Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Reactions like Solasta!

I don't want you to feel like you have to defend something, GM, I really don't... I know you've put a lot of energy into trying to think of something that will bridge the gap between what Larian are providing at the moment, and what we should have, and I do appreciate the effort you're taking, truly I do... but you're indealising your scenarios and worst-casing others in order to make this idea seem more palatable than simply being asked when it's appropriate - and it simply isn't palatable, and, more importantly... It just won't ever be, for a large number of people, myself included.

Presets would need to be designed for every situation where a player might be asked if they want to do something. We're using a few examples right now, uncanny dodge, opportunity attacks and counterspell, for example... but in practice, you'd be requiring that they make and program this preset system individually for literally every reaction ability in the game system, because each one is different, and that's more than you may realise.

Even if we stick to just Uncanny Dodge, for conversation's sake.... You seem to presume that we know the damage we're going to take before deciding whether or not to us uncanny dodge with rogues: actually you *don't* know how much damage you're taking. You have to decide when you would be hit, before you know how hard. You don't know - you are guessing, and that's why it's a reaction and the player is asked; so they can make that decision; so the player can weight up how hard they think this target might hit, what their current hp is, whether they need that reaction for something else, whether that will happen before their next turn, and so on... all things, the value and threshold of which are fluid depending on the combat situation. the number of things that you automatically consider when deciding to make a reaction or not would all, individually, need to be controlled by their own preset variables, each of which the player would need to set... and then change, on the regular, for different situations and scenarios. It would be far more complex and far more work to do that acceptably than simply being prompted when appropriate.

That's *one* type of reaction. Just One. There are MANY. Do we set up and revise them *Every Battle* (because an overarching global rule is absolutely not going to be appropriate for every battle, and a conscientious player would still need to double check this)? No thank you. Do we have the ability to change what we set up in the middle of an encounter if situations change? If so then it'd be faster and smoother just to be prompted naturally the whole way through, rather than going through the full list of preset options and variables for every reaction type we have access to.

Don't get me wrong - I actually appreciate being able to set up complex AI behaviour in detail - I loved FFXII's gambit system, in fact, and spent a lot of time carefully crafting gambit sets for my party to run in the background and handle all the little things while I made the bigger and more important decisions. It was great. Reactions ARE the bigger, more important decisions, however, and the PLAYER needs to be able to make that choice in each and every unique situation.

All of your examples rely on the player choosing not to use their reaction at any point, in order to make them sound bad - because as soon as they use it, that's it for the round. Your examples also involved stacked houses of situations to create the maximum amount of prompting possible, which is exactly when you DO want to be able to choose tactically. I DO want to control exactly who I try to counterspell, or, if it permits me to know the spell, which spells. That won't always be the same, combat to combat. I won't know until the moment that it happens; that's when I NEED to make that choice. Nothing else will do, for me.

If you take "a few seconds" each time to decide whether you're using a reaction when presented or not, then it's a damn good thing it asked you, because clearly you had to think. If it's a simple question that you don't need to think about, then it will take you less than a quarter of a second to give your answer. Saito's videos demonstrate this wonderfully.


Correction: Every time that a spellcaster cast a spell,
- within range of you (easiest defence against coutnerspell - cast from further away)
- and is also in line of sight
- while you are controlling a spellcaster
- who is the type of spellcaster who has access to counterspell
- and has it prepared that day
- and who has third level spell slots available TO use counterspell
- AND has not used their reaction yet this turn for anything else.

Those are the conditions. AND THEN, for it to be a prompt that happens more than once, there need to be several casters in range of you at the same time, AND they all need to choose to cast spells on that SAME turn, AND all but the last one of them need to cast spells that you personally decide that you DON'T want to counterspell. If all of those conditions are met, then, and only then, do we end up at the perfect storm of being prompted for counterspell multiple times during a single round.... and in that situation, I absolutely do want it to ask me each time, so I can make the tactical decision that is best for the specific situation. I'm not underestimating how littered with spellcasters the early game is so far, and even so, I absolutely want the right to make each choice myself, as I should have. I'm not against there being options for automation for those who want them, and I never have been - but not to the detriment of players having the right to control their own characters and make the tactical decisions for them that they should be able and allowed to make. If your idea contains a setting that is simply "no automation; prompt me for every reaction" and includes as part of that all reaction abilities correctly implemented and working as intended in the game at the end of the day, and it never bothers me again once I've checked that option, then just ignore everything I've said, because I missed that, and that covers my desires perfectly.

Fine. You guys win. As I said originally. Solasta's popups really aren't that bad. I was merely entertaining the idea of presets because the more I looked into them, the better they sounded. I really think it'd be worth it to at least try it, but I seem to be alone in this, so... I'm done. I give up. They're going to do what they want anyway.

I'm sorry that we kinda ganged up on you towards the end there. It's not that your idea is bad at all, it's definitely got potential honestly and it does deserve to be experimented with and iterrated upon (even though I don't believe Larian has even laid eyes on the idea quite honestly) but for me personally, it's not a perfect system, nothing is. But the imperfections of Solasta style reactions suit me more than the imperfections of your preset style.

GM you have done a lot of good for this community and contributed a lot. You should continue to do so if that's where your passion is.

For me, I lost interest in this particular topic after PFH Bard because it became clear nothing of the sort would ever happen. And it's massively disappointing how Reactions are done and how you can waste Bardic Inspiration because you have to use it before the roll.

Other abilities will also suffer, but I've accepted to move on. I enjoy reading others' ideas on the matter.

Something I really like about Solasta system, is how impactful it felt. You are about to be hit BAM, shield. You hit an enemy with pallading, BAM smite using 2nd level. I knew what I am using, why I am using, and what benefit and options I have when using it.

The main benefit of using turn based system, is that actions and their consequences can be highlighted in the way they can't be in a RTwP. I don't understand why Larian uses D&D, turn based combat, and then muddies up combat mechanics as much as they can. Weird percentage chance to hit translation, with vague plusses and minuses. Not showing what we rolled. Reactions are outomated, out of our control, and incredibly unclear.

How is it that same game embraces dice rolls and modifiers to a fault in skill checks and does 180 for combat. Is no one on the team in conversation with one another? Is so one overseeing the project as a whole?

Putting this here as well as it relates.

I agree that the best solution is most likely the Solasta/Composer one on this Megathread. It gives absolute full control to the player, and as Niara had pointed out, reactions only cause prompts when the right conditions are met. It isn't constant or even super frequent.

Also, Reactions done properly actually allow players to PLAY the game during enemy turns instead of always just watching the game play out. Although I still think presets could work, it is as a few said at one point. Presets mean you just watch the combat. Prompts mean you get to participate. So presets, imo, would be a secondary option if for some reason prompts that interrupt would be the primary solution.

Think about it. One of the purposes of Reactions is so that players aren't just sitting there the whole time watching the DM move and act for all his/her minions. Players can actually be more involved even when it's not their turn.

And new players NEED reaction prompts. Otherwise, they won't have a clue what their characters are doing and why. They can't properly strategize with reactions if they are clueless as to how they work. Prompts at least help them work through it.

Yeah, so many reasons for the prompt system.

Full agreement to Niaras last post.

The moment when you get many popups per round is exactly the moment when you want to chose what you do.
You only have one reaction per round and it should matter what you do with it.
It is impossible to create a set of automatic conditions that fit all possible events.
And a good setting for one fight may be bad for another fight.

I also agree with her opinion of the gambit system of FF12 (or DAO or PoE2)
Its good that your chars always do something useful in standart situations and you decide the importent choices yourself.

That is an excellent point!

There's been posts about the relative popularity of BG3's reaction system vs prompts vs other. Searching the BG3 subreddit for "reactions" and selecting the top X threads sorting by Relevance:

Reactions that don't interrupt combat flow - Argues for a QTE-prompt system. Most of the top comments agree with the poster, or suggest permanent instead of QTE prompts. One particular 44-upvote comment says "What's wrong with Solasta popups?" and the top answer to that is "because Paladin Smite" which again, is not a reaction.

Reactions Still the Same - Against auto-reactions. Again, most comments (excluding Paladin's Smite) are in favor of prompts.

Reactions: Meaningful Choices Without Tediousness? - Argues for some type of rework to the reaction system. This one is generally more negative to prompts, with people suggesting other implementations (e.g., presets or "chime in" to tell the system when you want a reaction)

If Bard is playable reactions need to be fixed - Asks for a rework for Bardic reaction abilities if BG3's reaction system stays auto. Top comments agree and/or advocate for prompts, and subcomments advocating for prompts in general have more upvotes.

I was laughing making this but fixing reactions is serious - Consensus that something needs to be changed about the reaction system/ implementation of reactions.

Reaction system... - Advocates for a more Solasta-like reaction system. Top comments...advocate for a prompt/5e reaction system, but acknowledge some worries people might have.

How I would like to see reactions work - Advocates for a 3-way toggle system: prompt / auto / off. The Best Comment argues against a prompt system, but is also incorrect. You wouldn't have a prompt "every single enemy turn. Every spell cast, every move out of effective range, ..." because characters only get 1 reaction per turn, and many enemy actions wouldn't prompt a reaction. E.g., an enemy moves out of sight and shoves an ally to wake them up.

Am I the only one not too bothered about the reaction system - Post in favor of the auto reaction system. Best comment argues for prompts and the subcomment that argues against prompts gets -10 votes. 2nd Best comment argues for more control. 3rd best comment provides example of when the automatic system screwed them over.

Why is everyone angry about the reaction system? - Honestly this person just seems confused. The only reaction they know of is AoO. Comments are mixed because the OP is more asking a question, but people again want more control.

Alternative thoughts on the reaction system and the real system in need of improvement - The OP is against constant prompts and asks why people want the reaction system changed - to match 5e RAW or because it doesn't work in BG3? They don't want too complex of a reaction system. Top-level Comments want more control with counterspell, want more control, and generally are in favor of prompts. In a reply to a top-level comment, OP even concedes that certain things "like smite and counterspell" can agree with having more options.

So it seems like people on the BG3 subreddit are definitely in favor of a prompt reaction system. They are overwhelmingly in favor of some other reaction system than what is in BG3 now.

Sigh.

Regarding your conclusion, take this one for instance. First, the upvotes for the comment itself are high. Second, the "top" comment specifically says it doesn't bother them, but they'd be okay with having smite and uncanny dodge. I hardly call that an endorsement.

And next: count the number of comments and votes. Now compare that to the number of people actually playing the game. The number of people who don't feel the need to complain about it. Likely because they're enjoying it just fine.

C'mon, man. "Doesn't bother me" is not "I prefer," and that commenter specifically says they want a Solasta system for smite, uncanny dodge, etc and that such a system would make the game play more interesting.

Sure, that post has 171 upvotes. But the first post I link has 727, the second has 152, the third has 96, and all of those are against the current system.

And sure, the number of upvotes and number of comments doesn't equal the number of EA players. But the number of upvotes in these posts, even if we assume a large fraction of repeat posters, at least is a few hundred which is a perfectly fine sample size

Rections are a core part of 5E turn-based play. As implemented they are awfully shallow and remove a great deal of player agency. As suggsted by others - if people really don't want them, put in an auto-reaction option (with some toggles as they have now) and they can have their shallow implementation. I want actual 5E reactions ...in my 5E game. I just wish Larian would say something about how they plan to address this issue.

Yep.
You have just to read the thread to spot that even among the ones agreeing that "they aren't TOO bothered by it" the predominant sentiment remains "BUT I'd still prefer the current system to change".

Larian's New community manager made a post on the forum saying they're still working on Reactions, but are keeping it silent for now.

This is similar to what Swen said over a year ago, but at least it's confirmation that they're trying to make their janky engine support 5e mechanics. It is worrying that over a year of working on this and they don't have something ready to present yet.

2y EA anniversary is October 6th, I think. We will see.

Honestly, if they need more time beyond 2023 to guarantee PROPER system, I'd be fine with that.

I read carefully this very long thread

I feel you need to consider the aim of the game is to port dnd to a video game format while making it accessible and flow well.

Solasta system with reaction is faithful to the rules but not accessible and poor in terms of flow (let's face it sometime I would even rather avoid an encounter becaus EOF the clunkiness). Also consider if MP would be twice as many pop up (prepare to refuse caster to your party).

Because DM are the reason why reactions work in dnd, the only practical solution imo are presetted readied action. I posted overwatch as a well known tactical RPG example but then it would always be an imperfect solution (e.g. shot the first enemy in my line of sight vs. shot that goblin with low hp if it enters my line of sight and ignore the others)

Considering Larian they would (and should) favour accessible contents to 100% implementation.

If you could target the goblins with slow HP when you use your overwatch (to use the same exemple) it would already be a way better solution.

I agree with you, presseted readied actions is the only practical solution. With the possibility to auto target all (ON), auto target none (OFF) and to manually target, it would be the best compromise.

As Varangian said in another thread they could also rework some spells to ease their use as reactions and couple this with an easy manual targetting system.

Exemple :
- Counterspell could just be "a permanent buff" on the caster that remains until it trigger. Trigger the first time an ennemy (you've eventually manually targeted) cast a level 3+

- Feather fall could also become "a permanent buff" on all allies after a character cast it which would be used once per characters when it suit the situation.

I disagree. Counterspell is much more complicated than that. There are MANY level 3+ spells that would completely waste Counterspell. The Presets would need to be more in depth or you could waste Counterspell on something like Beacon of Hope. Remember, it counters ANY spell, not just attack wizard spells like Fireball.

It is more complicated in DnD but it doesnt have to be in BG3.

This was just an exemple. It could only trigger against level 3+ offensive spells, or something else

On / off / target why not ...

Well, if you read the entire thread you probably know you aren't making exactly a new point.
I also happen to disagree with both your premise ("the game needs to be as accessible as possible") and the conclusion you draw from it ("so no reactions").

Not even just that, I happen to disagree with the implied claim in your premise that having a good reaction system would make the game less accessible.