I think using Bonus Action for off-hand attacks was a mistake to begin with. I would separate that first. Bonus Action by definition is a bonus in addition to attacking, no need to nerf dual wielding by effectively removing their bonus action. BG3 makes this even worse because dual wielders now get penalized also for jumping, drinking potions, shoving... list goes on.
I am pretty sure jump, nor drinking potiont nor shove shouldn't be main actions in the first place
. That's the problem with homebrew - you change couple things, and they ended up rippling through the rest of the systems. I personally like off-hand being a bonus action - I think it works very well.
Unless you add "For me" to the first sentence, I'm not sure why it is a fact. I completed Solasta a couple times and absolutely enjoyed the increased control from reaction pop-ups. I have no trouble admitting that not everyone likes it done that way, and I have no objections to keeping some reactions automatic.
(...)
Of course you can simply not implement any reactions that can't easily be done as an activated ability. I simply do not understand why a pop-up is such a big deal in a turn-based game.
I think there is room to improve. Smite was somewhat irritating, having to confirm or deny with every hit - that said, having an exact control of when I am willing to use it was excellent.
I think most of individual reactions can be replaced with something different (smite for example can be just a seperate attack, that consumes resource only when it lands) with only few requiring pop-up (like counterspell) but the issue with using different implementations for different reactions makes the whole thing more confusing then it needs to be.
I suppose everyone nowadays compares their turn-based game to XCOM - so as XCOM doesn't have reactions, that means reactions are bad and will be rejected by wide public. And who knows they might be right.
