I agree.
Nettie's one feels like the DM is trying really hard to make us kill her or steal from her.
I think the best direction would be to have no rolls, until the final one. The choices you picked before the final one determines how high the DC you need to beat for your perssuasion/deception/intimidation roll.
This is a very good suggestion.
The player gives the huge F t the game by save scuming and not accepting the outcome of the dice. There is no place for mechanics like that.
You can play how you want. You don't have the right to tell other players they can't do the same.
I can understand why Larian wants multiple Skill Checks in a dialogue and I am not necessarily opposed to that in principle but the Nettie conversation is a bit harsh.
I think that underlying problem with multiple Skill Checks isn't so much the risk of failing one or more of them in itself, but rather that the Skill Check Conversations has been designed so that any single failed check usually just means "NO" and will probably start a fight, and successful Skill Checks (especially the Nettie one) doesn't necessarily mean any measurable success or reward (reward for convincing Nettie is... not getting to kill her I guess? You lose out on her loot and XP and isn't really provided with any meaningful indicator of you just managing to succeed at what is maybe the hardest string of Skill Checks in EA).
As such, failing one of these Skill Checks will usually shut down any sort of player agency (which is important to have) and give you the "simple & boring solution" to the challenge you're facing.
What I feel like needs to be done with Skill Checks isn't reducing the amount (necessarily) but instead a bit of a different approach: Failing a Skill Check shouldn't necessarily just gate you off from it's related content, right now a failed Skill Check basically means "NO, FAILED!" but in a more dynamic RPG a failed Skill Check could also mean "Yes, but [incurring some damage or negative consequence to succeed at action]" or "No, but instead [narrative branch or other, less-than-deal opportunity for dealing with challenge]". I realise this is a lot tougher to design than simple YES/NO logic gates but currently the game engine is really designed as a very mechanical old-school DM who constantly makes you roll to succeed and provides little reward for success, or alternatives when you fail.
I agree with this, but...
This would also be a good reason to add Skill Check XP to the game, to provide some form of reward for actually succeeding at Skill Checks.
Not with this. Tying XP to RNG will create difficulty balancing the game. You'll have players who take what the dice give them and they'll get some XP, and others who will save-scum to pass most or all checks and will get a lot of extra XP. And if you hand out XP for passing skill checks, that incentivizes save-scumming.
The way to handle it is XP not for each individual skill check, but for completing the encounter. The method you use for completing the encounter should not particularly matter, although the reward can vary somewhat based on difficulty.
