I disagree. There's nothing sacred about the rules. Homebrew is a part of DnD. Always has been.
*
I notice no one has bothered arguing why unlimited reactions are bad.
My own personal stance on the rules is that I'd rather BG3 move closer to them
ONLY because they're better than most of the homebrew stuff that had and currently exist in BG3. If the homebrew stuff to the core combat rules didn't break the balance as badly as they did, I don't think people would have cared as much. Note that after surfaces got tuned down, and that height advantage/disadvantage got tuned down to a simple +2 bonus on high ground (which is still homebrew), people suddenly stopped arguing about them.
I'm going to say it again for the people in the back: Stop beating that damn strawman, because there aren't any purists on this forum for there to be any worth in arguing about whether the very concept of homebrewing is inherently bad or not. After all this time, it should be extremely obvious to anyone that someone still trying to argue this is doing it in bad faith and willingly ignoring context.
As for unlimited reactions, don't think you're the only person who considered this over the entire past year and a half of the EA process. The reason no one is taking your hypothetical solution seriously is because it's already immediately obvious what the end result will be. It doesn't actually fix anything and introduces more even problems than its worth. Like, you know (or at least I hope you do),
literally everything else that got reverted in BG3 thus far.
Take the below scenarios, which would be extremely common under your suggestion:
1) For one, have fun blowing ALL of your high level spell slots during turns 1-2, because you automatically counterspelled every single spell cast by that entire party of enemy mages. The same would also apply to your entire party attempting to cast spells against an enemy spellcaster. You basically automatically cancel each other out at the start of a fight. At least under normal rules, there are ways to get around this, like trying to bait each other's reactions first.
2) And have fun dealing with enemy mages who get to use Shield (which is once per turn but lasts until the start of their next turn, so your solution won't make a difference to this part) AND Counterspell at the same time. Which ties into my previous point of trying to bait reactions. Now not only are all mages capable of counterspelling multiple times per turn, they can do it while having higher AC from Shield at the same time, so it's harder for physical characters in general to shut them down. We're trying to aim for more strategy, not LESS.
3) Protection fighting style, if implemented, would make some fights excessively annoying under your proposal. For the uninitiated, Protection fighting style allows a party member wielding a shield to use their reaction to impose disadvantage on an enemy attack aimed at a nearby party member. Now, imagine a group of Paladin archers with shields strapped to their backs, and the archers are programmed to never leave each other's side whenever possible. Since BG3 currently doesn't differentiate between weapon sets in terms of stats right now (for example, a College of Valor Bard can have a rapier/shield equipped on one set, and a bow on the other set, and still benefit from the shield AC increase while wielding said bow), it would be safe to assume that the archers could also use Protection fighting style to impose effectively permanent disadvantage against every incoming attack. Now, you could counter this by just lobbing saving throw spells at them, unless for some reason there happens to be a wizard with Counterspell somewhere in that group too.
The vast majority of reactions are also tied to resources, or are effectively once per turn because their effects last for a whole turn, so your suggestion wouldn't affect those at all (if anything, it'd be the combination of those reactions and all the other reactions that would break things). There's also stuff like the ability to perform multiple opportunity attacks in the same turn, or if ready actions are implemented, being able to execute that action multiple times for every enemy that moves within range (which would be extremely busted for archers).
If anything, your suggestion happens to be a strong argument for why certain OTHER things shouldn't get implemented if it comes to pass.
I don't see the purpose of this post. It's more like "i don't care, prove me wrong". ok
Yeah, pretty much. I've been teetering between the line of dropping an insulting one-liner after seeing them give a +1 to themselves or outright ignoring the thread entirely, but settled on slapping this dude with at least one serious reply.
Now we get to watch as he most likely abandons this thread.
a simple example. You're a paladin. You divine smite a lot. So you have unlimited reactions, does it mean that you can divine smite more than once per turn? If so, that's ridicously stupid, sorry
To be fair, Smite isn't a reaction, everyone just keeps including it in these conversations because it's assumed that the way you use it will require the same kind of programming it would take to get reactions working in this game, as it is a choice-based ability. Smite already works as you described, you can smite multiple times in the same turn based on how many attacks you are able to make (and land), and you can even smite on successful opportunity attacks.
