Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Reaction System_NEW IDEA

It boggles my mind that this is still an issues.

The first time that the Shield spell popped up in Solasta...I was like YES, finally! It made reaction spells actually usable, instead of something you ignore.

No one clicks reactions "every time the enemy does something", it happens only when determined conditions are met. How often does an enemy even trigger an attack of opportunity, for instance?
And "Having fun" is not mutually exclusive with making use of a gameplay mechanic. Quite the opposite.

If playing a game pisses you off and you prefer to passively sit and watch the action going on by itself maybe a Youtube let's play would be more your thing.

That would be one possibility ...

OR

You can simply accept first reaction you can do with each character and be done with it for the round, cant you?
(Serious question)

NO matter if you will be fighting 10/20/50/50.000.000 goblins ... you still have one reaction per character, per round, so just use it for anything, exactly as curent system would ... and you will never (in that round ofc.) be asked again.

BUT

conversely I don't hate playing games, so I'm not settling for that as anything else than a lousy compromise.
In fact I want to be as much an active participant in the tactical choices as possible.
And if for whatever reason you want to play Reactions as automated because you don't value the quality of your tactical choices, be my guest and take that as a toggleable option? Ideally I shouldn't have to eat your crap because you're too lazy to take a pause and think.

As already repeated dozens of times AoO are arguably the least meaningful and valuable of all reactions, anyway. The real issue comes with the ones that involve limited resources.

Oh i also want full control.
This was only ment as another suggestion for AusarViled ... i see now that by using pronouns i messed the whole message. :-/

My misstake.

To be clear I wasn't talking specifically to you either. Just answering to the hypothetical.

The way the game plays now is hardly equivalent to watching a Youtube video.

And being prompted for a reaction is hardly equivalent to not having fun or "disrupting the gameplay".

Yes, it is. Maybe not for you, but it's a matter of opinion that has been stated clearly. Yes, for some folks it is equivalent to not having fun. It is equivalent to disrupting the gameplay.

Why do you have so much trouble understanding this? I'm not trying to be cruel. I'm just curious what's blocking you from understanding that other people don't have the same opinion as you.

Your "it is IN MY OPINION" has the same worth of my "It isn't, by mine".

In fact, subjectively speaking, a lot less, since it's not an opinion I share and I have a vested interest in NOT endorsing bad opinions that I find actively disruptive for the quality of the game.

What do you hope to obtain exactly when you keep pestering me by telling me that you don't like things I do or vice versa? My sympathy? Because you won't get it.
Our interests for the future of this game (or others, for all that matter) are clearly divergent.

And you don't come off as cruel, just pedantic.

Sure. I don't have a problem with you having opinions. In fact, all I've suggested is recognizing the difference between opinions and facts.


I also find your opinions bad. Luckily, I suspect a lot of the folks at Larian do, too.

Honestly, I cringe a little bit thinking about how bad the game would be if it followed certain visions.


Someone said popups would disrupt the game for them and make it not fun, to paraphrase. You responded that if they didn't like "playing games" that they should watch them on Youtube instead. Implying, of course, that the way the game currently plays--without popup disruptions--is essentially the same as watching a video on Youtube.

That, of course, is silly. It's not at all comparable. So. What is my hope? To get across that the statement was unfair, disingenuous, silly, and bad tempered.

Gaining your sympathy was the last thing on my mind.


Indeed.


Without the disclaimer, I was worried you might misinterpret me, thinking I was saying you were stupid. I'm glad you didn't take it that way. I certainly didn't, and do not, want to insult you.

However, calling me pedantic is, by definition, an insult. That seems unnecessary. Please try to avoid doing so in the future. Thank you.

Really? Why don't you make a clear and compelling list of all the ways "my ideas would ruin the game". Turn these vague accusations in explicit features that
1) I actually advocate for
2) would make the game worse.

Maybe explain also how and why the game would be mechanically worse in any way. So we can all read in some non-equivocal, dubious or vague terms what you consider "cringe" and let everyone judge what you are exactly talking about.


Here's a thing:

No, you don't. You don't "cringe thinking how the game could change".
You'd be cheering with everyone else for the "new and cool improvements", maybe even condescendingly telling to people "See? You guys were worrying for nothing, I knew Larian would do the right thing in the end", while figuratively patting Larian devs on the back for being your personal heroes, whatever they'll end up doing.

You know it, I know it, everyone probably knows it.

You are not the first and you won't be the last on this forum that just made a life mission of defending the status quo, only to change entirely tune once the changes came.

To reiterate:

Yes, it is. Maybe not for you, but it's a matter of opinion that has been stated clearly.


Silly? So, now you're not just trying to present your humble opinion as an objective truth, you're also insulting people. Despicable.

I like Solasta but I gotta admit the popups did get annoying in some places. Having to hit no to smiting every time I landed an attack as a Paladin was bad but bearable, but when I played a Sorcerer and got a popup every time asking me if I wanted to metamagic anytime I tried casting a spell drove me crazy. Though this could be mitigated with a shortcut that lets you say no immediately.

No. Telltale games like Walking Dead and Life is Strange fits that description more. Although this claim of yours, and Tuco's, is extremely disingenuous and continue that and you'll be suspended.

EDIT: The irony of presenting humble opinion as an objective truth is strong here. "Yes, it is." - How is that an opinion, yet "No, it isn't." is presented as objective truth? Take a moment to think on that. EIther way, I'd say Telltale games fits "playing like youtube videos" more, but I'd also say that's a poor analogy even for those. It's just a poor argument overall.



I fail to see where JandK has claimed an opinion to be fact; Rather I mostly see people trying to shut him down and disallowing an opposing opinion to be shared. I can understand unnecessary contrarianism or how something can seem like unproductive - But guess what? Your reply has contributed approximately nothing of value to the topic other than bickering (and bickering is not useful). Also, no sign of insulting, at least where it's not a response to say... Tuco calling other people's opinions bad. Which they can be, but that's fine. Untill they add nothing to the discussion, or are completely off-topic/bickering.

This goes for the rest of you. My patience is running thin, I advise reconsidering your off-topicness. Strongly advise it.

I agree, though none of the things you mentioned are reactions. I think that streamling attacks can be beneficial even if player looses a bit of the granual control - like potentially with smite. But reactions proper, actions that are meant to be taken as a response to what enemy is doing, required different treatment IMO. Automating them doesn't as much as remove granual control, as makes them too unpredictable to be worth the resources they consume.

That's what I'm saying. Can't we compromise?

Smite. During your turn, it works like BG3 Battlemaster maneuvers. Reaction Smite coupled with AOO, however, maybe a pop-up asking if you want to use it if your enemy has more than (you set the value, default 10) Current HP. I mean. Why would you waste even a level 1 spell slot on an enemy with less than 10 HP left and you can do 2d6+3 damage?... With a Reaction?

Uncanny Dodge. You might use it whenever it is possible, but again, why would you waste it on an enemy attack that is less than 10 damage? 10 halved is 5. Not exactly worth using it when a high damage dealing enemy is on the battlefield - like spider matriarch - who can do 40 in a single hit. Preset could easily manage this. No high powered enemy? Set your preset to All Enemies, and it triggers whenever any enemy hits you. High power enemy? Set it to Enemy Damage Greater than (you set the value, default 10). Still prompts, but only if damage done to you is greater than 10.

Counterspell. You set what spells trigger the prompt. Want all spells to trigger? Fine. Set to All Spells. Don't want a prompt unless Fireball or Lightning Bolt are cast? Only select those spells as trigger spells. Then you only get a prompt for those spells.

This would drastically cut down on prompts for those players who really don't even want prompts, and there could even be an option to simply trigger WITHOUT prompt at all if conditions apply.

I think I would really like this approach, personally. I could cut out a lot of prompts that way and still be in control.

Why are we still discussing Smite? It's almost a given that it will get the "Battlemaster treatment".

And I doubt Larian needs any convincing on compromising. If anything it's looking like it could be take some work to dissuade them to go too far in that direction. Assuming there's any hope left.

Also, as someone already pointed to you, GM4Him, you don't get the luxury to know ahead how much damage your rogue is defending against. Not even in the tabletop.
At most you can make your choice according to which attack LOOKS like it may be the most dangerous.

Well spotted! It is indeed irony, but also it is a direct quote of Jandk, who more the most defends his right (and rightfully so) to have an opinion, yet posts stuff like "Yes, it is" (#Post824891) which I simply copied to my post.

Googling shows that it's very often decided by GM. Also a lot of people roll for attack and damage at the same time in tabletop so the damage is visible all the time.
Still think that proper promts is the best solution for the reaction though, even if you know the damage number. Because it not only depends on the damage you're about to recieve but also on whether or not you're planning to use your reaction for something else this turn, not matter the damage (aoo for example). Presets just wouldn't give strong enough control.

But it probably could have some use for story mode or something like that. To streamline to combat for those who only want to check the story and don't care about combat at all.