Sorry I yelled, but there seems to be so much misinformation and/or uninformed people in the forums that someone needed to say it.
BG3 is built to allow you to play the character you want, warts and all. You don't need a high charisma, nor every charisma based skill to enjoy this game. There are dozens more dialog checks for races, classes, backgrounds, and other skills than there are for the four charisma based ones. Yes, you will see the charisma ones more often in any particular playthrough, but I would very much suggest you use the Charisma choices only if you don't have an interesting race/class/background choice available.
And besides that, Larian built BG3 to purposefully entertain you regardless of success or failure in speech checks. So please, please stop telling people they need a high charisma score.
For Clarity: I'm not saying to discourage people from having a high charisma if they do want to play that type of character, because a chatterbox bard or sorcerer (or barbarian) can be tons of fun.
When people say they "need" high charisma, they're still locked in that sort of... Mass Effect Trilogy mode where you "need" to pass the Charm or Intimidate dialogue to get the "good" outcome, because a lot of other games are built in a way where it genuinely feels like you lose things by not taking all those checks and gain things by making them.
Baldur's Gate 3 is far more of a "you just get alternate outcomes that shape your personal story" kind of thiiiiiiiiinng, if you get my meaning. Unless it results in your brains being scooped out like ice cream by an ailing mind flayer or something, failing a skill check really just means a different story beat than if you'd succeeded. The "you need high charisma!!!!" sentiment really is just rooted in that idea that you need the optimal outcomes to get the most out of the game. My advice is to let go of that. Enjoy the story that unfolds from a failure when it happens. You can always play again and experience the story differently.
Also, when it comes to using Charisma to gain some advantage or other, one of the things I'll mention is that you can sometimes gain an alternative advantage by... well... by not engaging in conversation at all! If a situation looks dicey, you can often sneak around it and look for some other clever way to approach something, unless it involves an enemy that no-sells stealth checks when you enter their range of view, like a certain hag. But even that might just make it harder to use stealth effectively, depending on the situation.
They have the house rule that nat 1s and 20s work on skill checks, too.
I actually failed an illithid wisdom check 0 one time because I rolled a 1.
Yeah, nat1 is auto-failure no matter what, that's the same as in D&D, not a house rule...generally if a task is deemed to need a roll in the first place a nat1 will fail it. A difficulty of 0 generally means it's super easy but will still require a dice roll if the DM still wants you to have a chance to fail it as it might be a minimal challenge but still a challenge. But I don't know about nat20s...if that is consistent with D&D then in the event that difficulties higher than 20 exist in the game(which we don't know if they do), a nat20 may not succeed...depending on what bonuses you have.
I rolled a nat 20 on a DC 30 test with Lae'zel that would not have succeeded with my bonuses, but it succeeded.
Yeah, the game automatically makes natural 1's "Critical Failures" and natural 20's "Critical Successes." This applies to abilities checks and also to combat. Bit annoying sometimes, actually! Wyll keeps Critical Missing his attack rolls in my game... as a dual-wielder. It's kind of impressive. Really captures that feeling of having one player at the table who just has the worst roll luck. >.>;;
