Since this thread has mentioned the Kagha/child encounter in the Druid's Grove, I'm posting my feedback here instead of starting a new thread. I agree with several of the other posts about all choices leading to the same outcome--a good early example is the druid Nettie. So far I have reloaded saves several times trying different options, and every option leads to a fight with her. I did not try the Knock Unconscious action, but given that you have to use it "when an attack would be fatal" and it's very hard to predict that, I'm not sure that would have even worked. Unlike some of the other posters here, I think this encounter/conversation could work PROVIDED that you give the player more information about Nettie ahead of time. Ambient dialog suggesting that she is stubborn and hard to convince, or mentioning her experiences with mindflayers or those infected with tadpoles, would be appropriate. As a player of both cRPGs and tabletop RPGs, and as someone who also GMs tabletop RPGs (specifically D&D 5E), I can tell you that high-risk or no-win scenarios should ALWAYS be prefaced with opportunities to assess risk and/or information needed to make a meaningful choice. If the player *knows* there is a likelihood Nettie will act as she does, then choosing to speak to her at all is the meaningful choice people are asking for. As it is now in EA--you have NO IDEA that she might do the things she does, and NO IDEA that the end result will be the same regardless of choices or skill checks.
As for the Kagha scene, I really think having the child die simply as a result of a bad skill check is TERRIBLE. I don't have a problem with bad things happening as a result of a roll, necessarily--but again, I think the player should be given a hint or clue of what the stakes are ahead of time. Kagha is a bitch, yes. She wants to punish the child, yes. However I don't get any indication she is a child murderer. If she doesn't want the child murdered, she should be in better control of her pet. A companion animal or pet is not going to act without the consent of the owner/humanoid companion. They work together. Therefore, as in the scene with Nettie, there is NO INDICATION that the stakes on this particular skill check are life-or-death for this kid. Either make it clearer that she wants to kill the kid anyway (which would then make her snake's attack logical), or have Kagha control her damn snake, or have Kagha be horrified and give the kid an antidote--any of these would make that situation more meaningful. I know there is always a chance of failing a roll in D&D...but the DM generally is tasked with adjusting the stakes and consequences so they make sense within the context and narrative. In this case, Larian devs are the DMs and you have a responsibility to the players to give them hints, clues, and information so that they know what the stakes are before they make a choice or roll the dice. I get that there is a narrative intention behind both of these scenes...but I think you guys can do much, MUCH better at implementing that intention.
