Highest roll you've seen?

[identity]

Been messing around with this autoroller program I found, and it reminds me of Progress Quest. Strangely enough, I find it kind of fun just to see what rolls you can get with various classes. Highest I've seen today was 100 on a Ranger, but that's childplay considering all their minimum stat requirements - took less than 30 minutes. I just now rolled a 97/87 for a Fighter, which is a monster roll (not that it matters, I guess, but still). That one took a few hours.

[D'amarr from Darshiva]

As interesting as such experiments may be, why would you do them? Max rolls have been discussed tons of times. Some people have spent hours on them. But there's EE Keeper and Ctrl+8 with activated console.

[identity]

Originally posted by D'amarr from Darshiva:

As interesting as such experiments may be, why would you do them? Max rolls have been discussed tons of times. Some people have spent hours on them. But there's EE Keeper and Ctrl+8 with activated console.

Mostly because I'm bored. I know I can just cheat for the stats I want, but it's much more satisfying to see a natural high roll. Plus, seeing a fantastic roll is pretty much like winning the lottery. You know the chances are slim.

In short, it's mostly just gambling, but that's why gambling is so fun.

[Marksthecylon]

Highest roll i've ever seen was 103, but i accidently skipped past it.

[D'amarr from Darshiva]

Originally posted by id:

it's much more satisfying to see a natural high roll.

Even more satisfying: Give yourself a time limit. Then keep the best roll and save the character. Repeat the process for a limited number of characters, then choose six to import into your party.

[jonnin]

96, and I don't roll too many times on a char. I usually stop at 85+

[Damn_Monkey]

96 on a Ranger/Cleric Half Elf once. But the Str bonus was only 22.

[An Ian]

92 forgot what class

[jonnin]

Stats are 1 of the places the game dropped the ball IMHO. A normal D&D roll is only 'about' 60 points worth. Stats above 16 were rare. 2 stats above 16 was pretty awesome. Here, its almost required due to the combat heavy nature and unforgiving DM. In that regard, the companions they give us are typical chars, and they feel weak at times esp bg1 early stuff. Im as guilty as the next for wanting high rollers... and you can argue the heritage of the protag is behind it, but still.. the high rolls are kind of nuts.

[voehringer_nitron]

98 on a Fighter/Thief, 96 on a Totemic Druid and 95 on a Sorcerer. On the disc based version, my best was 93 on a Cleric/Mage.

[SomeoneSomewhere]

I've never gone for high roles. Think the highest role I had (forget the class) was 92 or 93? But I always limited myself to a MAX of 15 roles. Always thought it was fun to "play what you get" and see how you handle things with lower scores.

Originally posted by jonnin:

Stats are 1 of the places the game dropped the ball IMHO. A normal D&D roll is only 'about' 60 points worth. Stats above 16 were rare. 2 stats above 16 was pretty awesome. Here, its almost required due to the combat heavy nature and unforgiving DM. In that regard, the companions they give us are typical chars, and they feel weak at times esp bg1 early stuff. Im as guilty as the next for wanting high rollers... and you can argue the heritage of the protag is behind it, but still.. the high rolls are kind of nuts.

Exactly. This is how I grew up playing. We were "heroes" but not super humans.

I think what made me decide to play this way was after reading what the stats actually could mean, (a literal meaning to make it easier for new players to understand.) The one I specifically remember was Intelligence;... since 9-10 is "average" it meant that 10 was a 100 IQ.....meaning 18 was a 180 IQ...wait WHAT?? 180?? Even those "crappy" scores of 12 or 13 would mean an extremely intelligent character.

I never liked the thought of everyone being super human, so a score of 16, 17 or 18 in my campaigns meant you were very very special.

I grew up playing this exact rule set aas Baldur's Gate back in the mid to late 80's and we never allowed too much altering of the stats. Generally we always agreed to pick a single method when starting a campaign. Like we did 4d6 per stat (eliminating the lowest die role) but the stats stayed in place, no moving points. Or we might do a straight 3d6 but allow movement of points to only your prime requisite stat(s) for your class. Etc

For me (and the people I played with) this made for much greater role playing (especially since I was DM and did a butt load of ability score checks)

[jonnin]

we mostly did 4 6s & toss the lowest and chars with no stat over 12 were do-overs. Main DM also had a 2 for 1 rule.. give up 2 in something to bump another by 1, but if you had a low score, it would matter eventually... drop that chrasima to 3 and you would get burned at the stake at some point.

[Leeux]

Rolling naturally (by hand, I mean) the best I got was 94 once, on a Ranger. That was the most I could bear waiting before starting playing.

After that I started using the auto-roller and picking whatever it gets after a set period of time... normally ~20mins or whatever it takes me to have dinner or do some chore :P

And with it the best I got was ~95/96 (I don't remember now) on my Fighter/Mage/Thief I'm playing solo atm... playing solo justifies the auto-roller IMO :P

[Old Man Gamer (OMG)]

I am going with a 98 on my Sorc right now. Being that it has been so long since I played, that is the highest that I remember.

[Wendersnaven]

Third roll when making my second character ever, was a 94 cleric.

[Coldhands]

I rolled over a hundred once, and clicked past it, of course. At that point I just went and got Gatekeeper and set my scores manually.