler in BG1). I always plan my Mages to be able to wish so high INT + WIS is a must.

Fyl

18/91+ makes it 10x harder
18/00 makes it 100x harder

Hence if rolling a Fighter, Barbarian, Fighter Thief or Fighter Cleric, seriously consider forgoing shortie saves and going Halforc.

And single class thieves with no plan of dualling? Definitely halforc.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Balrog99

Rolled a 100 for a totemic druid once. Kind of a waste for a glorified summoner (but still cool!). I've also rolled many 95-97's for cleric/ rangers, elven archers and paladins and one 98 for an elven dragon disciple.

ThacoBell

103 on a Ranger/Cleric once. I accidentally no reloaded BG1 with that character. Almost made it through SoD too (Stupid earthquake hammer).