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

Yes. It can be frustrating when you expect to attack one enemy, but a different one triggers overwatch.

But that is also QUITE different from triggering on AOO and triggering on Counterspell. Apples and oranges, Max.

Using Xcom as an example, it would be the difference between using overwatch to fire at an enemy running past you versus stopping an enemy about to fire a missile at you.

Counterspell is an overwatch that allows you to stop powerful enemy attacks. If my character attacks a baby enemy as he is running past me instead of stopping an enemy from firing high powered missiles, I'm going to be upset.

Same is true if my character overwatches and stops an enemy from doing a low powered single target attack as opposed to a high powered area effect attack.

You don't expect what you cannot choose to do... The only thing you can eventually do is looking at the initiative order and "try to imagine how things are going to go".
Overwatch doesn't allow me to target the ennemy that's about to fire a missile and it's perfectly fine.

Larian doesn't absolutely have to use every words of the PHB to implement reactions.
It could be different and still be valuable tactical option to use in BG3... just as overwatch is a valuable tactical option in Xcom even if the rules doesn't allow you a full control over "when and who".

I'm not comparing overwatch and counterspell at all, I'm just giving exemples.
Tactical turn based games doesn't absolutely need a faithfull DnD 5e reaction system to be fun and to allow our characters to react during the ennemies turns. Especially if it means "chopping up" the turn based combats even more.

I agree with you Maxximus. Overwatch is a must have preset reaction. But for counterspell (if that is implemented) they would probably have to implement it to trigger for every spell above level 5 or something. Unless someone got a solution less clunky than the solasta pop up system.

Still I d rather see them implement what they can first

I totally agree with you that BG3 doesn't need to be absolutely faithful to D&D 5e reaction system. If I felt that way, I wouldn't be considering presets at all. If you want a full and true absolute D&D 5e implementation of reactions, the prompt/popup system is the only way to go. It's the equivalent of a DM saying, "This goblin just ran past you. Do you want to do AOO?" to new players who have absolutely no idea that they should interrupt the DM and say, "Hey! That guy ran past me. I want to use my reaction to do AOO."

So, let me rephrase what I'm saying. I'm good with presets as long as presets are not as simple as "On/Off" or even just as simple as "Target These Specific Enemies." What I'm saying is, "If Larian is going to use presets for reactions for BG3, those presets need to be at least specific enough that players will not get pissed off because the automatic preset system screwed them over. AND... some reactions may still need a prompt to make that work, but the preset would help to cut down on the frequency of the prompts. This doesn't have to be an ALL PROMPTS or ALL PRESETS system. It could be a blend of both."

Let's use a different example since people seem to be hung up on me using Uncanny Dodge a lot or Counterspell. AOO. Simple presets would take care of most of them. Preset options are: All Enemies/ Selected Targets/ Off. For this one, you either have it trigger like Overwatch in Xcom where the first person to exit melee combat without using Disengage triggers your AOO or you have selected targets. This is similar to what you are basically saying. Yes? I'm good with this approach for AOO. Makes sense and it wouldn't even need prompts. You either set it for All Enemies and it works like Xcom Overwatch, or Selected Targets it works like Xcom Overwatch only for the targets you selected. Or you turn it off if you don't want it to trigger your reaction at all (like if you want to save reaction for a spell for your mage).

BUT... what about Absorb Elements. This exact same preset approach wouldn't work as well with this spell. Why? Because I may already be Fire Resistant (like if I'm a tiefling), so I may not want ALL elemental damage types to be triggered. If an enemy uses a fiery attack on me - let's say grease + fire arrow creates fiery explosion - my tiefling is already resistant. I wouldn't necessarily want to waste my spell slot on resisting fire damage.

Therefore, for Absorb Elements, the best preset solution would be something more like this: All Types/ Selected Damage Types/ Max Damage Potential > X (you set the value)/ Selected Damage Types AND Max Damage Potential > X (you set the value)/ Off. OR... at the very least, All Types/ Selected Damage Types/ Off.

In this way, with the fire resistant tiefling character, you could set your preset so that the reaction is only triggered on Acid, Cold, Lightning and Thunder (basically excluding fire). Or let's say you pick up a robe that protects you against cold. You could then set your preset to Acid, Lightning and Thunder (excluding fire and cold).

As for Max Damage Potential, the concept is that if I'm going to get hit by an ice attack that can do something like 12d10 damage, I might want to Absorb Elements, but if I'm hit by a 1d10 damage ice attack, I might not want to waste my spell slot. So, allow me to set a preset that says, "Ignore the baby Frostbite or Ray of Frost spells, but if I'm hit by Cone of Cold... YES PLEASE!!!"

And finally, what I'm saying is that for those people who want prompts all the time, allow the system to do that. Besides the presets mentioned above, add an option to turn on prompts. So, if they want to be prompted all the time, they can set all their presets to All Enemies and Prompt On. In that way, they can have combat interrupted every time any enemy triggers any of their potential reactions. But for those who want to rely on the presets alone, turn Prompt Off but set your presets to whatever you want. OR, for people like me, let me turn on something like "Selected Damage Types" AND "Prompt On" so that only if a selected damage type hits my mage will a prompt appear to ask me if I want to cast Absorb Elements. So, in my fire resistant tiefling example, if my tiefling was hit by a fire attack, no prompt. If hit by an ice attack, prompt appears and asks me if I want to use it.

100% agree that the prompts should only trigger when a reaction is actually viable.

It looks like Solasta must have hardcoded not allowing 2x level spells per turn, which is actually an error in rules implementation as there's no rule against that.

In Tabletop you can cast 2x levelled spells per turn. The casting limitation rule applies when you've used a Bonus Action to cast - i.e. once you've bonus action casted a levelled spell, you can't cast anything BUT an action cantrip that turn. But if you have a legit way to cast 2 levelled spells - i.e. via reaction or action surge, you totally can do it.


I would say, I'd be 150% okay for Larian to adjust some reactions so they pop-up less. I.e. a Diviner's Portent per the rules would be insanely disruptive since it's applicable on every single roll, friend or foe.

Sure, but did you?
Because my point, in the end, was that Chess is NOT Checkers. Which is why expectations are different. As they should be.

This heads into the territory of: "If Larian changed ALL the reaction abilities (including Smite, etc) to work differently - having different effects, duration, trigger, and/or resource cost - and these changed abilities were designed & balanced for whatever reaction system BG3 had, then things would be fine." Which, I mean, yeah practically by definition.

However, "if these changed abilities were designed & balanced for BG3's reaction framework" is a big IF. Given how many of Larian's initial designs decisions are just completely unbalanced/OP (Backstab & High Ground Advantage, Sneak exploitation, cantrip surfaces, throw/shove, etc) my hopes for robust, fun, & balanced new reactions designed for an automatic-use system is...not high. Though, BG3's implementation of Cutting Words is moving in the right direction imo, if Larian isn't going to implement prompts.

Also, yes in this case Larian would be changing something that is currently not broken. So if their modifications resulted in a worse experience, that'd be entirely on them.

I also agree with that.

In the end it is mostly a matter of time (and head-aches) for Larian to develop this. Imo it would make sense for them to do it if it is usable for the wider audience. As such starting with an on / off overwatch concept to slowly implement an on/ off / targetted depending on the spell would be a big win for everyone.

Yes, a matter of time (and headaches), but based on the overwhelming number of Reactions posts, it is VITAL to the overall game that they get this right. So yes, it's a headache, but if they screw this up, they will literally ruin the game for a lot of people.

Too many popups/prompts will drive people who hate them away from the game.

Too few popups/prompts will drive people who want them away from the game.

There must be balance between the two. It may be a headache to develop this, but it will be 100% worth it in the end. The more intelligent they make it, the better the end result will be. Slap a bandaid on it, and people are going to throw in the towel and blow fuses.

I'm telling you, if I don't have a decent working Counterspell in this game, the first time an enemy successfully blows up my party with a bottle of grease and a Fireball, I'm going to blow a fuse if it's because the game had me cast Counterspell on something stupid like Beacon of Hope OR I'm not able to cast Counterspell because my mage used Shield against an enemy who only deals 5 damage on average. I'd MUCH more prefer an absolute prompt system like Solasta than have any of those scenarios occur because of some poorly executed presets/automation.

That's exactly what I said.

=> I'm all for the "very least" => All types / selected damage types / Off.
It would only require to couple 2 systems : toggles and the variation UI element already used for spells like hex. You've seen an idea of what I'm thinking about in PM.

In my opinion the TT game is too complex to be faithfully translated into a video game.
There are too many rules, too many specific conditions, to many things to think about, to many things you "might want to do". In other words : too many possibilities and things to think about.
You cannot ask players to go into a deep management of various conditions.

In my opinion toggles + variation would be a good compromise.

Additionnal exemple for the AOO : I choose my target when I want to during my turn and I turn the sneak / smite attack toggle ON/OFF for my presetted AOO.
Absord element is not in the PHB, but it would work to toggle the different type of damage you want a resistance on.

Reactions that could not be handled very easily could become active skills.

=> A lot of things could also become something like Cutting Words => You cast during your turn but that is activated and that consume your reaction when the conditions have been triggered.
It's not a problem if the spells or class features are a bit improved or downgraded to compensate the lack of "total" control (and prompts). Just like Cutting Words.

Using an action or a bonus action is something everyone can do. Everyone would be able to use a ressource call "reaction" during its turn.
Use the very welcomed variation UI for spells like Hex and eventually use a few toggles is something that is already teached.

- it would make us use the UI in a way we already know.
- it would make Larian use mechanics that are already implemented in the game
- it would give us a decent level of control.
- it would give us additionnal active skills to use during our turns.
- it would make the ennemies turns look a lot more real time
(Most players in this thread have asked for different animations if an attack is dodged by dexterity or absorbed by armors/shield. I can believe that Tuco would not like to see our characters react live in real time during the ennemies turns but I guess it would be appealing to see for a lot of players).

That's the best solution in my opinion at this point.
You know how much love I have for Solasta but I have better expectations for BG3's combats flow.

I can confidently disagree as reactions is something I criticised in my first BG3 feedback and it was before I played Solasta, or learned how reactions work in Table Top. Then I played Solasta and couldn’t understand why Larian wouldn’t do reactions that way - alongside concentration reactions seemed like most interesting changes in 5e.

Yes Solasta is clunky and doesn’t look AAA but that’s presentation problem, not system problem. Blizzard made fortune on a card game - it’s presentation that matters in a AAA game, not systems. I brought before XCOM: Chimera Squad’s breach mechanic - you can make anything look cool with enough budget, even a prompt asking if you want to smack someone over a head or not. It is not that different from how BG3 plays already anyway.

The idea that somehow giving player control over reactions moves the title into super niche and hardcore territory is ridiculous. So what that s is a mechanic that XCOM doesn’t have - surely that’s a selling point, not a downside.

Edit: I am not against all changes - I didn’t know how 5e bard works, as he is not in Solasta yet. In my current playthrough I didn’t mind Cutting Words at all (I hear it has been changed as well),it was satisfying to use, and I found it useful - Barding inspiration is awful though. it is just not fun to use - difficult to utilise and with poor feedback. Something needs to change, and am glad to hear that Larian is working on something, whatever it may be.

I wouldn't want Bardic Inspiration to be a prompt because it could activate multiple times per turn, and then even more times per round. Same reason I don't want Smite to be a prompt, basically.

Maybe Bardic Inspiration could be changed to work more like Cutting Words, granting a 1d6 bonus to *all* attack rolls, STs, and ability checks until the start of the bard's next turn, at least while in combat. Outside of combat, it'd be more acceptable to only apply to the next roll.

Alternatively, maybe BI could apply 1d6 to the next attack roll, ability check, or ST that would otherwise fail by 6 or less..? That way, it's only used on cases where it could actually change the outcome.

Ok. Maybe I just read it wrong. Sounded to me like you wanted a too simple reaction preset approach. All good on this front. Id like to at least test it.

I may be wrong because I haven't played Chimera Squad but from what I just watched I just don't get how you'd like this to be implemented...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but breach is a (unique?) specific phase that allows you to choose -after your characters have started to move for the first time- which ennemies you're gonna use your attack (or other skills I guess) on...
It happen once at the beginning of combats.

It definitely look awesome. I'll have to give it a try but we're not talking about a ressource you can only spend once / round among multiple possibilities depending various conditions and all ennemies actions/moves.
The answer is never "no"... It looks more like playing your actions "during your turn" than reacting to ennemies actions with spells and class features that may trigger under tons of conditions.

If I understand correctly I think it would be boring more than engaging. It would happen way too often and most important, it would even happen when players would like to say "no".
Like if this breach thing happen in Xcom, I have everyone's point of view, but then I just say "no, don't do anything"... It's just a waste of time.

Giving control over reactions isn't super niche. Showing pops-up (or "super beautifull viewpoint that puts you right in the middle of the action") that interrupt the ennemies turns constantly to only let the player answer "yes / no" again and again is according to me.

Agree for bardic inspiration. I guess it would be better as an active skills with variations than as an active skill that leads to toggle management on another character.

it would be actually really cool if the prompt was an animation in the crit camera like you said, and you can slowly raise your shield and block the spell or let the spell hit you. that doesnt sound possible lol but it would be sick.

Speaking of minor compromises to decrease frequency of prompts, talking with a friend made me think that I probably wouldn't mind too much if some reactions were triggered only under the condition of their impact being meaningful.

Example: Shield. Instead of being prompted to use it as soon as targeted by an attack, being prompted only when that +5 to AC would save you from the attack roll that enemy just made.

Not a MASSIVE difference all things considered, but hey.

OK. Seriously. Just got done playing another Solasta fight - Level 10 characters: Paladin, Barbarian, Sorcerer and Druid. I also had Arwin Merton in the party (so basically like a Halsin kind of companion who is only temporarily in the party. He's a fighter with 2 weapon fighting). Tough battle against Soraks including a legendary one.

Number of rounds: 6

Number of reaction popups (excluding Paladin popups during the paladin's regular turn which Larian could manage those types of Smite attacks just like Battlemaster Maneuvers, so they don't count): 2 (both AOOs, and the Paladin's Smite was included in the same AOO popup, so it was 1 popup for both AOO and Smite for the Paladin)

There was also an enemy mage on the battlefield, but I killed him pretty quickly. If I hadn't, he might have triggered Counterspell reaction a few times... maybe...

Conclusion: Although popups COULD get a bit disruptive IF the circumstance line up just right, in Solasta they aren't very disruptive. 2 reaction popups in 6 rounds with a party of 5 (including Arwin) and roughly 10-12 enemies including 1 mage and 1 legendary is not bad at all.

I'm back to leaning towards Camp Prompts and less towards Camp Presets.

I mean, I think it was Niara that already made the point few pages back, but just to reiterate:

Even assuming the worst case scenario, that particular circumstance when several prompts COULD happen in rapid succession is arguably also the one when I’d be the most willing to assume direct control of what’s going on rather than relying on automation.

That's how it works in Solasta and tabletop**, so hopefully that's how such a prompt would be implemented in BG3.

**Technically the trigger is "when you're hit by an attack," but most DMs in my experience call out the to-hit roll, e.g., asking "Does a 21 hit?", so the players always knows whether Shield would prevent said attack.

Here's another Solasta example (this time with Counterspell):

Round 1: Enemies swarm my druid. I send my paladin and barbarian to help her, and my sorcerer doesn't use spells but attacks with two magic daggers because these seem like baby bad guys. Suddenly, I discover there's a wizard amidst the enemies towards the back of the room when the wizard casts Shatter spell and hits not only his own guys but my druid, paladin and barbarian. Dang! He was beyond Counterspell range. No popups.

Rounds 2-3: I made sure to get my mage closer to the enemy mage and launched Fire Bolt at him to avoid using spells. The rest of my party continued to focus on the minions. Enemy mage cast spells but I failed the Arcana roll and didn't know what was being cast. 2 Reaction Popups, 1 each turn asking if I wanted to Counterspell the unknown spell. Heck yes! I'm a level 10 mage at this point, and I'm nearing the end of the game. I have enough spell slots. I can handle countering and this guy might be tough. Who know what else is coming after this fight? I can't let him weaken my team too much. So, two popups and two yeses. Again, Niara was correct. It was 1 popup per round, but I wanted it because I didn't know what the spell was that he was casting, and I wasn't sure at all if I wanted to counter it.

Round 4: I didn't counter the spell this time after taking out all the other enemies and my party was able to spread out a bit. He cast fly. So, a 3rd popup, I still failed Arcana and didn't know what he was casting (bad luck because she has good Arcana), and although he could have maybe fireballed me or something, I decided to risk it. I was glad I didn't counter it because it was just fly.

So, in the end, the prompts were not just a good thing. They were essential to how the combat turned out. BUT... I was thinking about presets for Counterspell. They could still work, but not if you implement the failed Arcana roll system. If you don't know the spell that is being cast, there is literally no way to preset Counterspell. They'd have to negate the roll altogether and allow your characters to simply know what the spell is that the enemy is casting. IMO, not a big deal. Then you'd have to make sure you have a set spell list that triggers Counterspell.

I am again on the fence and sliding back and forth between presets and prompts, and I still think a blending is going to be the best solution after the Counterspell fight. Larian LIKES magic and spellcasters. In Solasta, they don't typically have a bunch of spellcasters in a single fight - like maybe 1 per fight. But I'm thinking about the goblin camp fight with 30 goblins and the grove fight with 30 goblins and the duergar fight with over a dozen duergar. How many of them cast spells of some kind? It could get VERY prompt heavy. Even 1 mage and 1 cleric is likely 2 prompts per round just for Counterspell. Add Uncanny Dodge any time the rogue is hit and Shield (this happened with my paladin in a few fights - Shield reaction popups and I often said No because he's a tank already. Didn't want to waste a spell slot. So any time he was actually hit I got a prompt for Shield), and Bard reactions... yeah. It could get pretty bogged down depending on the party, the enemies you're fighting, and what reaction spells etc. that you've picked.

So, I'm back to the Blending of the Two solution.