<font color="teal"> I have done that multiple times b4... then I realised it is MUCH better to just have a highish Charisma so u dont have 2 worry about it... and when u plan to buy things just put it on [img]smile.gif[/img] ...... and when u pickpocket Kangaxx the lich then kill his demi-lich form u get 2 Rings :D </font>

<font color="teal"> Havent u ever played Fallout Gothmog ;) ... I dunno about in BG2.. it dont say nethin about it but in Fallout it sez that it measures a character; Persuasivness, Ability to lead and Looks. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] ...</font>

Never played Fallout, but I've been playing 2ed. AD&D for almost 2 decades, and those are the rules that BG2 is based on. In AD&D,
it is your Comliness score that determines your physical beauty, not your Charisma. These two attributes have some influence on each other, but not enough that they can be seen as interchangable. Charisma governs character reactions as Gothmog described; the ability to lead others (a popular president) or hold people's attention (an audience-captivating actor). Thus, Elle MacPhearson would not be a good choice as a military General, and Adolf Hitler was never crowned in a beauty contest.

There are alot of details of PnP D&D that were left out of BG for whatever reasons in the design of the game, Comliness scores being the least of them. That was nearly always the first score I would sacrifice when I rolled up a character (much like I now do with my charisma score - Thank you, Ring of Human Influence!). They stayed as close as they could to the core rules though and did a good job of it, IMO, close enough that I am glad I still have my old books to look things up that aren't in the BG2 manual. I am excited to see how they handle 3ed. in NWN.

I always try to have my CHA score in the 10-15 range. That way, I'm approximately as persuasive as a battle-hardened leader of a strong party of adventurers would be, and also about as good-lookin' as whoever I'm romancing.

I tend to like the pentagon formation, as it's compact and puts a Tank nicely up in front. In my current game, the Ring of Human Influence is welded to Haer'Dalis (we haven't found many good rings yet), who is also the leader of the party and a mini-Tank protecting Jan and Nalia. (Jaheira and Anomen take the flanks.) Haerry naturally has 16 CHA, so going up to 18 isn't that drastic anyway. I don't mind having him as my Charismatic Leader, as he's got a nice voice (I don't think I could stand Anomen).

When I first rolled for my character, I evened out his stats so that they would all be 15s or 16s, then after reading all the tomes in BG1, I kept it the way it was (he was a pretty powerful character).

Personally, I think the ring is nice, but it shouldn't be an excuse to drop your Charisma down to 3. I mean, what if they made a sequel and you couldn't keep the ring? Sounds pretty cheap to me.

I always start my characters in Candlekeep and usually with CHR 18

That means I can start BG2 with a CHR 19 :D

I do something similar - but instead, I give myself 4 strength, and can therefore put all the other scores up to 18. This means rolling a total of 94, which certainly isn't hard to do. Then once I get out of Irenicus' dungeon, I buy the Girdle of Hill Giant strength. This gives me 19 strength, and all the other scores are 18. The reason I prefer to give myself low strength over charisma is that, to my mind, there are far more interesting and useful rings than there are girdles, so I like to keep both my ring slots free.

From a role-playing perspective, (BGII IS a roleplaying game) lowering any statistic to less than 6 is pretty bad. A INT 3 guy's mind goes [food food food kill kill food food kill food], a WIS 3 guy would NEVER make the right decision, a STR 3 guy could barely even stand up (weakness), a DEX 3 guy would barely be able to stand up (clumsiness), a CON 3 guy would die by stubbing his toe, and, finally, a CHA 3 guy would be hated, reviled, and pitied by everyone he met. When all of your items are stripped away, THAT is who you are, not some magic-enhanced semi-golem with half a brain.

The only EVER PC i made with a stat less than 6 was an elven thief/sorcerer in 3rd edition PnP, who had a natural 5 strength (but also natural 19 dexterity!) and relied on Weapon Finesse and longbows to do anything at all. Since BGII gives a much more flexible environment for stats than the one-shot PnP AD&D, your stats should be much higher. From a "big picture" perspective, you ARE the child of a god, and should have stats that correspond to your status. you merely play the strongest, smartest, wisest, etc. Bhaalspawn in the land. All the other weaker Bhaalspawn already got killed.

I always use the ring of Human Influence you can use the points you don't use on your charisma on something else. You can make a better character that way.

I do something similar - but instead, I give myself 4 strength, and can therefore put all the other scores up to 18. This means rolling a total of 94, which certainly isn't hard to do. Then once I get out of Irenicus' dungeon, I buy the Girdle of Hill Giant strength. This gives me 19 strength, and all the other scores are 18. The reason I prefer to give myself low strength over charisma is that, to my mind, there are far more interesting and useful rings than there are girdles, so I like to keep both my ring slots free.</font>[/QUOTE]A more practically sound plan than using the ring. But lets face it, you really don't need hardcore-stats anyway. You can screw with the game rules and wriggle out a solid 18-stat character, but there really isn't any need to. Plus, being superman takes alot of the challenge out of gameplay. But hell, you guys paid your money (you DID pay your money didn't you?), play it how you like.