Like would 80 or 90 count as a good roll total.
I ask because i really don't want to roll my stats for hours to get a good roll so i plan to use Shadowkeeper and just use what most people would count as a good roll so it's not cheating as much.

I usually roll until I get 84 or above for low stat requirement classes, 86 for high stat requirement classes, rerolling until you get 90 or above can take forever.

Keep in mind that in addition to stats, there is for the warrior classes the exceptional strength roll (18/xx). I usually go for anything above 50.

In BG1, Imoen has 87 and Ajantis has 88 total abilities. For fighter 84 is more than enough while Multi-classes will demand near 90 to make a good build. I remember rolling 93 once in 16 years :)))).

EDIT: I just quickly rolled in EE edition and rolled 88 twice under a minute. Actually I started a half-orc Fighter/cleric lol.

STR: 19
Dex: 16
Con: 16
INT: 9
WIS: 18
CHA: 10

TOTAL: 88

You can decrease INT a little more but your character will start talking weird.

A roll of 80 would be above average. A roll of 90 would be very high. If you sit and roll, you will note that the vast majority of rolls total in the 70's, with 80 and above being uncommon, and 90+ being extremely rare.

Dice rolls mean nothing if you insist on all of your characters, through each and every play through being of god-like stats. It unnatural, and it's blunting your skills, ultimately.

Of note, if you enable cheats. you can use Alt-8 on character creation to max your stats, then subtract points from them to get the exact stats you want. (If you want exactly 18 Strength, you can start at 17 and cheat the tome to increase it, as Alt-8 gives you 18/00 regardless of class.)

It is also worth noting that you do not *have* to spend all your stat points; hence you can use the cheat and lower your stats to more reasonable values.

98 was the highest I could get for a human fighter but I'd settle for 94, if you want 18/00 strength even 85 is quite good already.

finally got my 99 for my cavalier! think about it, you are a god spawn child. There's no harm in going for max stats if you want to spend some time rolling.

I usually consider anything above 85 as good, I am mostly satisfied if I get 88 or 89 and anything higher is exceptional. I don't think I ever rolled more than 93 or 4. But for fighting classses such high roll is bit meaningless anyway.

I also think it is easier to get higher rolls with some classes than others. Ranger ie. I think gets higher minimal rolls so he should roll higher totals on average.

A related question: What total roll is the game actually balanced around?

Or, more precisely, what physical stats (since those are the ones that affect combat) is the game balanced around?

Stats don't really make a that huge difference. And even really low 70s rolls are enough to max out the primary stats of your character unless you go Fighter/Mage/Cleric multiclass or something.

Want to not powergame? Just accept the roll you're dealt without redistributing any points. I've done that in two of my playthroughs. Baldur's Gate doesn't have any intelligence checks at all, IIRC. Only reason to have INT is if you want to import your game into Baldur's Gate II where there's intelligence draining enemies.

CHA is also mostly a dump stat, less so for the enhanced edition (as some NPCs will do a reaction check here).

Hmm I guess you are right. I just created a fighter with 3 int and dialogues didnt change. I guess I was confused with NWN games.

ok so i'm going with 95 do to a few facts one imoen has a roll of 87 and if what i hear is true and I'm the son of.....you know.... i think it would make sense for me to be stronger then other humans.

Next i picked a fighter class and from what i hear they often get bigger rolls anyway.

Ranger has minimum values in some stats. If the stat rolls lower than that minimum, it is auto-bumped to the minimum, but you can't pull points to make a stat go below the minimum (CHA can't be a dump stat for a Paladin).

I found a chart.

Fighters, Clerics, Thieves, and Mages (straight, not any of the sub-varieties) can have some of the lowest roll totals because of the low minimums in most stats (each of these have a minimum of 9 in their primary stat, and minimum 1 in every non-primary stat). So theoretically, you could roll a Human Fighter with a 9 Str and 3 in every other stat (3 being the Human minimum), though this is only slightly more likely than rolling almost straight 18's.

The Ranger seems to have the highest in minimum stats (two 13's and two 14's), followed by the Paladin and then the Bard.

Of course, if you want to play a Human Fighter with 9 Str and 3 in every other stat, you can do that without cheats; just lower every stat at character creation; you don't have to spend those extra stat points.

Of note, BG2 Sorcerers (as well as those in the Enhanced Editions) don't care about stats at all. You could lower all stats to their minimum and have a viable character (though with poor HP/AC/carrying capacity and no scroll use).

While true, you missed my point. I was showing that a Fighter (base) probably doesn't have higher than average rolls, and probably quite the opposite. A basic Fighter is more likely to have lower than average rolls, when you take into account the multiple classes with minimum stat values.