Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Dialogue related to CHA changes please

So all conversations/dialogue are CHA bound. Is this due to how dnd5e? To me can't Larian make their own house rule?

Wouldn't it be better that:

- CHA helps on PERSUASION
- STR helps on INTIMIDATION
- DEX helps on DECEPTION
- WIS there seems to be already WIS based options so no changes required
- INT checks on outsmart options perhaps?

That way you don't miss out dialogue options and it's not locked out to CHA exclusively.

Charisma is a measure of force of personality, not just physical looks. However if you are having trouble with checks try the below.

1. Guidance (obviously) + 1d4 (concentration required)
2. Shapeshifter Boon Ring + Disguse self/disguise kit/mask of the shapeshifter + 1d4
3. Eagles' splendor + Advantage on Charisma checks (concentration required)
4. Ring of Geniality +1 to Persuasion and deception

Also Bliss Spores and the Nymph buff also help but they are only until long rest. This also won't help with vendor prices, since that is raw charisma, which you can only increase through Feats ASI, hags hair, or the Mirror of Loss.

Honestly, you should be fine with about 14 Charisma on your "face" character.

Dex helping on deception doesn't seem to make sense to me. Dex would be used for more sleight of hand things, like placing things in people's pockets (or removing them). They could allow for STR to be used rather than CHA when the intimidation check involves physical threats.

The thing is that CHA is basically the "conversation stat". There are individual checks that you could come up with for int, wis, etc. but overall, when it comes to conversation, most of the time it's charisma. The other stats have other out-of-combat uses (strength for jumping to new areas, dex for pickpocketing.) The problem is that in BG3, conversation is WAY more important than any of those other out of combat use of other stats, some of which just don't get that many out-of-combat checks at all.

i have no problems with CHA based character on dialogues/conversations. i wanted more options for other classes as main character. example, what if i'm barbarian instead? that should allow me to use STR checks in intimidation for example. As for monk or cleric, there's already some WIS based dialogue checks. everything based on CHA it makes dialogue/conversation useless for other classes.
i'm aware for some conversations you can use your companion which has higher checks for example but alot of conversations require the main character that initiate the dialogue.

yeah that's the problem i'm highlighting. CHA is only useful for Paladin, Warlock or Sorcerer. Beyond those classes there's no point in focusing on CHA stats.

Well no, you're pointing out that there actually IS a reason to focus on CHA stats even if you're not a CHA caster: The conversation stuff. It's just that for charisma casters, there is far more synergy with dialogue checks - the out-of-combat checks that receive by far the most love in this game. So classes that focus on charisma feel like they're getting a lot more synergy with out of combat stuff than classes that focus on some other stat.

It would probably be a bigger deal if the checks were harder. I had 10 CHA on my character for my first run, but between friends, proficiency, guidance and other bonuses I feel like I passed a lot of checks. What they SHOULD do is allow you to use the cha bonus of the highest charisma character in your party. Just because you're the "main" character doesn't mean you have to default into being the "face" of the party.

The bard would liek a word with you.

And it makes sense, that Char is important for speech checks - it's your personality trait. You can't use deception with dexterity, doesn't make sense

Why be concerned with passing Charisma checks at all? The game continues just fine, and you arguably have more interesting results, if you fail every speech check or don't pick one at all.

People are too mind broken by low effort RPGs that focus on dialogue checks.

I had impressive influence on Shadowheart in my first play through using no speech checks at all on her. This made me so compelled by the thought put into the branching writing and the character of Shadowheart that I got through a Shadowheart origin run next just fine with the normal 8 Charisma, no Persuasion, Intimidation, Deception, or Performance proficiency.

You'll still pass some checks if you care to choose them, by virtue of random chance. Even a -1 skill-less, 8 Charisma Shadowheart will pass a 10-check 50% of the time or a 15-check 25% of the time, or even a 30-check 5% of the time (by virtue of 20 success). Hell I didn't even bother to factor in her practically passive Guidance cantrip. So throw out those rolls, especially if you've got advantage (items, cantrips, situational, or reliably through Enhanced Ability, a Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Sorceror level 2 spell) or inspiration to use.

Speaking of proficiency, don't forget that if you want a non-Bard, Paladin, or Warlock to pass speech checks you can invest in skills for proficiency bonus which starts at +2 and reaches +4 by level 9. Equivalent to having 14 to 18 in Charisma, without having picked up that skill. Don't forget you can use a feat to pick up 3 additional skills, or even Actor if you fancy yourself the Deceptive or Performative type. You don't NEED that combat effectiveness - particularly if you're in a twist about passing speech checks for some reason. Actor is easy access to some useful Expertise.

Expertise is of course another layer. A 10 Charisma Rogue with expertise in a speech skill (+8) will outperform a 22-Charisma character without speech skills (+6). Give the 22-Charisma character proficiency (+10), and you'd only need 12 Charisma on that Rogue to match. Not to mention Reliable Talent at level 10 making your rolls, well, very reliable. Consistent 17+ rolls on even an 8 Charisma Rogue without external modifiers.

But really, try to fail some checks sometimes. Or avoid them entirely. You might be surprised.

What's disguise self do for it?