Swapping Characters for Checks?

[Crawdad Man]

I was wondering if we'll be able to swap characters for different checks or if it has to be the one that was initiated in the dialogue. One example I think of was fighting the hag in EA, when she gets low she will start a conversation that you can use charisma rolls to get her to do various things, one of the rolls being like and 18 or 20 roll, so a very tough roll, but because she initiates conversation with whoever is closest, it will usually be an uncharismatic fighter leading to having to reload save to make the rolls even possible . Will we be stuck in this system or will we be able to switch, like if a fighter picks up a book that has an arcana check can we have the wizard take a look instead of them?

[His Dudeness]

Unfortunately no. On release it may be, but not guaranteed.

[EricHVela]

In EA, I was able to have my character give such a book to Shadowheart after my custom character couldn't do anything with it. Shadowheart passed a check that my character didn't.

As for the Hag conversation, I don't know. It makes sense to me that the Hag would direct attention to the closest character or, at least, target the one who seems less charismatic when deception is involved.

I haven't checked, but I would be surprised if letting the strongest stat character take the lead in a check wasn't a popular suggestion.

One table I watch has everyone often "dogpiling" on a check, meaning everyone tries to pass a check. (This is not recommended in the official 5e sources.) One table I watch makes the players decide who's going to do it and need a really good reason for anyone else to also try, and the DM will try to have creatures react logically, initiating interactions based on context that the creature can see/sense.

A digital DM like BG3 won't be able to handle all contexts, but Larian might be trying to avoid dogpiling as recommended by the 5e sources. Of course, the Lae'zel checks in that one scenario must be done by Lae'zel and not the strongest stat in the party. Lae'zel is the only one interacting by story plot unless the player character interrupts and makes things worse. This won't be the only case this happens, either.

Still, Larian has several homebrew things. It doesn't mean there won't be dogpiling/strongest-stat options in the release game.

[DreadMuse]

That does not translate the same in video game. The reality is that people will save scum so they can reload when their main character is not the one making the checks (just because they were 1 step behind another party member when dialogue prompted) or when a party member would have no logical reason why they would not intervene in a conversation. It;s just an inconvenience and annoying.

[Malaficus Shaikan]

Originally posted by DreadMuse:

That does not translate the same in video game. The reality is that people will save scum so they can reload when their main character is not the one making the checks (just because they were 1 step behind another party member when dialogue prompted) or when a party member would have no logical reason why they would not intervene in a conversation. It;s just an inconvenience and annoying.

Agreed.

[EricHVela]

Larian's table: Larian may want players to save scum as payment to retry checks rather than make it convenient.

One would have to talk to Larian, though.

[DreadMuse]

Some people want this feature so they succeed all their checks if possible, i want it because i want the results to be based on my main character even if they fail.
On my low INT Barbarian run i will make even INT checks with her as well because other wise every run i might get same quest ending and that's boring, i want replayability. I want to see the result of not my so smart Barb :P And i also want my Bard playthrough to do the talking because that's one reason why i created her.

[Crawdad Man]

Originally posted by EricHVela:

In EA, I was able to have my character give such a book to Shadowheart after my custom character couldn't do anything with it. Shadowheart passed a check that my character didn't.

As for the Hag conversation, I don't know. It makes sense to me that the Hag would direct attention to the closest character or, at least, target the one who seems less charismatic when deception is involved.

I haven't checked, but I would be surprised if letting the strongest stat character take the lead in a check wasn't a popular suggestion.

One table I watch has everyone often "dogpiling" on a check, meaning everyone tries to pass a check. (This is not recommended in the official 5e sources.) One table I watch makes the players decide who's going to do it and need a really good reason for anyone else to also try, and the DM will try to have creatures react logically, initiating interactions based on context that the creature can see/sense.

A digital DM like BG3 won't be able to handle all contexts, but Larian might be trying to avoid dogpiling as recommended by the 5e sources. Of course, the Lae'zel checks in that one scenario must be done by Lae'zel and not the strongest stat in the party. Lae'zel is the only one interacting by story plot unless the player character interrupts and makes things worse. This won't be the only case this happens, either.

Still, Larian has several homebrew things. It doesn't mean there won't be dogpiling/strongest-stat options in the release game.

I agree you shouldn't pass every check, like I said with the hag one, you still need like a 19 or something, so with like +3 from charisma and the like 1d4 from guidance, its still a difficult one to get, and there is no reason particularly in that situation when the rest of your team wouldn't be able to get in close when she stops fighting. Also the reward is just so good that not getting it because of a messy stat check is insane. There are definetly time when other characters shouldn't be able to jump in, but for rolls where it is entirely possible there should be some option.