Character with all CHA skills cannot use them all in conversation

rbarbare
Level 10
1 month ago

I built a character with all CHA skills (Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion) so I could get the maximum value out of the character's 20 CHA and Tirmar Paladin build (+7 on all CHA skills, plus advantage on Intimidation and Persuasion if they use their power).

Except...

When there is more than one CHA skill option in the dialog, that character only uses one of them - the other characters 'take' the others, usually with a far worse bonus. It appears that when there are multiple CHA skill options in a dialog, each option can only be used by one character.

There are three problems with this:

1) There is no obvious reason for it: This is not a 5e mechanic. More generally, it is fairly normal for a party to have a high-CHA 'face' who does most of the NPC interactions because they are good at it.

2) This makes a large part of a build like that useless - sometimes the option you want to use is taken by a character with a much poorer bonus.

3) It punishes good character design. Especially for characters built on point buy, probably only one of the party will have a good CHA, so it makes sense to give that character all (or most)  of the appropriate skills.

zas
Level 6
1 month ago

I totally agree there shouldn't be such limitations, and, in general, player should be able to choose whichever applicable skill he wants in interactions.
CHA is usually quite useless in cRPGs, so no need to restrain its use in interactions.

In current EA, I noticed you can answer whatever you want, it doesn't make much difference at the end, but I expect the result of a successful Intimidation to be different from a succesful Performance, and even more if they fail (a failed intimidation is a threat, a failed performance just ... a bad performance, NPC should react to threats differently imho).


rbarbare
Level 10
1 month ago

Successful rolls do make quite a bit of difference. This is mostly in Dark Castle...

(spoilers)



(OK, spoilers)

You can talk your way past all of the major encounters. The DCs are high, even if you pick the best route, but you can convince everyone to let you pass and they let you take their stuff. You get about 90% of the experience that way, too, so it is a viable alternate route. IF you can get a character who can push the roll high enough.

Heldred
Level 10
1 month ago

I agree and don't agree on this point.

AGREE: because it is never fun when you make a concept and the game mechanics don't enable execution (min/max potency).

DISAGREE: the current system is kind of cool, because it reflects real life. You put four people into a conversation and "anyone" can speak.  I'm sure we've all been in a situation and we've thought, "Seriously, I can't believe she/he said that!" Unless your paladin has mental lockdown on her/his companions (minions), it seems reasonable that the Paladin has one shot at beating everyone else to the punch.  My assumption is that the highest probability is the default response for each character... which is fair and fun.  

To be honest, sometimes I just let my pretentious, aristocratic cleric say something stupid (low chance of success), because it just fits the situation and allows me to start the fight with the right line.  If I only had "winning" responses, especially from one character, it would make for a boring campaign (for me).   

IXI
Level 9
1 month ago

i made all my characters with low CHR so it works out for me ;)


yellow flower of courage

Heldred
Level 10
1 month ago

i made all my characters with low CHR so it works out for me ;)


LOL - I always have one or two dislikable characters, but I never went "all in" with low charisma across the board.  Now I have another run to try!

Steve
Level 6
1 month ago

I have been assuming that your highest Charisma character is assigned the skill that has the best chance of success and the rest go to others.  For example, if Deception would have the highest chance of success, that one gets assigned to the high Charisma character which would mean that you probably wouldn't want that character to use Persuasion or Intimidation even if they could.  That is just an assumption though.  If that is not the case, then yeah.  It would be nice to have all options for each character.

fallenj
Level 4
1 month ago

I agree and don't agree on this point.

AGREE: because it is never fun when you make a concept and the game mechanics don't enable execution (min/max potency).

DISAGREE: the current system is kind of cool, because it reflects real life. You put four people into a conversation and "anyone" can speak.  I'm sure we've all been in a situation and we've thought, "Seriously, I can't believe she/he said that!" Unless your paladin has mental lockdown on her/his companions (minions), it seems reasonable that the Paladin has one shot at beating everyone else to the punch.  My assumption is that the highest probability is the default response for each character... which is fair and fun.  

To be honest, sometimes I just let my pretentious, aristocratic cleric say something stupid (low chance of success), because it just fits the situation and allows me to start the fight with the right line.  If I only had "winning" responses, especially from one character, it would make for a boring campaign (for me).   

This, it is a different take on convos. and generally a welcome change of pace.