I notice no one has bothered arguing why unlimited reactions are bad.
It removes some tactical decision making, as you no longer have to consider the opportunity cost: "is this ability worth spending my reaction on?"
It makes D&D even more nova-esque:
- opposing sides can burst down the opposing side much faster due to damaging reactions
- I suppose this is counteracted by defensible reactions being more usable, but often they don't stack (e.g., resistance, disadvantage). Additionally, this is still nova-ing except instead of damage, the nova is all resource-abilities (spells, superiority dice, etc) being used the 1st and 2nd turns of combat.
It throws many things out of balance. Anything involving a reaction (especially AoOs) are now significantly more powerful as they essentially lose their reaction cost. Larian already seems to be struggling balancing their homebrew and keeping the game tactical. Off the top of my head I can't say what exact reaction-dependent strategy becomes OP, but I'm certain there is one.
- In particular, this decision likely buffs casters way more than martials, and casters are already super strong especially in BG3 with the ease of long resting.
