Green_Hilltop: This is actually how it works with some dialogues, as I've mentioned above - in some situations you will use a Nature check instead of Persuasion check, for example, when trying to persuade someone with your knowledge of Nature (eg. telling a druid what you think the natural balance is), or when using History. It doesn't happen that often, but I've seen several non-Charisma based rolls in conversations already, like the aforementioned Nature check. I don't know if it happens that often though, since I haven't played all of it yet. I've seen Arcana checks during companion conversations for example, to discern something magical and then ask about it, so it seems to be more varied than just having only Char rolls.
midrand: I've played a fair amount of the early access in BG3, and 90%+ of all conversation checks are charisma based. So other checks are used (in my opinion rightly so) but not often enough to be able to ignore Charisma-based skills. In fact, if you do not have a high Charisma character in your party, then you will have to resort to violence most of the time.
Really? I've only gotten to the Druid's Grove so far, but I have a +1 Charisma Wizard with a proficiency in Persuasion, so that's a total of +3 to Persuasion checks, and so far I've been able to do any Per options that appeared quite easily. Even the "really hard" Nature check that comes up to convince Kagha was only 15 (or 12?) or so for me instead of the 20 people say it is (because I have +5 to Nature), so it wasn't that hard to convince her not to kill Arabella, while the Persuasion option was actually harder.
I admit, with some rolls it was a matter of re-rolling, like convincing the tieflings to stay, but with others I've usually haven't had trouble suceeding, I managed to pass all Nettie's rolls without any rerolls twice or thrice (when not getting poisoned by doing the Dex check). So that's why I feel the game isn't that hard to do if you don't have high Charisma.
