Charisma question

NocturneN · Post by **NocturneN** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:44 am

Well, my current char has low charisma, so for my next char I wanted to try having high charisma and see how that affects conversations, etc. The question is, how much charisma do you need to see any difference? Are there different conversation options available depending on if you have 15 cha, or 18 cha? The reason why I'm asking is because my new char will be a Ranger, dualled into Cleric, which means I'm kind of strapped for dump stats.. I need high STR, DEX, CON AND WIS... So, if I also need high CHA, that will require one badass roll.

Yes, I know there is a particular ring that sets your CHA to 18, and I consider it cheesy as heck. I will not be using it. Do you think I should aim for 18 CHA or would it be ok to leave at 15-16?

Thanks for reading.

roller1234 · Post by **roller1234** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:07 am

I need high STR, DEX, CON AND WIS... So, if I also need high CHA, that will require one badass roll.

Only need 18 con out of these stats and 15 wis i think to be able to dual. The ring is not cheesy since it costs an equipment slot. In fact its fairly useless because of that. You really dont want to wear it while fighting dragons or so, and out of fighting its faster to swap party members to talk. I think the highest reqs are cha 17 in the underdark, same check can be made with int 13, to refuse to have sex with some persistent girl. But its safe to assume that im wrong and there are some cha 18 checks. why play a cha char if it isnt maxed heh.

NocturneN · Post by **NocturneN** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:41 am

roller1234 wrote:Only need 18 con out of these stats and 15 wis i think to be able to dual. The ring is not cheesy since it costs an equipment slot. In fact its fairly useless because of that. You really dont want to wear it while fighting dragons or so, and out of fighting its faster to swap party members to talk. I think the highest reqs are cha 17 in the underdark, same check can be made with int 13, to refuse to have sex with some persistent girl. But its safe to assume that im wrong and there are some cha 18 checks. why play a cha char if it isnt maxed heh.

In order to dual-class you need to have atleast 15 in your current class' prime requisite (CON for Ranger) and 17 or more in the prime requisite of the class you wish to change to (WIS for Cleric). That is why Xzar, for example, cannot dual to Cleric in BG1; he has "only" 16 WIS.

As for STR and DEX, yes you can skimp on them and use items instead, but I don't like doing that because it means you're bound to a certain pair of gloves for the entire game, and a belt (or a certain war hammer), aswell. I like to be more flexible.

Well, you can just switch to the ring whenever you're about to have a conversation, or a party member with high CHA, true. There are two problems with this: 1. you cannot always predict when a conversation is about to happen, and 2. if you use another party member to speak the conversation will look akward, to say the least. Consider it an immersion-thing; I'd rather have my own character speaking about things that are aimed directly at my character. It was a rather wierd to see Yoshimo speaking about his bhaalspawn heritage with Keldorn, for example...

But thank you, think I'll try for 18 CHA; luckily a Ranger can get some rather impressive rolls.

QuenGalad · Post by **QuenGalad** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:58 am

Just prepare for a long rolling process and you'll get there eventually. I remember once rolling a char with the sum of her stats being 92. She was a wizard, so it wasn't really necessary, too

Corlupi · Post by **Corlupi** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:54 am

Unlike BG1, where CHA determines what sort of items you get rewarded for completing quests, in BG2 it usually just works to determine merchant prices (well, and telling off that persistent priestess). So in my experience you dont miss out on much if your CHA is low-ish.

roller1234 · Post by **roller1234** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:44 am

you can not max 5 stats, that would require a roll of 100, assuming int 10.

NocturneN · Post by **NocturneN** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:10 am

QuenGalad wrote:Just prepare for a long rolling process and you'll get there eventually. I remember once rolling a char with the sum of her stats being 92. She was a wizard, so it wasn't really necessary, too

Lol!

Atleast you didn't need to worry about bagspace!

Alas, I've spent many hours at the reroll screen, myself. I'm something of a perfectionst, and rarely settle for anything less than the best. And since I also have OCD, I CANNOT bring myself to change the stats to my liking with Shadowkeeper, because "that would be cheating..."

It's annoying at times, but I get by. We can't all be perfect...or normal, for that matter.

Corlupi wrote:Unlike BG1, where CHA determines what sort of items you get rewarded for completing quests, in BG2 it usually just works to determine merchant prices (well, and telling off that persistent priestess). So in my experience you dont miss out on much if your CHA is low-ish.

Aye, I remember this. But I also remember that several conversations could look quite different, and that several more added more alternatives to reply with if your CHA was high. I know that it's not really necessary, it's just something I'd like to try out.

roller1234 wrote:you can not max 5 stats, that would require a roll of 100, assuming int 10.

Wouldn't the highest possible roll be 108? Since there's 6 stats, I assume 6 x 18? Ofcourse, I have no real knowledge of how the system works; you're probably right. When I have gotten a seemingly good roll, what I do is to spread out the stats evenly, to see how high a total I can get. So far my best roll for the said Ranger was 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 15. With those stats I was able to get 18str, 16dex, 18con, 8int, 17wis, 18cha. Not bad at all; yes, DEX is abit low. But I'd be willing to sacrifice some DEX for a "decent" INT score. INT is usesless for a Ranger; I could simply leave it at 3. But do I really want a char that is dumber than Minsc?

Thanks for your replies all.

roller1234 · Post by **roller1234** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:03 pm

yes its possible to roll a 100+, just unlikely. If Int is set to 3, several things will happen, one-shot by mindflayers, unable to use wands and scrolls, maze will basically permaban the char, and stupid dialog versions, although i forgot which game has this implemented. int 9 is the border anyway. 10 is a safe value against mindflayers. Dex is by far the most useless stat in the game, all it grants is AC, it will be of value with shield and if maxed, otherwise can be safely dumped, if ofc you really want to waste points on high str and wis.

NocturneN · Post by **NocturneN** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:47 am

roller1234 wrote:yes its possible to roll a 100+, just unlikely. If Int is set to 3, several things will happen, one-shot by mindflayers, unable to use wands and scrolls, maze will basically permaban the char, and stupid dialog versions, although i forgot which game has this implemented. int 9 is the border anyway. 10 is a safe value against mindflayers. Dex is by far the most useless stat in the game, all it grants is AC, it will be of value with shield and if maxed, otherwise can be safely dumped, if ofc you really want to waste points on high str and wis.

Mindflayers are a non-factor, you can just buff your INT up with potions, or simply use another char to tank them with. I didn't find them particularly threatening at all, actually. Maze is a problem, and if such low INT give you other dialogue options I should ofcourse try to keep it at a decent level. 9, atleast. Regardless, having a char with high WIS and low INT just seem wierd to me because they sort of factor into eachother; you can be intelligent but foolish, true, but can you really be wise but stupid? I think not.

I don't see how DEX is useless since good AC leads directly to less damage taken, but to each his own. STR is made obsolete by +STR items, true, but it's the same situation there as with the CHA ring - you lose equipment slots. Lastly, I NEED high WIS in order to be ABLE to dualclass, remember?

QuenGalad · Post by **QuenGalad** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:39 am

I always play my Rangers as, well, ranged fighters (obviously) so dexterity is a must. Plus, it makes little sense from roleplaying point of view to have a person who travels off the beaten track, climbs trees and whatnot, to be low on agility and movement coordination.

roller1234 · Post by **roller1234** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:12 pm

Thomas Brorsson wrote:
I don't see how DEX is useless since good AC leads directly to less damage taken, but to each his own.
STR is made obsolete by +STR items, true, but it's the same situation there as with the CHA ring - you lose equipment slots.
Lastly, I NEED high WIS in order to be ABLE to dualclass, remember?

Later in the game, Dex doesnt lead to less damage taken, directly or otherwise, equipment slots are not lost from str items and you dont have to start with maxed(or sufficient) wis to to be able to dual later. In a better case scenario can get away with 13 starting wis.

koz-ivan · Post by **koz-ivan** » Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:43 am

roller1234 wrote:Later in the game, Dex doesnt lead to less damage taken, directly or otherwise, equipment slots are not lost from str items and you dont have to start with maxed(or sufficient) wis to to be able to dual later. In a better case scenario can get away with 13 starting wis.

remember this isn't the free dual classing new edition of d&d rules, in bg2 you do *need* 17 in the prime req stats in order to dual class.

likewise dex 17 may be required as well to dual from ranger.

in addition, a cleric gets bonus spells from wis having more spells is almost always better.

if playing through bg1, there may be some tome options to boost stats before making the switch from ranger -> cleric.

i'd recommend rolling a test ranger in bg2, use shadowkeeper to modify some of the stats, then see if you can dual while still in the dungeon - just to get an idea of what stats will be required, then try to go back and roll those.

likewise, while dex might not mean much towards endgame bg2 / tob, it means a whole lot in bg1 & early bg2.

NocturneN · Post by **NocturneN** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:21 am

I'll be starting in BG2, so any stat increases from tomes in BG1 will obviously not apply. 15 CON and 17 WIS is the requirement to dual from Ranger to Cleric, of this I am certain.

koz-ivan wrote:likewise, while dex might not mean much towards endgame bg2 / tob, it means a whole lot in bg1 & early bg2.

Hehe, couldn't have said it better myself.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:38 pm

A ranger's prime attributes are Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom, so you'd need 15 in the first two and 17 in Wisdom to DC; constitution isn't a requirement.

PS In case you're wondering, it's been a while since I played the game so I ran a test. Created a ranger then used Shadow keeper to set up different versions,

V1: Str 15, Dex13, Con15, Wis 17 - couldn't DC
v2. Str 14, Dex 15, con 15, Wis 17 - ditto
v3. Str 15. Dex 15, con 14, Wis 17 - was able to dual class

NocturneN · Post by **NocturneN** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:54 pm

galraen wrote:A ranger's prime attributes are Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom, so you'd need 15 in the first two and 17 in Wisdom to DC; constitution isn't a requirement.

PS In case you're wondering, it's been a while since I played the game so I ran a test. Created a ranger then used Shadow keeper to set up different versions,

V1: Str 15, Dex13, Con15, Wis 17 - couldn't DC
v2. Str 14, Dex 15, con 15, Wis 17 - ditto
v3. Str 15. Dex 15, con 14, Wis 17 - was able to dual class

I had to do a similar test upon seeing this, and... yes. You are correct. I didn't think you needed THREE attributes and since all my prior test chars have had high STR and DEX I assumed this was the case...quite the blunder.

The description is a bit misgiving, though. "A Ranger needs to be strong and wise to the ways of nature to live a full life." Nothing about DEX, and I haven't been able to find any solid explanation of the system, or perhaps I have simply missed it. I know that the last site I looked at mentioned CON as a requisite, atleast.

Regardless, I hope noone was fooled by my post, then. 'Twas good of you to post, Galraen. Thank you for shedding light on this.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:54 pm

In first edition AD&D a Ranger's prime attributes where Str, Int, Wis and Con, maybe that's where the confusion on the other site originated.

Always glad to be of help, that's what we're here for.

PS Many seem to see the Ranger as a form of Archer, which may explain the dex requirement, not sure why though. The Ranger class was originally based on Aragon, and he wasn't an archer!

NocturneN · Post by **NocturneN** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:37 am

galraen wrote:In first edition AD&D a Ranger's prime attributes where Str, Int, Wis and Con, maybe that's where the confusion on the other site originated.

Always glad to be of help, that's what we're here for.

PS Many seem to see the Ranger as a form of Archer, which may explain the dex requirement, not sure why though. The Ranger class was originally based on Aragon, and he wasn't an archer!

Aye, that is quite possible.

Well in many other RPGs a "Ranger" is a ranged fighter, i.e. an Archer, usually with some other perks like tracking and stealthing. I suppose 'Tis a general (mis)conception that a person such as that would rely primarily on bows for hunting purposes, OR people simply get stuck at the "Range"-part of the name. ^^ I think the Dex requirement has more to do with that someone who lives in the wilds typically would need to be always alert and ready, having quick reflexes etc to fend off predators, and less to do with bows.

Regardless, thanks again!

QuenGalad · Post by **QuenGalad** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:52 am

Just for the sake of nitpicking, Aragorn was good with both Bow and Sword, which is the best way to survive on your own in the wild - not let the enemy too close, be able to defend yourself if they do get close. But in rpg, I think the abundance of "Ranged Rangers" is to distinguish them from "Knights" and other armoured, hand-to-hand fighters. Plus, for survival reasons you'd still do better with only a ranged weapon than with only a hand weapon. And yes, dexterity/agility/movement coordination is very important if you're supposed to do well in a varied landscape, so even if your ranger never threw a rock in her life she'd still make more roleplaying sense with high dex.

Soo, back on track - Thomas, did you actually manage the roll?

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:20 am

Aragorn was good with both Bow and Sword

It's been a long time since I read LotR, but I'm struggling to remember an occasion in the book where he excelled with a bow. Certainly, like all fighters in that sort of milieu would be able to use a bow, but a Ranger in Middle Earth seems to have been no more adept than any other fighter.

NocturneN · Post by **NocturneN** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:40 pm

QuenGalad wrote:Just for the sake of nitpicking, Aragorn was good with both Bow and Sword, which is the best way to survive on your own in the wild - not let the enemy too close, be able to defend yourself if they do get close. But in rpg, I think the abundance of "Ranged Rangers" is to distinguish them from "Knights" and other armoured, hand-to-hand fighters. Plus, for survival reasons you'd still do better with only a ranged weapon than with only a hand weapon. And yes, dexterity/agility/movement coordination is very important if you're supposed to do well in a varied landscape, so even if your ranger never threw a rock in her life she'd still make more roleplaying sense with high dex.

Soo, back on track - Thomas, did you actually manage the roll?

'Tis an interesting sidetrack, though, a sidetrack nevertheless. For what it's worth I think being a Ranger has more to do with your way of life and outlook rather than what weapons you wield.

But, regardless, and as per your question: Err...no. Well, I guess. Eh, thing is I have been too busy playing my Kensai/Mage lately as I'm nearing the end of SoA...the Ranger is char I have planned for the future, I was just bored one day and sat down and did some rolls when the whole charisma question came up...I haven't really done any rolling since then.

As I said earlier, though, my highest roll on the ranger with the stats evened out was 16, 16, 16, 16, 15, 15. As I loaded him in the tutorial, though, I noticed his HP roll wasn't too great; 73. Certainly not bad, but I was hoping for 80+, so I will definately try rerolling him again. But if I can get 16+ in all the stats I will probably settle for whatever HP roll I get.

Anyways, I intend to finish my current run first; and since I've been experiencing a number of wierd bugs lately, I will probably reinstall my BG2 before I start rolling a new char. The thing is that my Kensai/Mage was dualled a bit too early, which I'm starting to see the effects of now (bad Thac0 primarily), plus I'm getting quite bored with her. So I'm considering trying out this Ranger/Cleric instead, or a Fighter/Thief (Yes I like Dual-classes...), so I'm sorry but that's where I stand.