Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback My thoughts on reactions...

I dont like the idea of multiple reactions per turn.
Having only one makes our choices more meaningfull.

Combats would probably become boring and slower especially if ennemies also have unlimited reactions.
They usually have more spellslots than the player...
- I dont want them to counterspell all my spells.
- I dont want to have to ranged attack them until they've used all their spellslots casting shield before being able to attack a caster.
- I dont want them to feather fall all shove attempts.
- I dont want them to riposte every time I'm attacking...

I dont even understand the point. What's the goal ?
Slower combats + waste of ressources ?

I get that you dont want popup and that you dont want to plan things... but what if the system was improved so you could still play just as now while others could manage and control a bit more their reactions ?

I am now questioning if this thread is an actual serious suggestion, or is in reality a thinly veiled attempt to snipe at another faction on the forums.

I quote your last line because if your primary argument revolves around the existence of some bad idea and trying to use that as justification to suggest something else, you'd better at least make sure that the bad idea that you're framing your entire argument around actually EXISTS to begin with. For one, you can't hold onto a Bardic Inspiration die for 'hours', a party member can only hold it for 10 minutes maximum. And it only lasts for that long because 1) it's a class feature exclusive to Bards and not some spell that multiple classes can share and 2) it also has out of combat applications.

Even then, I can't think of anything else that exists in all of DnD that lets you hold onto a resource to use as a reaction for such a lengthy period of time (let alone something else that lets you outright give a reaction to another party member), which is probably why you've latched onto that nonexistent bardic inspiration argument. Maybe the closest thing would be Guidance, of which the Guidance bonus can be maintained for up to a minute as the caster is able to hold onto concentration.

And quite frankly, I'm pretty sure Larian has already thought about unlimited reactions or something similar, and decided against it for reasons close to what I've already brought up earlier in the thread. Even if actual DnD 5E had unlimited attacks of opportunity, it's assumed that the rest of the system would have been meticulously balanced around its existence. The changes Larian did while omitting reactions were basically too many haphazardly thought out adjustments at once for them to have worked out in the long term, hence the majority of them being rolled back over the past year. And as another example that most people here probably aren't aware of, Solasta actually did have one major homebrew rule at the start of their EA (of which dim light used to impose disadvantage), but enough people universally complained about that to get it struck down. Not because of official rules, but because dim light disadvantage coupled with some Solasta enemies having the ability to walk on walls and fly made fighting such enemies extremely annoying.

Even so, judging from my limited experience of DnD 3E by playing the Pathfinder cRPGs, effectively unlimited AoO -was- possible there if you built yourself for it, but there were also a lot more conditions to trigger them AND avoid them too. (In those games, you took opportunity attacks for each spell you cast or arrow you fired with an enemy next to you, so long as that enemy had enough available opportunity attacks to punish you for it. It appears that got replaced with disadvantage in 5E instead. You also used to take an opportunity attack when standing up from being prone, but no such penalty exists in 5E.)

And if you're going to rail against purists on this forum again... Consider that we've already long since established that there aren't really any purists on this forum. Yet again, there's a huge gulf of difference between 'wanting certain things to be closer to the rules because they're better balanced than the new stuff' and 'wanting things to be closer to the rules because they're the rules'. For example, no one is complaining about Sorcerers getting spells based on their bloodline, because that is a legitimately good change that has an effect on character customization. I personally want to see Paladins have the ability to smite with ranged weapons too, and I doubt there'd be very many people that would disagree. For the topic of reactions, people feel THIS strongly about them because some classes, spells, and abilities are extremely reliant on them, and omission of those throws off the balance by quite a lot and pushes the game towards heavy offense tactics, not leaving much room for defensive considerations.

In D&D 3.0 (not sure about 3.5 and Pathfinder) it was possible to make multiple AoOs, BUT it required a feat (Combat Reflexes) and even then was limited by your DEX modifier which heavily impacted it's usefulness for anyone wearing medium or heavy armor. Also, you were still limited to only one AoO per enemy of course.

Again with the mind reading. Wildly presuming motives. Which is nothing more than a clumsy and entitled attempt to disqualify my argument. It's tiring, combative, and unnecessary.


1. Regarding ten minutes, it doesn't work that way in BG3,
-and-
2. The point remains exactly the same that it's ridiculous to conveniently choose when to use the inspiration,
-and-
3. Did it really take two paragraphs full of two hundred words to say the inspiration only sticks around for ten minutes?


?

So don't provide feedback because Larian already thought of it according to you?


?

But do provide feedback even though Larian already thought of it?


Complaining works!

Unfortunately, in my observational opinion, it works for the overly loud handful of people when the vast majority, who are perfectly satisfied, tend to stay quiet.


1. I am not railing against purists.
2. Please refrain from the bossiness. It's not helpful. If you have children, by all means be a mother to them, not me.



lol, no "we" have not established any such thing. The only thing that has been established is that people have different opinions.


I've lived through every edition of DnD. I've heard the "balance" argument through every one. Only to see drastic changes followed by new assurances that things were delicately "balanced." Call me a cynic, but I long since came to the conclusion that most folks making that fine edge argument haven't open-mindedly explored a whole lot of other options.

At this point it's better to leave this thread and move on. Based on your answers, Jandk, you just want to argue with people for the sake of arguing

Nah. We just want a good, balanced system. If you were correct, we wouldn't be out here trying to help Larian develop a decent, working Reaction system for a video game

Allowing unlimited Reactions is not good because it completely strips the system of thought. You have it backwards. We want a good Reaction system based more on the 5e rules because it is more strategic than simply allowing characters to spam Reactions all the time.

Yeah. Even based on his initial post, you can see he's just picking on everyone who is trying hard to think and figure out a good Reaction system.

This is nothing more than an attempt to shut down an opposing opinion by framing it as "trolling."

I assure you, I have expressed my opinion regarding reactions. It is my true and honestly held opinion. It has been posted in the Feedback forum, which is the appropriate place.

It's weird to me the way so many folks here have trouble accepting that other people have different opinions. I've mentioned it before. The forums are not welcoming because there's a segment of posters who do this: bully others away when they have different opinions.

As I have asked several times: please stop telling what my "real" motivations are.

Often maybe ...
But i was actualy thinking about it and i dont like it.

Take it now, when i play Eagle Barbarian i think it is ... in rage, enemies have Disadvantage for Opourtunity Attacks against me ... wich is great, i can move around battlefield and take just a few hits instead of many.
But it can also be used tacicaly ... when my Wizard and Barbarian are surounded by enemies, my Barbarian can run away and waste their reactions ... and then my Wizard can follow him freely.

With infinite reactions, Barbarian tactical aspect of Distadvantage for AOO become just his own boost for toughness, since they will still have it harder to hit him ... but what about my low AC Wizard? :-/
That poor dude will be smashed like steak tartare if he even try to move.

Therefore i call curent system better, since every resource i (or enemies) have can be used only for single thing ...

//Counter-Suggestion:
You can (not sure if still since i kill her on Range for this very reason, so its possible she was fixed in curent patch) actualy try how such game would feel ...
When you get into Hag's Lair, find mask of Vengeance ... in patch patches she was buged and had infinite reactions, wich were also pretty strong and she was "reacting" on ANY attack against her ...
So, go try to kill her in meele with everyone in your party and then tell us if you enjoyed that encoutner.

The problem is that you don't propose anything, you just neglect the issue. It's not an "opposing" opinion

I've enjoyed that fight in every patch I've played, thus far.


What do you mean I haven't proposed anything? I have proposed unlimited reactions.

In addition, I have said the following in an earlier post:


I have also been extremely clear about the things other folks have proposed that I don't like. Hence the opposing opinion.

And how many of your characters attacked that particular mask in meele?

Here’s one of several definitions of the word “inspiration” : a sudden brilliant, creative, or timely idea.

The idea’s timing is relevant to the concept of inspiration. It’s part of what makes that sudden idea so impactful. Mechanically, 5e represents this by letting you choose when to be inspired. Consequently, the impact of the swing between failure and success feels momentous, just as true inspiration should.

All of this makes 5e Bards impactful at just the right time; their whole identity is to be clutch. The fact that they’re the only class to peek at the die before making a decision is a huge part of that, and a huge part of what makes them cool to me.

Lol. I troll ALL the time just to shut down people's threads. Works 100 percent of the time.

Come on, man. There are 100 Reaction threads, and plenty of people expressing a different opinion. I'm not trying to just shut down opinions.

So, fine. You want unlimited Reactions, and you're serious about it. I really didn't think you were, but okay. I'm sorry. I truly am.

But I totally disagree with the idea not because it's against 5e rules but because it totally strips Reactions of all thought and strategy. You literally never have to think about them and they become OP. Plus, you'd have situations where they'd completely waste your spell slots when you don't want them to.

So no. I'd rather have a more intuitive reaction system that gives players the ability to strategize with them. Either that or don't have reactions at all, like present except for AOO.

Sure, I agree that there is nothing inherently bad with the mechanic "multiple opportunity attacks [or reactions] in one round." What matters is the context of the game it's in. In your hypothetical, that version of D&D would likely be *balanced* (at least designed) for infinite reactions. Enemies' stats and CR would be modified based on the expectations of taking multiple reactions; certain abilities like Counterspell, Shield, and Protection Fighting Style would probably have text making them more restrictive and/or less powerful; etc.

And if you simply placed a limit of 1 reaction per round without changing anything else, that would mess with the balance of the game and some people would be reasonably upset for valid reasons. Which is essentially my (and many others') complaints about the current BG3 reaction system. D&D 5e was designed upon the assumption of 1 reaction that you had full control over when to use. If Larian wants to change that, they need to consider the cascading effects their chosen implementation on game balance, and modify either the reactions or other mechanics to prevent a reaction from being way OP or next-to-worthless.

Your unlimited reaction suggestion *could* work fine, but it'd require a lot of reworking (of reactions, other abilities, or general game mechanics) to recapture the rough balance that reactions currently have in D&D 5e. And even then it's not necessarily better than one of the many other ways of implementing reactions.

Part of what I'm saying is that I don't believe the balance is quite so delicate by far.

Another part of what I'm saying is that I think the reaction system design isn't very good. I do not favor the player deciding to use this bonus for that roll and so on.

I do, however, favor the idea of forgoing your action to ready an action, whether that be a readied action against a potential attack or a readied action against an incoming spell. But I don't believe those readied actions should be classified as "reactions." Rather, I think they should be a replacement of the character's action, meaning if the readied condition does not happen... the character has effectively abandoned their action for the round.

I mean, that's fair. Your middle statement, at least, is purely an opinion about your preferred gameplay style and thus doesn't really need evidence or reasons to be valid.

Your first statement...could use some proof, but I'll certainly concede that D&D isn't perfectly balanced. The problem is that there are a LOT of abilities in 5e that ask for some immediate player decision (both things that expend your capital-R-Reaction and abilities that allow you to add/subtract a bonus mid-attack, etc), and the game was designed around these abilities and the fact that characters have to choose between using 1 per turn max. If you change them (make them pre-actions or make them unlimited), then every single one of these abilities will have an altered power level, the effects of which are probably too large to determine just by thinking about it. You'd have to create such a game and then actually playtest it...which I suppose is what EA is for, but making such a drastic change seems not worth it to me.

There is already a Ready Action in 5e which works exactly as you describe. It is part of the PHB and afaik Larian hasn't commented saying they *won't* implement it, so theoretically it will be present in some form. But we obviously should keep expressing the opinion that we want it in the game to pressure them!

I would care if what you're posting here wasn't THAT stupid lol. But it is what it is.

Hope you see the irony of this and why I'm pointing it out, because this stupid bickering is a fast-lane to getting my attention.

-------

As for the rest of you; I believe a point was made a few weeks ago, about venom on the forums, a nasty vitreal of zealousness to shut down any differing opinion that does not fit the "collective consensus" and must be silenced at all cost. Some posters here vocally opposed this claim, and insist all posts are made in good faith - Yet the same people are proving them right in those prior claims of behavior. I'd like to see more efforts in the alleged good faith part. For example, there are many reasons why unlimited reactions would break combat in D&D, but there are far better ways of conveying this message. A better way of reacting, you could say 🥁

Ofc I do, that's the point. I, in turn, hope that you see that this:


is more of a trolling, that an opinion.