Player With Very High Stats

[Gorfang113]

So one of my players decided that he was tiered of his blackguard and wanted to be a knight. So, as it always happens in my group his old character was brutally killed off and he has made a new character. Now, the bit that was completly unexpected came when he was rolling for his stats. Here are his results from largest to smallest: 18, 17, 17, 17, 16, 12. With his 3 extra points for being level 12 he rounded it of to: 18, 18, 18, 18, 16, 10. He got these rolls completly through luck, I was watching, he did roll these and the dice were not loaded or tampered with in any way. He was just astoundingly luck. So now his con, str, cha and wis are all 18, his int 16 and his dex 12. Has this ever happened to any of you? How unlikely is this anyway?

[Fouredged Sword]

To dertermine how unlikely this is we would need to know your rolling method, and would likely be to complicated for me. You are likely looking at a 1 in 10^5 to 10^8th range though, so very unlikely.

[subject42]

With stats like that, you might be able to make an effective monk or Paladin.

[Dusk Eclipse]

And this is why I hate rolling for stats, there is ALWAYS a guy with stats like those and someone else whose highest roll was a 15.... If you are DM be prepared to deal when someone feels bad about his stats and ask for re-rolls after re-rolls (I am not saying it will happen; but it might and IME it is quite common).

I don't know the math; but I guess the probability were extremely low, so yeah.

[Piggy Knowles]

I played a game in college where each player rolled for stats, but then we got to pick which stat array we wanted to use. There were six of us, so there was actually a pretty good set of options.

Of course, if anyone had gotten the insanely improbable 18/17/17/17/16, we all would have unanimously gone with that one, making things a little boring. But at least it would have been fair.

[Leon]

Wow. Nice Rolls.

My Current PC started with 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12 all rolled on the " Stat Dice" which are normal dice set aside for rolling Stats.

Which for the PC is very nice as he was originally a Archivist so having both INT and WIS high was quite a boon - now its less important but still gets him oodles of Skill points (@11 per level).

Great stats alone don't make a PC and currently do little for that PC as 2 natural ones on Reflex saves saw him take 94 points of acid damage tonight and is now awaiting a True Resurrection.

[Tar Palantir]

One of my players, when rolling stats for his first character (4d6b3 six times, no reroll ones or any other adjustments), rolled 18, 18, 18, 18, 17, 16. He ended up making an Ultimate Magus.

[Aricandor]

They happen. As a DM I've rarely felt it be an actual issue though, simply because SAD/DAD classes usually don't get a ton out of it and MAD classes are often bad anyway so some more scores just help equalize the field.

As usual there may be exceptions (clerics I guess...) but in my anecdotal experience it usually doesn't throw games upside down. :smallsmile:

[NOhara24]

High Stats are a funny thing in D&D. Most classes aren't MAD, and the ones that are typically aren't that good. (Namely, Paladin.) He'd make a hell of a spellsword though, that's for sure.

[CTrees]

OP: Without knowing the rolling method, I can't tell you how unlikely that actually is, statistically, beyond "fairly rare, but it happens."

Again, it's not very likely to unbalance things, in 3.5. If you were playing 1st or 2nd, then it might be more interesting.

[Cog]

Keep in mind that, while the chances of this happening at one particular time are very low, the chances of it happening at all are in fact very high. How many characters have you created? How many other players around are there, not just locally, but across the country, across the world? In other editions, in other RPGs?

[Essence_of_War]

Let us know what rolling method you used and we can give you some estimates on the probabilities.

This situation is why I vastly prefer point-buy.

[Gorfang113]

The rolling method is one I took from the DM from the first time I played, so im not sure if its homebrew or an actual named thing. I like it because it tends to give good stats, but not like this... Roll 4d6, rerolling ones, then the lowest die in each set (So if i rolled 4, 5, 1, 3 I would reroll the one, then after rerolling that I would reroll the three unless the one became a two).

[NNescio]

The rolling method is one I took from the DM from the first time I played, so im not sure if its homebrew or an actual named thing. I like it because it tends to give good stats, but not like this... Roll 4d6, rerolling ones, then the lowest die in each set (So if i rolled 4, 5, 1, 3 I would reroll the one, then after rerolling that I would reroll the three unless the one became a two).

Drop lowest after all the above?

[Hirax]

He wants to be a knight? Let him have the stats, in the scheme of things the difference will be marginal.

[Coidzor]

OP: Hey, he can afford the charisma to take the Goad feat now. :smallbiggrin:
Of course, if anyone had gotten the insanely improbable 18/17/17/17/16, we all would have unanimously gone with that one, making things a little boring.

How is having good stats boring?

[Drelua]

I'll just leave this here. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=377) It may not give you exact probabilities for that character, but I thought it was interesting.

[koscum]

I ONCE rolled 18, 18, 16, 14, 13 and 9. I got the best stats in our party and ended up putting that 9 in CON to make up it. He's still alive because nothing can hit him (died only once because Styx Dragon rolled Nat20 and I couldn't beat his grapple :smallmad:). Too bad this came before my ban on having WIS greater than 10. Is there a stat analogue for Dark Chaos Shuffle? JK :smallwink:

In another campaign, I had 3, 4, 4, 4, 6 and 10.... With 7x(5d6).... After 3 dumped rolls which were worse than this one. DM finally decided to roll instead of me and gave me a 7 as my lowest stat :smallbiggrin:.... I was so happy!



inb4: CON 9?!? WTF?!?

[ericgrau]

Using 4d6b3: 1.5%, 5.7%, 5.7%, 5.7%, 13.2%, 61.8%
1 in 4 million chance of getting those results or better. Doesn't count all possible better point buys though, only looks at each stat individually so it's probably not quite that bad.

I'm suspicious of things like all 18s because it typically means the dice didn't actually roll. Were any of the 17s consecutive, for example? He probably gimped himself by not boosting the 18 twice putting him effectively at a 15 and two 18s, which is more like a 1 in 40,000 chance. 35 point buy wouldn't have as many good stats all around, but it would be about as effective of a character. All together, including the self-gimp, it's worth 1 LA or less. That's not enough to dramatically outshine the rest of the party so I'd let him keep the lucky rolls. Next time make sure the dice tumble for at least a couple revolutions with every roll though, just to be safe.

[Paul H]

Hi

Long time ago my brother in law GM'd some AD&D 2nd Ed.

I did the array thing. and was allowed to pick any row or column. Ended with one 17 and five 18's. All rolled & witnessed. Ended up with Half Elf Fighter/Mage.

Unfortunately the campaign didn't last long (just into 2nd lvl). The only other player was my sister's boss! :smalleek:

Thanks
Paul H

[candycorn]

OK, so assuming that low die is dropped, each roll is 2-6, for a stat range of 6-18.

This is because 1's are not accepted.

From there, the low die is rerolled, weighting it further up.

For a base character, this system is weighted to produce 18's more regularly than 6's, but both aren't common.

Odds of a 6: 1 in 2,000 (you must roll five 2's in a row, with a 20% chance for each). That's 0.05% overall.
Odds of an 18? Well, in 5 die rolls, you must get 3 or more 6's, at a 20% chance for each, and an 80% chance to not get it. That's 5.792%.

That means this system is over 100 times more likely to get an 18 than a 6. Still, the odds of even a pair of 18's are astronomical.

Odds of a 17? In 5 rolls, you must get exactly two 6's, and no less than one 5. Total odds? 15.36%

That means that, for the odds of 18, 17, 17, 17? 0.02098%, or:
1 in 2.098 x10^4.

The others will reduce the odds, and I'd be willing to bet that they'll reduce it to the 10^6 to 10^10 range, with it more likely to be in the 10^(6 or 7) range.

But to give you a comparison of odds? 18,17,17,17 is about half as likely as rolling a single 6 under this stat method.

[DeAnno]

I'm going to assume 1s are rerolled continuously, so the range of a d6 is 2-6. I'll also assume you drop the low die at the end.

I agree that the chance of an 18 is 0.2^4 (4 6s) + 4*0.8*0.2^3 (3 6s) + 0.2*6*0.8^2*0.2^2 (2 6s and a lucky reroll) = 0.05792

The chance of a 17 is harder, using the multinomial theorem and some juggling...

6,6,5,5 = 6*0.2^4 = 0.0096
6,6,5,(2-4) = 12*0.2^3*0.8 = 0.0768
Sum w/o reroll = 0.0864
Chance the reroll doesn't make us an 18 instead is *0.8 = 0.06912

Chance to get 2 6s with no support:
6,6,(2-4),(2-4) = 6*0.2^2*0.8^2 = 0.1536
Which then requires a 5 and only a 5 to be rerolled for a 17 = 0.2*0.1536 = 0.03072

Chance to get a 6,5 with no other 6:
6,5,5,5 = 4*0.2^4 = 0.0064
6,5,5,(2-4) = 12*0.2^3*0.8 = 0.0768
6,5,(2-4),(2-4) = 12*0.2^2*0.8^2 = 0.3072
Sum = 0.3904; We need a 6 on the river -> 0.07808

For a total 17 sum of 0.17792. Hmm, that's a bit different, but in a calc like this either of us could be mistaken, and its a small difference.

In any case, I think the most relevantly normal statistic to bring up here is that he got 4 rolls 17+ (getting a 16 in this system is probably not very hard by the looks of things so well ignore that; getting 4 17+ will often include an 18 so that is not really special either). The chance of 17+ is 0.17792+0.05792 = 0.23584

By the binomial theorem, the chances of hitting that 4/6 are:

6!/(4!*2!)*0.23584^4*(1-0.23584)^2 = 0.02710

So all in all not very unlikely at all, something of similar or greater scale will happen one in 37 times. About 2 sigma away from the norm is hardly remarkable.

[candycorn]

I'm going to assume 1s are rerolled continuously, so the range of a d6 is 2-6. I'll also assume you drop the low die at the end.

I agree that the chance of an 18 is 0.2^4 (4 6s) + 4*0.8*0.2^3 (3 6s) + 0.2*6*0.8^2*0.2^2 (2 6s and a lucky reroll) = 0.05792

The chance of a 17 is harder, using the multinomial theorem and some juggling...

6,6,5,5 = 6*0.2^4 = 0.0096
6,6,5,(2-4) = 12*0.2^3*0.8 = 0.0768
Sum w/o reroll = 0.0864
Chance the reroll doesn't make us an 18 instead is *0.8 = 0.06912

Chance to get 2 6s with no support:
6,6,(2-4),(2-4) = 6*0.2^2*0.8^2 = 0.1536
Which then requires a 5 and only a 5 to be rerolled for a 17 = 0.2*0.1536 = 0.03072

Chance to get a 6,5 with no other 6:
6,5,5,5 = 4*0.2^4 = 0.0064
6,5,5,(2-4) = 12*0.2^3*0.8 = 0.0768
6,5,(2-4),(2-4) = 12*0.2^2*0.8^2 = 0.3072
Sum = 0.3904; We need a 6 on the river -> 0.07808

For a total 17 sum of 0.17792. Hmm, that's a bit different, but in a calc like this either of us could be mistaken, and its a small difference.

In any case, I think the most relevantly normal statistic to bring up here is that he got 4 rolls 17+ (getting a 16 in this system is probably not very hard by the looks of things so well ignore that; getting 4 17+ will often include an 18 so that is not really special either). The chance of 17+ is 0.17792+0.05792 = 0.23584

By the binomial theorem, the chances of hitting that 4/6 are:

6!/(4!*2!)*0.23584^4*(1-0.23584)^2 = 0.02710

So all in all not very unlikely at all, something of similar or greater scale will happen one in 37 times. About 2 sigma away from the norm is hardly remarkable.

I used a slightly different method. I treated the reroll as essentially a 5th die roll, since it always happens, excepting in rolls of 6,6,6,6 (which is moot).

A 17 will always be a 6,6,5.... Although the order can vary. In a standard 3d6 set, there are 3 chances for a 17 to be rolled (665, 656, and 566)

In this set, we need a 6 (20% odds), a 6 (20% odds), a 5 (20% odds) and any two other numbers, so long as they are 5 or less (80% odds and 80% odds).

These numbers can happen in 30 different combinations. Therefore, the odds are 20% x 20% x 20% x 80% x 80% = odds for 1 combination, x30 for total odds. Odds for 1 combination is 0.512%, so odds for any one of the 30 combinations is 15.36%.

Combinations: 5 is X, 6 is y, 5 or less is z.
XYYZZ
XYZYZ
XZYYZ
XYZZY
XZYZY
XZZYY

Repeat 4 more times for each other position X can be in.

[DeAnno]

In this set, we need a 6 (20% odds), a 6 (20% odds), a 5 (20% odds) and any two other numbers, so long as they are 5 or less (80% odds and 80% odds).


I am not perfectly certain, but I think that using only possibly-distinguishable categories is going to ruin your math. If one category is a 5, combinatorial math cannot allow any other category to ever include 5s. What can happen is that sometimes your "5 or less" is a 5, and that ruins the distinguishability of reordering it with other 5s, which changes the math.

As an example, pretend we roll 2d6 and try to get one six and one 4+. We need a 6 (1/6) and a 4+ (1/2). There are two categories and two spots, so the probability by your logic should be 2*1/6*1/2 = 1/6. Unfortunately, we know this is not the case because (6,6) (5,6) (6,5) (4,6) (6,4) is only 5/36. Your method doublecounts the (6,6) because it assumes 6 and 6 are disguishable and therefore invertable.

[candycorn]

I am not perfectly certain, but I think that using only possibly-distinguishable categories is going to ruin your math. If one category is a 5, combinatorial math cannot allow any other category to ever include 5s. What can happen is that sometimes your "5 or less" is a 5, and that ruins the distinguishability of reordering it with other 5s, which changes the math.

As an example, pretend we roll 2d6 and try to get one six and one 4+. We need a 6 (1/6) and a 4+ (1/2). There are two categories and two spots, so the probability by your logic should be 2*1/6*1/2 = 1/6. Unfortunately, we know this is not the case because (6,6) (5,6) (6,5) (4,6) (6,4) is only 5/36. Your method doublecounts the (6,6) because it assumes 6 and 6 are disguishable and therefore invertable.

In that case, my odds are high, not low. If, in certain distinct cases, numbers which are not invertable are assumed to be, this creates an additional chance, where one should not be. That means that the true chance for a 17 should be LOWER, not higher, as your earlier model showed.

In your example, my method provided skewed results that were high by 1/36, or 20% of the total. Accounting for up to 20% error, that would change the result to between 12.8% and 15.36%...

Yours is 17.736%, which is 15% higher than my high estimate, before you pointed out a possible error wherein some instances, I overvalued the number of valid possibilities.

[DeAnno]

That's true. In that case, either both of us are wrong, or you are wrong in another different way I haven't noticed and I am right. The general conclusion remains the same though: this was not all that rare a set of stats.

[candycorn]

I am not perfectly certain, but I think that using only possibly-distinguishable categories is going to ruin your math. If one category is a 5, combinatorial math cannot allow any other category to ever include 5s. What can happen is that sometimes your "5 or less" is a 5, and that ruins the distinguishability of reordering it with other 5s, which changes the math.

As an example, pretend we roll 2d6 and try to get one six and one 4+. We need a 6 (1/6) and a 4+ (1/2). There are two categories and two spots, so the probability by your logic should be 2*1/6*1/2 = 1/6. Unfortunately, we know this is not the case because (6,6) (5,6) (6,5) (4,6) (6,4) is only 5/36. Your method doublecounts the (6,6) because it assumes 6 and 6 are disguishable and therefore invertable.

In that case, my odds are high, not low. If, in certain distinct cases, numbers which are not invertable are assumed to be, this creates an additional chance, where one should not be. That means that the true chance for a 17 should be LOWER, not higher, as your earlier model showed.

In your example, my method provided skewed results that were high by 1/36, or 20% of the total. Accounting for up to 20% error, that would change the result to between 12.8% and 15.36%...

Yours is 17.736%, which is 15% higher than my high estimate, before you pointed out a possible error wherein some instances, I overvalued the number of valid possibilities.

EDIT:

Calculating in the odds of combinations, that pushes the odds down to 9.152%, which is much lower than estimated error. Evidently a lot more overlap in combinations with more dice.

[El Dorado]

High stats are always a possibility with dice rolling. If no one is questioning the validity of the rolls, congratulate the player and move on.

[Vikingbeard]

4 years back we were playing a Faerun campaign and started at level 2. I managed to get scores of 103 (108 max) with 4d6, reroll 1s. I placed them as follows 18, 18, 18, 16, 15, 18. With these stats I made an elf fighter who I played on for 2 consecutive years!

Every other player in the group died several times during this time period, but I survived until I was finally slain by none other than another party-member specifically designed to kill me! :D Ofcourse I just got a true ressurection and it was all fixed. I was level 22 at the time and had combined a variation of prestigue classes to become an ultimate killing machine with high leadership stats and with the help of my party (including a necromancer) invaded and taken over several countries!

We were at a level which was so awesome that we farmed dragons for gold (which ofcourse the necromancer made vampyre minions out of). With the leadership feat taken several times I had a personal bodyguard of 5 level 17-19 and more than 2000 level 1-9 or so. Free soldiers ftw!

Anyways, the campaign ended when the DM moved to another city, but by that time we were so powerful that most of our sessions were about politics and cityplanning anyways, so the adventure was pretty much over. We had won the game! :D

To get any challenge at all we had to go to other planes, basically, but as the necromancer was a firelich or something, he pretty much was immortal to anything and we killed a CR 30-smt demonlord of the DMs own creation! Epic adventures for the win! :D

[Knaight]

Keep in mind that, while the chances of this happening at one particular time are very low, the chances of it happening at all are in fact very high. How many characters have you created? How many other players around are there, not just locally, but across the country, across the world? In other editions, in other RPGs?
I think you can safely ignore in other RPGs. Outside of a handful of other d20 properties, the rules don't even accommodate rolling for things that qualify as a "stat" within the applicable range in much of anything.

[Krazzman]

And thats the point why I prefer Point-Buy. You have a group of roughly the same powerlevel. I had once the worst scores in the group. (all got 2 18s and played casters I got a 15 and a 14 as highest stats, rest was about 8-10...)

Jeah it sucked. But just keep it in mind when you think next time about point buy or roll the dice...

Have a nice day,
Krazzman

[SowZ]

4d6, drop the lowest is pretty common. Reroll ones is also pretty common, but when used in conjustion with 4d6 you get pretty high powered stats. Throw on 'after reroll ones reroll lowest' you get incredibly high stats. This will still be rare, but more common for you then for others.

[big teej]

So one of my players decided that he was tiered of his blackguard and wanted to be a knight. So, as it always happens in my group his old character was brutally killed off and he has made a new character. Now, the bit that was completly unexpected came when he was rolling for his stats. Here are his results from largest to smallest: 18, 17, 17, 17, 16, 12. With his 3 extra points for being level 12 he rounded it of to: 18, 18, 18, 18, 16, 10. He got these rolls completly through luck, I was watching, he did roll these and the dice were not loaded or tampered with in any way. He was just astoundingly luck. So now his con, str, cha and wis are all 18, his int 16 and his dex 12. Has this ever happened to any of you? How unlikely is this anyway?

not too bad, the 2nd best stat block I ever rolled was

18, 17, 17, 15, 12, 9

I rolled another one since then that is strictly better, but I'm not quite sure what it was, and I don't know which character has it...

[noparlpf]

My group does 4d6b3, with a houserule that if you roll all four the same number (like four sixes) you can keep the result (getting a stat at 24). After I rolled a 24, 20, 16, 16, 14, 11, I switched to point buy without telling anybody.

[Tytalus]

I'm going to assume 1s are rerolled continuously

Why? Those aren't the rules.

[Talya]

TOB classes would be godlike with those abilities. (Ever notice TOB classes are MAD in a good way? They don't need a lot of high ability scores, but they sure can benefit from them.) Also - Bard would be godlike, Cleric would truly become clericzilla. Exalted VOP druid would end up great (Con, Int, WIs, Cha -for all those exalted feats). So many ways to abuse stats like that. Even sorcerer benefits hugely. Intelligence is not normally a high priority for them, but they damn well can use it (more rapid metamagics, more skills, etc.) Hey, how about a strong, tough, smart, agile, charismatic and even wise rogue?

[noparlpf]

Before I stopped playing with my group's houserule to keep all four dice if they're all the same, I had a Sorcerer/Stormcaster with Str 12, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 16, Wis 16, Cha 24. (Some of my dice are very good at rolling 6's.)

[SowZ]

Why? Those aren't the rules.

Because it is very common and to get the array posted earlier, it would be far easier to get when re-rolling ones. Turns out they not only re-roll ones, but also reroll the lowest die after all the ones are rolled. And it is 4d6 drop the lowest.

[Karoht]

We have a friend in my group who never rolls below a 16 on 3D6 for character creation. Normally we do 4D6 take the 3 highest. He's now only allowed the straight 3D6.

Then again, even with those stats, and even with him cheating on his D20 rolls, he still manages to be the least effective/useful character at the table, more often than not.