Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Reworking former reaction abilities to fit into BG3

In an effort to be more productive rather than endlessly squabbling, it's very clear that proper reactions aren't making it into the game at this point. The chances of a reaction overhaul happening closer to the game's full release simply does not mesh with the actual realities of game development at all. So the best thing we can do now is to suggest workarounds to have reaction and choice-dependent features and spells fit into BG3's design philosophy. It is mildly depressing that it has come down to this, but it is still early enough to tackle these features on a case by case basis.

I'm not too particularly invested in Paladins while I know a ton of people have words to say in regards to that, so I'm not going to comment about it myself. The only thing I expect is that Larian's implementation of it might result in it working with ranged weapons, which would actually be a net positive for build diversity.

I imagine that Counterspell could be overhauled as a free action that targets an enemy spellcaster, either silencing/muting them for 1 turn or canceling the next spell they cast for that 1 turn. Strangely, the former solution is probably the cleanest, because the mute/silence condition already exists, while the latter will require new coding and will also just lead to enemy AI deciding not to risk using any spells at all. The major thing about counterspell is that it not only counters an incoming spell, but it also wastes the spell slot used for that casting attempt, which neither solution will do.

Counterspell could also be an action or free action to give a generic spell failure % for a minute. Like a hex visualized by some arcane runes surrounding the target. Or it could trigger a d20 contest on cast attempt. And it would be dispellable.

The d20 attempt would be a rather good solution too, but I doubt Larian will go that far. The other major thing about Counterspell is that while it automatically counters everything on the same spell level it was cast at or below, spells cast at a level higher than the counterspell means the counterspell caster has to roll higher than the spell's DC using their spellcasting modifier to counter it.

If counterspell is implemented in this way, the latter part is probably going to be massively amended somehow. I don't see Larian spending much time to code in different DCs for spells relative to the spell level that counterspell is cast at.

The odd thing about not implementing Reactions correctly means now that every Reaction ability going forward is going to have to have a rewrite to work.

Abilities like Smite, spells like Counterspell, and others, all now require just a completely different interpretation.

Of course, you could assume Larian will make Counterspell a reaction, but you don't get to make a choice. If you have it active, it will just use it immediately on the first spell cast. Same with other abilities, if you have Smite on, it will use it on the first successful attack, no choice.

But, I think this system that is currently implemented, renders the Reaction system to something that is too random and very little control to be meaningful.

just no. reactions are as vital part of dnd as actions. they need to implement it right or else it would be a big dissapointment

they spoke of combat flow, they implemented swarm AI, so to increase flow and smoothness further, reaction system is the best fit here

I freaking hope they implement a proper reaction system... they HAVE mentioned that they are working on that, and I sincerely hope they still are.

There are just too many spells and abilities that are dependant on reactions working as they should, because having them trigger on the first enemy action rather than an action you *want* them to be triggered by (and, as such, saving your reaction for when it matters the most) is kind of the whole point and the keystone feature of the 5e combat. At this rate, the only reaction in the game would be the opportunity attack, which just turns it into a bleeding stump of a system that was never properly implemented.

Counterspell, mentioned above, is probably the most shining example of how it depends heavily on getting the system right. Why would one want to waste it on a magic missile when some other enemy just gets to cast a fireball, scot-free? They *have* to get them right, or the game would definitely suffer for it...

I agree, they should rework reactions, otherwise a lot of spell will become unrecognisable.

Ah, I must have missed this thread. Quoting myself from the reaction megathread about how a preset system with **appropriately modified abilities** could work well:
Essentially, make every reaction and reaction-like ability work more similar to BG3's Cutting Words

How difficult would it be to implement a toggle that adds in popup reactions? Toggle between off, Larian style automatic reaction, and popup whenever triggered. That way the people who don't want the game slowed down will be happy, and the people who want a popup every two seconds when playing a Bard/Paladin can be happy too.

They would not all be happy because being against popup doesnt mean being against another system than the crappy current one.

Doesn’t it feel like the AI knows what the players’ reaction toggles are? Like it always takes the actions that avoid the worst outcomes?

This is my fear with any preset system, no matter how finely tuned : if the AI always knows how best to waste my ressources by exploiting my reaction settings, what chance do I have of making the correct preset decision?

As you also say, the AI can just as easily know what our toggles are; it's not like preactions introduce this problem. But just as DMs in PnP aren't supposed to use players' conversations against them (unless the players are talking in-character in front of an enemy), Larian *shouldn't* be coding the AI to use our reaction choices against us. I suppose the only thing we can do is provide feedback telling Larian this, and/or do in-game testing to see if the AI actually responds to which of our toggles are on.

Although, If we knew for sure the AI did respond to our presets, then there is tactical value in that. You can force the AI to do something different/suboptimal by enacting certain preset reactions.

Well, many (including me) have been saying similar things for well over a year now with the addendum that more options than those could be implemented. The whole "timer" thing's come up many times (sometimes accompanied by a suggestion to have a slo-mo effect and such while the timer is there). I am sure even more ideas can be pitched.