In general he's right that Larian needs to do the math on their dialogue checks though. I've said it before-requiring multiple checks where any failure is final is the same thing as imposing disadvantage, or even worse as the number of checks increases. It's an amateur DnD writer mistake if this is done as anything other than intentionally-if your adding checks like that, you want the player to fail if they aren't super specialized. That's all there is to it.
Some things should be harder to accomplish socially than others. Convincing someone to change their mind on something that they have 100% faith in, and potentially have concrete evidence to support their thinking, would be hard pressed to be susceptible to change. This could be simulated with just a very high skill check that would almost be impossible to reach, or it could be represented by several logical rolls to provide difficulty without limiting it to be a check that only a character with expertise might pass. I personally prefer that they give us the ability, if we chose the right course of skill checks, to be able to pull off some stupid charlatan level conversational gymnastics to perhaps convince someone not to kill us or the like.
Some of the numbers could use tweaking, but they are taking data on skill checks so I'm sure they will have it all pretty well balanced.
