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

First off just making the reaction system in play unlimited doesn't address player's concerns about being able to pick and choose how and when they get to use certain limited resources other then just the reactions themselves.
It doesn't have to be full on pop-ups every action that occurs, I've seen some other suggestions that might work, but I'd personally like the reaction system to move more to that level of control for the players.

That said, unlimited reactions itself would remove some strategic/tactical options from game play, which I personally would like to see more depth put into not less.

Then as others have said, there are some cascading effects that could create seriously annoying situations. Add Sentinel polearm fighter in hallway/choke point to those others have mentioned. Nobody could get past it or within melee range even if not using a reach weapon. Misty step would work to get past to that fighters buddies behind but I think that is it. I'm fairly certain since BG3 doesn't do a real z axis, an attempt to jump past the fighter would still result stuck and unable to move right at the edge of their reach.

PLUS unlimited reactions would drastically increase the total damage potential of everyone and everything when the game already favors total damage potential over healing/damage mitigation options.

So yeah I'd say no thanks to unlimited reactions myself.

Imagine it like this. I can do unlimited Reactions. I have Counterspell. 3 booyaghs in battle. They each cast a spell. I'm out of level 3 spells. No choice. They only cast Bless, but I wasted my level 3 spells on it because of unlimited Reactions.

To make it work, we'd need unlimited spell slots too, but then no one would EVER cast a spell again, for Counterspell could then stop every one every time because of unlimited Reactions and spell slots.

In fairness, I've already put forward my opinion that Counterspell shouldn't be a reaction.

In my opinion, it should be a readied action that burns up your action. Ready versus spell to counterspell. If someone begins a spell, they are interrupted, and it's now your turn to try your counterspell. If no one begins a spell then you wasted your turn keeping an eye out for one.

I'm not sure what kind of proof would satisfy folks.

But I think we could start by trying to agree on what "broken" looks like. In my opinion, it's probably something like this:

1. Does the game completely lack challenge?

2. Is the game basically impossible?

If we can answer either of those with "yes," then the game is probably broken in terms of balance. Otherwise, as long as there's challenge, but things are still winnable, then we're more than likely safe.

Now. Imagine that everyone had unlimited attacks of opportunity. How would that break the game?

If anything, players would just have to be more careful about moving around on the map. Maybe some folks would be more inclined to choose a feat or magic item that allowed them to avoid opportunity attacks.

In no way would it break the game. Opponents would still have to roll to hit, etc. As it is, I rarely if ever get hit with an opportunity attack because I avoid them.

*

The only reasonable argument I can think of that's an issue is the loss of spell slots because of they way Counterspell works.

Which I have suggested changing.

I don't agree that those questions are sufficient. They are more appropriate for figuring out whether a game is brokenness in its entirety, not whether certain mechanic(s) are balanced compared to others. These are related but distinct questions. Importantly, when discussing balance of game mechanics in a TB tactical combat game, I'd include the very important questions:

3. Does a single (or small number of) abilities dominate such that they are near-universally used, such that many other abilities are NOT used?

4. Does a mechanic lead to less tactical options/thinking?

E.g., BG3 High Ground & Backstab Advantage led to practically every fight looking the same: ranged characters would go to high ground, and melee characters would circle around enemies. No need for spells/abilities that grant Advantage, just move 10 feet. Your questions #1 and #2 still were answered with "no" answers in this situation --- the Gith fight was still difficult but it was doable --- but these mechanics were definitely unbalanced, overpowered, and led to reduced tactics in battle.

Unlimited reactions would lead to much more damage (and damage mitigation) being put out during reactions compared to currently, as essentially you're giving characters additional actions as long as they use them on reaction abilities. However, this damage is also completely dependent on enemy actions, making it more random. This at least answers "Yes" to #4 imo, and possibly #3 depending exactly on how powerful these multiple reactions are. E.g., Reaction Battlemaster Maneuvers become much better, as they can potentially activate 3-4 times during a round. Brace + Riposte + Riposte can deal massive damage to an enemy that approaches and attacks you, much more than a fighter can output on their turn.

Oh man. That would suck. Counterspell being used as an Action? To me, that's far worse than having a Potion as an Action. Who would ever use it? With it being a Reaction, you have the strategic advantage over spellcasters who don't have it, which is a lot of the standard enemies in the manuals. Pretty much Mage and Archimage are the main enemies you find with Counterspell.

But imagine the round. Gale has Counterspell. He Readies it just in case an enemy uses a powerful spell. This means he gets no action at all and can't cast his own powerful spells just because the enemy MIGHT use a powerful spell. Enemy goes and casts Mirror Image, so Gale gave up his whole turn for nothing.

Or... Gale casts Fireball on his turn and obliterates a bunch of minions. Enemy mage doesn't have Counterspell and couldn't stop him. Enemy goes and casts Mirror Image. Gale didn't waste his turn and was a valuable member of the team instead of a boring punk sitting there just waiting for a serious maybe. Yeah. It'd suck playing a mage like that.

Even IF the enemy mage casts a higher spell, sure, everyone is happy then, but the mage didn't get to really do anything fun and cool like blow up a bunch of minions. He had to simply sit there and actually hope the enemy casts a powerful spell so he feels validated in his choice.

If Counterspell is a Reaction, though, the wizard can still cast Fireball AND save the team from getting fireballed in return. Quite a bit more of a strategic difference. The mage now feels much more validated for having taken Counterspell to begin with.

I'd honestly never use Counterspell if it took an action. I'd rather hit hard and hope I somehow survive the CHANCE of getting hit hard in return.

I hate reaction pop-ups in a video game. They pause the action at the absolute worst time just when a hit is about to land.

That's why I can support turning reactions into activated abilities, Free Actions or Bonus Actions you use on your turn. And since Larian clearly wants more BA's in the game...

E.g. Shield could be a 1 minute Concentration Bonus Action spell. You lose the precise reactivity but you gain more potential damage prevention and it would still be "fast" to put up.

All I’m getting out of the anti-reaction crowd is that the next edition of DnD should ditch reactions and we shouldn’t get another high budget DnD game until then.

Though given how things are going, I’d be surprised if this game got a direct sequel before the next edition becomes a thing. Direct sequels aren’t Larian’s thing, and I get the impression more people would want a DOS3 than a BG4 at this point. Maybe resurrect DOS Fallen Heroes at that.