Larian Studios
I would have liked to do this poll on Reddit instead, but polls are disabled in the BG3 subreddit for some reason, and seemingly have been for quite some time. So, next best thing.

I will specify that the options will assume that we will run into all of the various flaws of both systems. It's also why there won't be a neutral 'I don't mind/other' option, as it is far more useful to gauge what system people would prefer, even assuming we frequently run into the perceived worst aspects of both systems. We can argue all day about how each system may be theoretically implemented/improved or whatever hybrid systems may exist, but this is only meant as an exercise in finding out what the majority of the community here would prefer in the absence of such suggestions.

EDIT: Guess I need to add this in here.

I only put the absolute extremes here only to gauge which extreme people would prefer if it ever came down to that. Of course everyone wants something in the middle, but even something such as this would be useful for gauging exactly where that middle point should be. There is a big difference between the following two 'middle ground' concepts:

- Design for full automation first, with options for prompts afterwards.
- Design for full prompts first, with options for automation afterwards.

There are certain implications with either approach. The first approach has an implication that certain abilities may be designed and implemented based on ease of automation foremost, with options to control how they are used through prompts later. The second approach has an implication that certain abilities may be implemented in ways much closer to their tabletop versions, with options for automation to reduce the frequency of prompts in situations that players may find redundant later.

We already have dozens of other threads for specific middle ground suggestions, the purpose of this poll wasn't to create yet another one. (Plus I already knew the poll would be absolutely pointless if I put such an 'other' option in there, because we can't even agree on what a middle ground should even LOOK like to begin with, AND we all know that option would win with how insanely broad it would be. Evidently the replies here have already validated the decision to leave it out.)
Oh, yet another reaction post, this will surely move the debate forward /s.

I would like the option where I'm not being spammed by mandatory popups like Windows Vista every time I tried to do a modification on my system, thank you very much.
I can't vote because I don't want either extreme as such.

Current system clearly doesn't work because you have no control over what happens. Prompting for everything will be extremely tedious.

I would first see which "reactive" abilities could be changed into active abilities while maintaining their function. E.g. Shield > BA with 1 minute duration or Paladin's Smite > Free Action, discharge on next hit. Then I would see how many reactions are left and which system would work best for them.
Can't vote cause there aren't any "other" option.
I don't like the current system at all but I would like something different than the Solasta system in BG3 (and related).
Like I said, I only put the absolute extremes up there only to gauge which extreme people would prefer if it ever came down to that. Of course everyone wants something in the middle, but even something such as this would be useful for gauging exactly where that middle point should be. (Plus I already knew the poll would be absolutely pointless if I put such an 'other' option in there, because we can't even agree on what a middle ground should even LOOK like to begin with, AND we all know that option would win with how insanely broad that option would be. Evidently the replies here have already validated the decision to leave it out.)

We already have dozens of other threads for middle ground suggestions, the purpose of this poll wasn't to create yet another one.
Assuming one extreme or the other, and assuming that we will still need to come up against and deal with the downsides of either option, regardless, then within the scope of this question I definitely would prefer to be prompted for reelevant reactions, and to thus have the ability to accurately control and make choices for my characters in combat, and so that is my vote ^.^
I voted the prompted Solasta version from the two choices , since I want more control over my reactions.
I mean, it’s an easy pick if you really understand the implications.

A “prompt system” could *still* be automated with toggles for those who don’t want to deal with it.

Conversely an intrinsically automated solution couldn’t offer the granularity and control of the former no matter what.

But even going with an absurd scenario where you have to deal with all the downsides of one method or the other I would still vote for prompts. They are called reactions because you’re supposed to be able to REACT to things as they happen, after all.
Originally Posted by snowram
Oh, yet another reaction post, this will surely move the debate forward /s.
It’s not meant “ to move the discussion forward” but as a recap of where people here currently stand.

You’d be more aware of it if your contributions to this forum consisted in anything more than a reply every blue moon just to scoff at people.
Easy choice ... full control. :3
Between the two options my choice was clear... I'd prefer prompts. Prompts allow for greater control and, like Tuco said, it would still be possible to have an option for automated reactions if a player don't want to be interrupted/bother with reactions.
I'll just add that I've never missed reactions in previous D&D games that use older rulesets. BG1, BG2, NWN... I'm not convinced reactions are needed in the first place. And they seems to be VERY difficult to implement properly in a CRPG, even a turn based one. Something for designers of 5.5 / 6e to think about for sure. I think it's pretty obvious there needs to be less reactions overall if they are to remain. And less spells requiring concentration.
I never missed music in my video games, when I had only played video games without it; does that mean that we're better off without music in our games? No, it doesn't.

I didn't miss the reaction system in NWN or NWN2 - no-one did. Because it didn't exist yet, so it was literally impossible to miss it. Does that mean that we should go back to not having options that can occur outside of our own turns? No, it doesn't.

Cinematic cutscenes are not 'needed'; music is not 'needed'; colour graphics are not 'needed'; more than one class is not 'needed'... so no, technically (and an empty, meaningless statement) a proper reaction system is not 'needed' - but much like colour graphics, multiple class options and good music direction, it makes for a better and more enjoyable game if it is included in a turn-based game (which NWN etc., were not - so of course it would not have been appropriate for them).

Originally Posted by 1varangian
I think it's pretty obvious there needs to be less reactions overall if they are to remain. And less spells requiring concentration.

You thought wrong! If it were 'pretty obvious' there wouldn't be so much discussion, or so many staunch defenders. So, clearly, it's not an obvious truth, like, at all, even remotely. It's an opinion you have - and it's one that very few people seem to genuinely share.
I, like some others, would like a blend of the two extremes, but if one or the other I would pick prompts.

I still think the preset/toggles could cut down on the need for frequent prompts, allowing players to set their own preferences.
Easy choice - of course Solasta could use some streamlining and better presentation and implementation, but out of the two the downsides of popups are minor in comparison to issues that come will full automation.
As with most things Larian changed, they should have started by iterating on 5e and its design/intentions, rather than changing chunks wholesale. 5e isn't perfect, neither is Solasta. But Larian could have iterated and polished things to create an improved version of 5e, rather than making numerous clumsy changes that end up having knock-on effects which require more changes or just generally end up leaving stuff broken. Do people who are against the Solasta method really think that it's the ultimate version of that approach and thus cannot be altered or changed to be more palatable or have more flow? If Larian is good enough to be given this license, they should be good enough to improve on the reaction system, rather than just replacing it wholesale and altering everything connected to it. Furthermore, 5e has its flaws, and there are folk around here who understand that far better than me, but surely they aren't so great that talented devs couldn't improve them, rather than just replacing them outright, seemingly without a lot of initial thought as to what the effects of it on overall balance will be.
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I'll just add that I've never missed reactions in previous D&D games that use older rulesets. BG1, BG2, NWN...

Yeah, well, no shit. They weren't turn-based games to begin with and reactions weren't a thing in that system.
The equivalent of a "Counterspell" back then was interrupting a caster in real time with a physical attack or something like a Magic Missile.

Quote
And less spells requiring concentration.

Concentration is something that exists with a very deliberate design purpose: to prevent "pre-buff stockpiling" from becoming a thing.
Like in Buff Finder: Buffmaker and Wrath of the Buffer.

"Bounded accuracy" is a thing for a reason: https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Bounded_accuracy
Originally Posted by 1varangian
And less spells requiring concentration.
Agree! Druids have too many concentration spells!

For reactions I am not sure if I would like pop-ups or not. I am fine with BG3’s current system, though.
hmm, If I have to choose between having reactions and not being able to automate them and a completely automated system, then I choose the automated system. I play these kinds of games first for story/role-playing, and second for a combat simulator. Being bogged down by even a minor fight isn't fun for me.

That said, ideally, options would be there, and people can choose what they want.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Like I said, I only put the absolute extremes up there only to gauge which extreme people would prefer if it ever came down to that. Of course everyone wants something in the middle, but even something such as this would be useful for gauging exactly where that middle point should be. (Plus I already knew the poll would be absolutely pointless if I put such an 'other' option in there, because we can't even agree on what a middle ground should even LOOK like to begin with, AND we all know that option would win with how insanely broad that option would be. Evidently the replies here have already validated the decision to leave it out.)

We already have dozens of other threads for middle ground suggestions, the purpose of this poll wasn't to create yet another one.

Thank you for clarifying things but as I said, I personnaly cannot vote if there's nothing in the middle.

The current system is absolutely a waste.

The DnD reaction system is absolutely awesome and a good implementation could radically change and improve turn based games for decades.
But the main drawback of the turn based system is the flow of combats and as proven by Solasta, it is even worse with prompts.

I don't want a better flow with no control aver reactions and I don't want a full control with a bad flows.
I want a reaction system that gives us "enough" control AND that improve the flow of combats / ennemies turns.

That's my hope for BG3 so both options are bad options to me.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I'll just add that I've never missed reactions in previous D&D games that use older rulesets. BG1, BG2, NWN...

Yeah, well, no shit. They weren't turn-based games to begin with and reactions weren't a thing in that system.
The equivalent of a "Counterspell" back then was interrupting a caster in real time with a physical attack or something like a Magic Missile.

Quote
And less spells requiring concentration.

Concentration is something that exists with a very deliberate design purpose: to prevent "pre-buff stockpiling" from becoming a thing.
Like in Buff Finder: Buffmaker and Wrath of the Buffer.

"Bounded accuracy" is a thing for a reason: https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Bounded_accuracy
I'm just saying I won't play the violin if Larian decides to get rid of Reactions. It seems to be more trouble than it's worth in a video game. Many Reactions could be changed into active abilities that more or less do the same thing.

I like the principle of Concentration but too many Cleric spells require it. Sometimes it feels like you can't cast anything if you have an active concentration spell. It's good at stopping the buffing galore 3.x suffered from, but they took it a bit too far.
Easy choice: definitely the Solasta way over the current BG3 way.

The issue of concentration-based spells that's come up here is a very interesting topic to me. I truly don't get why there are so many of them within every spellcasting type (wizard, sorc, cleric, ranger, paladin, druid). I understand this is actually a 5e issue and not a BG3 issue, but nevertheless I don't get the point of having so many spells available to your character that are concentration-based. In Solasta as well as in my TT D&D games I only bother to take 2-3 of them per spellcasting character.
Solasta-style reaction system out of those two options.

But if some reactions could be handled automatically or toggled on/off, that would be a plus.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by snowram
Oh, yet another reaction post, this will surely move the debate forward /s.
It’s not meant “ to move the discussion forward” but as a recap of where people here currently stand.

You’d be more aware of it if your contributions to this forum consisted in anything more than a reply every blue moon just to scoff at people.

There is already a ~25 pages topic on this subject. It has been discussed to no end on Reddit and on the Steam forums. Larian even acknowledged it. I find it fair to said that this topic is redundant (and your posts only incite for an ad hominem response most of the time).
I will always choose full control.
Originally Posted by snowram
There is already a ~25 pages topic on this subject. It has been discussed to no end on Reddit and on the Steam forums. Larian even acknowledged it. I find it fair to said that this topic is redundant (and your posts only incite for an ad hominem response most of the time).

I will admit that this thread only really exists to clear the air and get some kind of headcount on where people stand on this issue. There was a spat in a different thread where people were claiming that the majority preferred one side or the other, which necessitated this.

If you still think something like this is redundant, this poll was not meant for you to begin with. It's actual hard data for Larian to look at.
Originally Posted by snowram
There is already a ~25 pages topic on this subject. It has been discussed to no end on Reddit and on the Steam forums. Larian even acknowledged it. I find it fair to said that this topic is redundant (and your posts only incite for an ad hominem response most of the time).
You are not listening. I just told you that this thread exists entirely in reaction to another discussion where people were wondering what the "split" looks like in this community.
There was no intent to "tread new ground" whatsoever.


And what you are describing as a "ad hominem" I describe as "Calling you out for your (surprisingly consistent) recurring behavior".
Prompt. Because why not.

Although…I kinda think it is a fun challenge to anticipate what could happen and set a reaction up in round one to go off for in round two. You can get a sense of who is moving tactically to attack you, decide if they are enough of a threat to warrant a reaxtion, and set up an autocounterattack when they do attack you…with the chance you may lose it if no one takes the bait.

I did that with Will alot using Hellous Rebuke and it was satisfying when it worked out, frustrating when it did not. I enjoyed it tbh.
Between the two extremes choosing the Solasta option is my preference.
I also want a prompt that reads "Are you sure you want to BREAK CONCENTRATION on this spell to cast another CONCENTRATION spell?"

Yeah... I voted for Solasta, prompts are just helpful.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by snowram
There is already a ~25 pages topic on this subject. It has been discussed to no end on Reddit and on the Steam forums. Larian even acknowledged it. I find it fair to said that this topic is redundant (and your posts only incite for an ad hominem response most of the time).

I will admit that this thread only really exists to clear the air and get some kind of headcount on where people stand on this issue. There was a spat in a different thread where people were claiming that the majority preferred one side or the other, which necessitated this.

If you still think something like this is redundant, this poll was not meant for you to begin with. It's actual hard data for Larian to look at.

I command the effort but a poll is pretty much a vain effort, since automatic reactions is an objective flaw of BG3. The fact that Larian themselves commented on the issue proves that it isn't meant to stay that way. In my opinion, the real problem here is Larian communication, which is maintaining the mystery about what the feature will look like later and letting mega-threads grow without a hint for the community.
I want a full screen animated quick time event that pauses until you decide how to resolve the reaction and then action resumes accordingly. laugh You could clean up some clutter on the ui panels this way, this isn't an mmo afterall. In fairness I like the progressive changes over time, ui is a lot easier to navigate like the spell level toggles etc, full screen inventory button etc. I've been playing the game with 3rd party mods that allow more spells, feats and level 6 and it's been interesting.
Originally Posted by NinthPlane
I also want a prompt that reads "Are you sure you want to BREAK CONCENTRATION on this spell to cast another CONCENTRATION spell?"
+1
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by NinthPlane
I also want a prompt that reads "Are you sure you want to BREAK CONCENTRATION on this spell to cast another CONCENTRATION spell?"
+1

That would be a nice prompt laugh
Originally Posted by L07D_Gn4$h37
I want a full screen animated quick time event that pauses until you decide how to resolve the reaction and then action resumes accordingly. laugh
Ugh no. Please no. Full screen?

Imagine it.

Level 6 rogue hit by goblin 1. Full screen animated qte. Uncanny dodge? Nah. Goblin only does like 8 damage. Pass. Goblin 2 hits. Same thing. Goblin 3 hits. Same thing. Minthara hits. Same thing. Giant spider hits. Hmmm... maybe I should finally use it. Okay.

Now add a few more reactions to that if your mage knows Counterspell or Shield or Absorb Elements... plus AOO triggers...

Yeah. No thanks. A small unobtrusive prompt would be better, and maybe some presets to cut down on prompt frequency please. Like a preset that Uncanny Dodge would only trigger a prompt if an enemy does more than 10 damage and Counterspell only triggers a prompt for select spells you choose.
Fullscreen dont bother me ... since the game wouldnt continue without our reaction there wouldnt be much to look at anyway.

Quick time event does ... a lot actually ...
This isnt action RPG ... its turn based ... whole game is build on premise that EVERYTHING will wait for player ...
And that premise should IMHO remain intact.

As for that uncany dodge you like so much ...
I would preffer the style Maximuuus suggested ... player would have option to set at the start of every battle wich enemies should be ignored if opourtunity for reaction occurs ...
Yes i know its a little more tedious ... but at least you wouldnt be cheating.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by snowram
There is already a ~25 pages topic on this subject. It has been discussed to no end on Reddit and on the Steam forums. Larian even acknowledged it. I find it fair to said that this topic is redundant (and your posts only incite for an ad hominem response most of the time).

I will admit that this thread only really exists to clear the air and get some kind of headcount on where people stand on this issue. There was a spat in a different thread where people were claiming that the majority preferred one side or the other, which necessitated this.

If you still think something like this is redundant, this poll was not meant for you to begin with. It's actual hard data for Larian to look at.

I chose to leave it as is, because of the two, that's the better choice, since I would prefer something different, and decided to vote anyway. An option for "Other" would have been preferrable, even as hard data for Larian, because it would indicate that there are more than two sides to this debate, even if what that "Other" option should be isn't ironed out. They can then peruse the myriad of threads to find the most consistent types of feedback and go with that as a template. As it is, this poll is more self-serving than useful, since it's essentially limited to "You are either with us, or against us"...
Again, the vote on the extremes is more or less a headcount on which extreme people would prefer if it ever came down to that.

It would also offer insight on WHAT a middle ground should look like, and on which side of the extremes that said middle ground should be designed around first. There is a big difference between the following two 'middle ground' concepts:

- Design for full automation first, with options for prompts afterwards.
- Design for full prompts first, with options for automation afterwards.

There are certain implications with either approach. The first approach has an implication that certain abilities may be designed and implemented based on ease of automation before anything else, with options to control how they are used through prompts later. The second approach would instead have an implication that certain abilities may be implemented in ways much closer to their tabletop versions, with options for automation to reduce the frequency of prompts in situations that players may find redundant later.

It's quite a big difference, and it's definitely worth measuring preferences based on that context.

As for a few other things I should probably mention, I made the poll hide results until after voting for two reasons.

1) To force as many people as possible to log in/register and vote
2) It is not really meant to be used as a bludgeon for or against either side of the debate, hence my posts in this thread trying to remain as impartial as possible. Larian appears to favor hard statistics in their feedback over all these megathreads that no one is sure what kind of feedback they are taking from them, and I would not taint these results with personal bullshit.
How many permutations are you going to go through to get something close to a TT experience? The problem with trying to get close to that is that we can't really get there, in a CRPG. Where a GM can say "this happens, what do you do", and the player can then respond from whatever list of things they have on their character sheet that they can do. Trying to replicate this in game would amount to spending x amount of time either before each combat, or at the start of each round, going through that list, for each party member. It's also more likely to be per round than per combat, because as characters are removed from combat, the situations will change. What if a Concentration check fails in the middle of the fight? What if the biggest threat is removed? There are a myriad of possible scenarios that can occur that would change what a character may choose as their reaction.

If the solution is going to be a prompt for every possible reaction, every single time, combat is going to become a nightmarish mishmash of confirmations, more akin to QTEs than actual turn-based combat. Considering that the game isn't based on QTEs, that's counter to what we should be looking for. Going through the whole list of possible reactions at the start of each turn will also lengthen combat, which can already be "slow". What we have isn't ideal, but it's vastly superior to QTE based combat that a steady stream of confirmations could be for reactions. Constantly having to push Yes or No is no different from mashing X. I can play Tomb Raider, or AC 3 if I'm looking for something like that.
I voted prompts because - as others mentioned - I prefer full control over speed of combat when it comes to RPGs and tactical games and if I would have only those 2 extremes to chose from I would choose prompts. But Im also open to any middle ground or a customizable conditions system.

I have some wishful thinking in that Larian is going to change things for reactions or at least extend the current version with more control, because we were not provided with Shields yet. Its kind of a signature spell as per my understanding and it would have been relatively easy to implement it for EA already as a simple toggle, but they did not add it yet. This shows to me that they are still testing things out for reactions. I might be wrong but I also can see too many people (and I dont think its a vocal minority) who doesnt like the current version of the reactions or reaction-like abilities we have in EA to ignore that entirely - so i dont think Larian will.

Im just hoping we are going to have the opportunity to test any alternatives/extensions coming to it before release. It's already a great game for me but how reactions work currently is the thing which causes me think "it could have been much better" when I'm playing.

We are still in EA, so fingers crossed.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
If the solution is going to be a prompt for every possible reaction, every single time, combat is going to become a nightmarish mishmash of confirmations, more akin to QTEs than actual turn-based combat. Considering that the game isn't based on QTEs, that's counter to what we should be looking for. Going through the whole list of possible reactions at the start of each turn will also lengthen combat, which can already be "slow". What we have isn't ideal, but it's vastly superior to QTE based combat that a steady stream of confirmations could be for reactions. Constantly having to push Yes or No is no different from mashing X. I can play Tomb Raider, or AC 3 if I'm looking for something like that.

Noooo..... reactions are specific things with specific triggers, and are limited in scope by the ruleset; you can use a maximum of one per character per combat round, they're well defined and clear in what can be done and when. You cannot "react with featherfall" at the start of your turn - that's not how reactions work. There is no 'endless stream of confirmations', there is no 'checking every possible reaction at the start of each turn' - You are either commenting disingenuously, or you have misunderstood what reactions are and what a functional reaction system is.

We can, in fact, get there in a crpg - a contemporary game does so, and others on this forum have posted some nice videos of the system in action, actively not slowing down the game... People need to stop saying it can't be done because it already has been. I'd ask what you imagine the "whole list of possible reactions at the start of each turn" is, that you are imagining will be a problem - please; toss a few out there, and name some examples to illustrate your point. If you post up a long list of reactions that would need to be confirmed at the top of each turn/round, and they're factually accurate reactions that would indeed need to be checked at the top of each turn, then you'd probably go along way to convincing people that it would be unwieldy... so... what are your examples? What's the list? Tell me, so that if what you're saying is actually valid I can understand it and revise my own position in that light.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Fullscreen dont bother me ... since the game wouldnt continue without our reaction there wouldnt be much to look at anyway.

Quick time event does ... a lot actually ...
This isnt action RPG ... its turn based ... whole game is build on premise that EVERYTHING will wait for player ...
And that premise should IMHO remain intact.

As for that uncany dodge you like so much ...
I would preffer the style Maximuuus suggested ... player would have option to set at the start of every battle wich enemies should be ignored if opourtunity for reaction occurs ...
Yes i know its a little more tedious ... but at least you wouldnt be cheating.

I use Uncanny Dodge as an example because it can be the most prompt-heavy reaction. CAN be, mind you. It isn't always. Also, it's not cheating if the preset allows you to select what damage level you'd want to trigger the ability. Uncanny Dodge rules state that when you are hit, you can choose to half damage. It doesn't specify that it has to be you choose prior to a damage roll.

Finally, setting targets doesn't always work. You never know who in a particular turn is going to hit you with something you want to react to.
Uncanny dodge is clear, but only if you understand the style writing practices of 5e, which many (perfectly understandably) don't pay attention to until it matters. In this case, the wording on the ability is specific - it's when you are hit. That's a different trigger timing to "When you (or a target) is attacked" and it's different again to "When you Take Damage".

Three examples:

Protection Fighting Style's trigger is when a valid target "is attacked"; you must decide when the attack is declared; this means that you decide before the attack is rolled, and thus before you know whether it would be a hit or not.

Uncanny Dodge is triggered when you "are hit"; you decide when an attack hits you; this means that you do not have to use it before the attack is rolled, and so you cannot waste it on an attack that would miss anyway, but you must decide when the hit is confirmed, before the damage is rolled.

Misty Escape (Warlock fey pact feature) is triggered when you "take damage"; you decide to use it once you take damage - after the attack is declared, after it is rolled and the hit confirmed, and after the damage is rolled.

This is not a 'Dm discretion' thing, it's a RAW thing; as always individual Dms can rule otherwise - but by base rules, it's distinct and clear in its timing, and it's before the damage roll that the decision must be made. If the game tells you the damage first, then it is giving you a very prominent concession that makes the ability more powerful than it is meant to be - it removes a lot of the decision cost of whether to use it or not - however, I'm happy to concede that this may not be a bad thing for a video game setting/translation.
Definitely Solasta-esque prompt reaction system. Although maybe make the pop ups less windows 95 spreadshead and make it a bit more visually appealing than aforementioned title (granted budget limitations are a thing). You need some control over your reactions as to decide if to let something pass or not. I mean, I wouldn't waste my spell shield on sacred flame every time. But on higher damage spells it is definitely a thing. Pop up reaction should work fine in BG 3 as it is after all, a turnbased game. And having the option to have your party respond with a readied attack, cantrip or ranged attack would be welcome as well. Makes it possible to lay in wait and such.

A little off topic, but also allow wall of flame (not sure if you can) to be cast in either wall, outer ring or inner ring mode, that way defensive turtling is possible in melee heavy encounters and such. As for the abundance of concentration spells, that is a 5e thing unfortunately. They wanted to do away with doomstacking your mage with stuff like globe of invulnerability, protection from energy, protection from evil, blur, mirror image, mage armour etc before each fight I expect. And no I am currently unaware which ofthese is supposed to be concentration or not. I know blur and mirror image are duration based but I am not sure if that is how they work in 5e or not. Solasta has blur as a concentration spell, but I do not know how much is homebrew in this case. Could be that Solasta homebrewed it, or BG3 can anyone elaborate?
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by snowram
There is already a ~25 pages topic on this subject. It has been discussed to no end on Reddit and on the Steam forums. Larian even acknowledged it. I find it fair to said that this topic is redundant (and your posts only incite for an ad hominem response most of the time).

I will admit that this thread only really exists to clear the air and get some kind of headcount on where people stand on this issue. There was a spat in a different thread where people were claiming that the majority preferred one side or the other, which necessitated this.

If you still think something like this is redundant, this poll was not meant for you to begin with. It's actual hard data for Larian to look at.

I chose to leave it as is, because of the two, that's the better choice, since I would prefer something different, and decided to vote anyway. An option for "Other" would have been preferrable, even as hard data for Larian, because it would indicate that there are more than two sides to this debate, even if what that "Other" option should be isn't ironed out. They can then peruse the myriad of threads to find the most consistent types of feedback and go with that as a template. As it is, this poll is more self-serving than useful, since it's essentially limited to "You are either with us, or against us"...

I see your point and it's not an unreasonable one. Normally I'd be inclined to agree with you even. But Ithink that this pole with its firm binary would be useful to Larian for a specific reason. Because I don't think we're getting Solasta-level reactions, I don't think that's even a possibility at this stage. We're definitely getting some flavor of 'Other'. So a binary pole like this can serve to tell Larian where they could most benefit in leaning between the two extremes.
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I use Uncanny Dodge as an example because it can be the most prompt-heavy reaction. CAN be, mind you. It isn't always.
You do and I’m still not sure why.
There aren’t really that many chances per round to trigger an uncanny dodge.
How many times do you expect your rogue (out of the whole party) to be the target of enemy attacks?
Originally Posted by Niara
Three examples:

Protection Fighting Style's trigger is when a valid target "is attacked"; you must decide when the attack is declared; this means that you decide before the attack is rolled, and thus before you know whether it would be a hit or not.

Uncanny Dodge is triggered when you "are hit"; you decide when an attack hits you; this means that you do not have to use it before the attack is rolled, and so you cannot waste it on an attack that would miss anyway, but you must decide when the hit is confirmed, before the damage is rolled.

Misty Escape (Warlock fey pact feature) is triggered when you "take damage"; you decide to use it once you take damage - after the attack is declared, after it is rolled and the hit confirmed, and after the damage is rolled.
Yay! I finaly understand some rule corectly! laugh ^_^
Originally Posted by Tuco
You do and I’m still not sure why.
There aren’t really that many chances per round to trigger an uncanny dodge.
How many times do you expect your rogue (out of the whole party) to be the target of enemy attacks?
I would agree. From my experience in Solasta, the most outrageus examples were Smite and Metamagic - none of which are reactions, and could and should be implemented differently.

Another thing, that I don't think people who didn't play Solasta keep in mind, is that you get one reaction per round. If you are surrounded by bunch of samey units, then you will likely just fire something like uncanny dodge on the first opportunity because: a) it doesn't really matter if you dodge this goblin or another b) you don't know if you will be attacked again. Once used up, no more popups for you for that character this turn.
I want agency without unimmersive prompts - which means a slow-motion reaction system. If I had to choose between the two extremes offered as options here, then I would go with the least of two evils; automatic reactions to not disrupt combat flow too much.
Originally Posted by Niara
Uncanny dodge is clear, but only if you understand the style writing practices of 5e, which many (perfectly understandably) don't pay attention to until it matters. In this case, the wording on the ability is specific - it's when you are hit. That's a different trigger timing to "When you (or a target) is attacked" and it's different again to "When you Take Damage".

Three examples:

Protection Fighting Style's trigger is when a valid target "is attacked"; you must decide when the attack is declared; this means that you decide before the attack is rolled, and thus before you know whether it would be a hit or not.

Uncanny Dodge is triggered when you "are hit"; you decide when an attack hits you; this means that you do not have to use it before the attack is rolled, and so you cannot waste it on an attack that would miss anyway, but you must decide when the hit is confirmed, before the damage is rolled.

Misty Escape (Warlock fey pact feature) is triggered when you "take damage"; you decide to use it once you take damage - after the attack is declared, after it is rolled and the hit confirmed, and after the damage is rolled.

This is not a 'Dm discretion' thing, it's a RAW thing; as always individual Dms can rule otherwise - but by base rules, it's distinct and clear in its timing, and it's before the damage roll that the decision must be made. If the game tells you the damage first, then it is giving you a very prominent concession that makes the ability more powerful than it is meant to be - it removes a lot of the decision cost of whether to use it or not - however, I'm happy to concede that this may not be a bad thing for a video game setting/translation.

I understand what you're saying, but I will counter with two points:

1. Other reactions specifically say "before dice are rolled" or "before results are revealed". This reaction does not. Thus, if one wants to get REALLY technical, they can argue that the wording does not say "before damage dice are rolled". It simply says "if a rogue is hit by any attack". Although I agree with you that the meaning of what is written is PROBABLY that it should be before damage is rolled, there are A LOT of posts online with people arguing whether it should be before or after damage dice are rolled especially since many players and DMs roll damage dice WITH attack rolls. Also, plenty of examples exist on various posts of people saying that they usually save Uncanny Dodge for when an enemy Crits them or does a high powered attack. So, I would say that since there is so much room for debate on this topic, it is not "clear" that Uncanny Dodge should be decided immediately after being hit but before damage is rolled.

2. Even IF we had a WotC guru pop on and say, "Nope. Niara's totally right. 100%. In Tabletop, Uncanny Dodge is supposed to be decided right after being hit but before damage is rolled," what I'm suggesting is that in order to make presets work well to minimize or even negate the need for a prompt for Uncanny Dodge every time a rogue is hit by an enemy, Larian COULD have a preset option based on Damage Done to the Rogue. It wouldn't be a HUGE change in the overall mechanics to make it so that players aren't interrupted every time a Rogue is hit with a prompt/popup. ALSO, it works to the benefit of the player, not the enemy NPCs. Let's face it, you know the AI is going to work however the AI is going to work with their rogues, probably using Uncanny Dodge whenever damage YOU deal is high, so why not make it so that players get the same benefit - and even IF the AI is playing where it decides before damage is determined, somewhere in their algorithms, would it be so terrible if the player is given a slight advantage of allowing them to only trigger Uncanny Dodge if damage is greater than a certain value? It's really not a game-breaking mechanic that I'm suggesting, and it could seriously cut down on how often prompts/popups occur.

And, in terms of Uncanny Dodge, I use this example because in Solasta it is one of the prompts/popups I receive more frequently with my rogue character after he gets hit. I'm also thinking about battles like the goblin camp that has 30 enemies swarming your 4 characters. Yes. Absolutely. Your rogue is going to be a frequent target out of 4 PCs. 25% probable chance that the rogue will be targetted, and out of 30, that's almost 8 enemies in a single round. If my rogue is close to a bugbear or an ogre, I'm probably going to say No to most of those prompts until the ogre or bugbear comes and hits my rogue. GRANTED, it's ONLY going to trigger a prompt if the rogue is hit, so it's not like there will be 8 prompts, but my point is that IF I can set a preset that says, "Only if the damage is more than 10 will Uncanny Dodge trigger" then I may not even get a single prompt that entire round. Even if Goblins 2, 4, and 10 are the only ones to hit, if they only do 1-9 damage each, I'm good. I didn't waste my reaction on Uncanny Dodge to reduce damage in half for something so petty. But if Goblin 10 hit and criticalled me for a total of 18 damage, yeah... I might want to half that to 9. With the preset, that would be like 1 prompt. "You just got hit for 18 damage by Goblin 10. Uncanny Dodge?" Yes please. I got hit 3 times, but only the last was worth my time. Absolute Prompt system? 3 prompts that round. Preset using damage? 1 prompt that round. 1/3 of the total prompts used simply by a slightly more intuitive preset system that I, the player, can set before combat or even during my turn if I want to.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Tuco
You do and I’m still not sure why.
There aren’t really that many chances per round to trigger an uncanny dodge.
How many times do you expect your rogue (out of the whole party) to be the target of enemy attacks?
I would agree. From my experience in Solasta, the most outrageus examples were Smite and Metamagic - none of which are reactions, and could and should be implemented differently.

Another thing, that I don't think people who didn't play Solasta keep in mind, is that you get one reaction per round. If you are surrounded by bunch of samey units, then you will likely just fire something like uncanny dodge on the first opportunity because: a) it doesn't really matter if you dodge this goblin or another b) you don't know if you will be attacked again. Once used up, no more popups for you for that character this turn.

Smite isn't a reaction except when it applies to an AOO, which is a reaction. Thus, it is pretty much a reaction when an enemy triggers AOO and you are asked whether you want to use Smite. This is why many view it as a reaction.

For Smite, it can be mostly handled like Battlemaster Maneuvers when used on your character's turn. When an AOO, a prompt is going to ask you whether you want to AOO or not anyway, so asking whether you want to use Smite with AOO wouldn't take much more work.

That said, both could easily be handled via presets as I've been trying to explain on the megathread. For Smite, you could set basic Current Enemy HP levels for each spell slot level for Smite. If the enemy has less than (let's just say) 10 Current HP, why would you want to use Smite at all? You'll likely kill the enemy without Smite, so why waste a spell slot. But, if the enemy has 10-20 HP, maybe you might want a little extra punch on your AOO to kill him as he's trying to get past you to hit your mage. If the enemy has 20-30 HP, you might want to use Level 2 spell slot. If you critically hit an enemy, you might want to REALLY use a higher level especially if it's a powerful enemy, like a Gith Patrol member or the Matriarch. Presets could be set so that if you Critically Hit an enemy with more than X Current Hit Points, you apply Smite (when doing an AOO). Thus... no need for a popup/prompt. Again, think about it from the perspective of, "When would I NOT want to use Smite?" Would you ever use Smite if you Critically Hit an enemy using a Greataxe when the enemy has 5 HP? No. Why waste a spell slot? So why not allow players to set presets to cut down on prompts to avoid situations they would never trigger the spell for?
This poll doesn’t make much sense without a third option. Many people like neither of two.
Originally Posted by VenusP
This poll doesn’t make much sense without a third option. Many people like neither of two.
Eh, if anything the poll is already doing a favor to the (STILL) unpopular option, because it doesn't clarify that a prompt-based reaction system can still be optionally automated with toggles, while the opposite isn't necessarily true.
I think the poll has done a LOT of good, actually. By being extreme, it shows what people prefer if Larian chooses 1 extreme over the other. It shows that, in general, people would prefer a prompt system as opposed to a preset system. In other words, when some forum members have said, "People want battle to be fluid and not have prompts and interruptions," that statement is now obviously false - at least from a THIS FORUM perspective. Most people on this forum want a prompt-like system similar to Solasta, meaning we're all leaning in that direction more than a preset system like what we have currently.

Give people a "Maybe this or that or kinda a this or that" and it'll get out of control and prove nothing. That's my opinion, anyway. I mean, look at it. It's overwhelmingly pro-prompt versus Automatic Reactions. It's not even close. It just shows Larian, if they're paying attention, that we want something where we have more control and that reactions are VERY important to us for this game.
Originally Posted by VenusP
This poll doesn’t make much sense without a third option. Many people like neither of two.
You cant really make third option here, if you think about it ... "anything in between" would be the third option ... and litteraly everyone who isnt truly devoted to each system would pick it, even tho most likely no two of them would have same idea. laugh
Originally Posted by GM4Him
1. Other reactions specifically say "before dice are rolled" or "before results are revealed". This reaction does not.

No, that's correct, it doesn't, because it is not the type of situation for which that terminology is used, in the official style writing. The official style phrasing that people are most familiar with is "You make this decision after the dice are rolled but before the DM tells you the result" (this was redacted in house to the more neutral "before the result is determined" for most present day publications, but I think a few instances of the former and its variants still slipped through here and there). That type of terminology is used, specifically, in situations dealing with spells or abilities that influence the outcomes of ability checks, attack rolls and saving throws. This is not that situation, so it does not use that language. It uses the language I described above, for the reason I described above. I'm only supplying information; what you do with it, take or leave, is up to you.

Again, this was just to be informative because, as I said before, I'm fine with this allowance being given in a video game format, and it's an acceptable enough translation for smoothing the gaming experience for players to put the decision point at a stage when they can simply see what damage they're mitigating and decide then.

((As an aside, saving Uncanny dodge for crits is perfectly acceptable and accurate - being told that you've been crit is the correct timing for the trigger, before damage is rolled. Similarly, saving it for when a powerful foe uses some special attack is also legitimate, since those details are the subject of Dm story-telling and roleplay, and it is up to the player to decide whether they think that the hit they've just taken is going to be a big one or not, before damage is rolled.))

It's 2am, this is a bit off topic, I'm very tired and I probably should not have responded, but I'm going to leave this here anyway - please take it in the spirit of sharing information and not as an argument of any kind.
I had the idea a long time ago that Larian should have started by implementing a real time pause on top of turn based mode to handle reactions. It would require setting up the entire combat system differently, like having action bars that are being filled above character's heads (we could even call them timers where your character can react) when they are attacking or casting a spell, unrolled dices appearing over people being targeted by DC checks, leaving (without the disengage action) opportunity attack zones having a small dodge-like animation before moving where the player can take the opportunity attack action, and so on.

This would allow developers to implement things like portent with ease, and it would make reactions actual reactions.

The problem is, this should have been implemented from the start, and combat speed could have been focused on later. There could even have been accessibility options to make action bars last longer. Or smaller if the person can react quickly.
Originally Posted by prop85
I had the idea a long time ago that Larian should have started by implementing a real time pause on top of turn based mode to handle reactions.
But.... why? This concept pops up every once in a while and I just don't see the point of it. For those who don't want distrupions it is still a distruption as you wait for the quicktime even to finish. Surely, once the turn is finished your hands are still on controller/keyboard so dismissing reaction prompt wouldn't be a bigger time investment then those "opportunity" windows.

And if something unexpected happen you expect player to analyze the situation and make their decision in a limited timeframe... in a turn based game. Reactions means that it is your character reacting to enemy action, not testing player's reactions grin
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by GM4Him
1. Other reactions specifically say "before dice are rolled" or "before results are revealed". This reaction does not.

No, that's correct, it doesn't, because it is not the type of situation for which that terminology is used, in the official style writing. The official style phrasing that people are most familiar with is "You make this decision after the dice are rolled but before the DM tells you the result" (this was redacted in house to the more neutral "before the result is determined" for most present day publications, but I think a few instances of the former and its variants still slipped through here and there). That type of terminology is used, specifically, in situations dealing with spells or abilities that influence the outcomes of ability checks, attack rolls and saving throws. This is not that situation, so it does not use that language. It uses the language I described above, for the reason I described above. I'm only supplying information; what you do with it, take or leave, is up to you.

Again, this was just to be informative because, as I said before, I'm fine with this allowance being given in a video game format, and it's an acceptable enough translation for smoothing the gaming experience for players to put the decision point at a stage when they can simply see what damage they're mitigating and decide then.

((As an aside, saving Uncanny dodge for crits is perfectly acceptable and accurate - being told that you've been crit is the correct timing for the trigger, before damage is rolled. Similarly, saving it for when a powerful foe uses some special attack is also legitimate, since those details are the subject of Dm story-telling and roleplay, and it is up to the player to decide whether they think that the hit they've just taken is going to be a big one or not, before damage is rolled.))

It's 2am, this is a bit off topic, I'm very tired and I probably should not have responded, but I'm going to leave this here anyway - please take it in the spirit of sharing information and not as an argument of any kind.

Sigh. Taken perfectly as you'd hoped and quite relieved. I was hoping you wouldn't be upset with me for being technical. I kinda hesitated a lot before I responded wondering if it was even worth it.

Quite frankly, I'm not on either side - Camp Prompts or Camp Presets. I'm slightly leaning towards Camp Prompts because frankly more control errs in the direction of safety in my opinion, but I would definitely like to have a reduction in prompts. I don't need a prompt for Counterspell every time someone casts Enlarge, Fire Bolt, Barkskin, Healing Word, Magic Missile, Shield, Mage Hand, or any of the million other spells that I wouldn't use a level 3 spell slot to stop.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Eh, if anything the poll is already doing a favor to the (STILL) unpopular option, because it doesn't clarify that a prompt-based reaction system can still be optionally automated with toggles, while the opposite isn't necessarily true.
Hm, good point. Guess I should amend the original post to clarify exactly what I mean by using the voting for the two extremes to inform which approach a middle ground should revolve around.
I voted, but this post just seems like a circle jerk scenario, like you know what is going to be voted highest.
Originally Posted by fallenj
I voted, but this post just seems like a circle jerk scenario, like you know what is going to be voted highest.

You'd be surprised to hear that some questioned this would be the result, then. Claiming that "few loud ones were speaking for everyone".
Which is probably the very reason the poll exists in the first place.
I don't think prompt reaction is a good solution. Too many pop-ups slows down combat. I think WolfheartFPS had a good idea regarding this in that chosen enemy to react to would be better and not slow things down too much.
Originally Posted by BlueGuy
Too many pop-ups slows down combat. I think WolfheartFPS had a good idea regarding this in that chosen enemy to react to would be better and not slow things down too much.
I am not convinced that's necessarily true. With multiple characters having to set up multiple reactions for specific characters it might get very tedious, or not that much different then it is now - meaning not getting bothered with it.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by BlueGuy
Too many pop-ups slows down combat. I think WolfheartFPS had a good idea regarding this in that chosen enemy to react to would be better and not slow things down too much.
I am not convinced that's necessarily true. With multiple characters having to set up multiple reactions for specific characters it might get very tedious, or not that much different then it is now - meaning not getting bothered with it.

A preset system doesn't mean that every combat you have to set new parameters for every character. Most presets would not change from encounter to encounter.

I set AOO preset for Gale to Off because I don’t want him wasting his reaction on it. He sucks at melee anyway. So AOO preset remains off for every encounter until maybe one occurs that I change my mind. Instead, I set Shield spell to On with a preset to only trigger if an enemy hits Gale. All Enemies. So, whether Magic Missile or any enemy shooting Gale or hitting with melee, he will cast Shield and ONLY if by casting it he will cause them to miss (so they hit by 5 or less). You took maybe 10 seconds to set your presets for Gale and don't change them from battle to battle because you really have no reason to.

I set Lae'zel's AOO to All Enemies and leave it as All Enemies for most encounters because she has no other reactions. Therefore, she will AOO on the first enemy who might trigger AOO in every encounter unless I am fighting against someone important - like let's say Ragzlin. In an encounter against him where I want to make sure he in particular doesn't get too close to Gale, maybe I switch it to AOO for specific targets like Ragzlin and maybe a few other heavy hitters. And that’s still a maybe that I'd switch it.

And let me point out that AOO would default to All Enemies in the beginning, so I might not ever mess with Lae'zel's reactions. We're talking very minimal player management here and pretty much the same results as constant prompt system where 9 out of 10 times you'd AOO anyway on the first enemy to trigger it because few actually trigger it in a single round anyway.

Shadowheart would be exactly the same as Lae'zel because she only has AOO as a reaction.

Wyll is the same as well. No other reaction but AOO.

Astarion is the same. Nothing but AOO.

The entire EA, up to level 4, you might change your presets a few times maybe, if at all because most battles you would not have a reason to. No pop-ups or prompts needed because you don't need them. You'd say yes every time anyway.

Now, at level 5, that's when you might get a few reactions that would be tricky, like Counterspell and Uncanny Dodge, and presets for these select few might take a bit more time to set ahead of time or might require a bit more tweaking during combat. However, we’re still not talking about gobs of time to manage them. A minute maybe on Counterspell if you can't decide which spells you do and do not want to be bothered with reacting against. "Should I counter Darkness? Should I not?"

And as stated numerous times, Uncanny Dodge could take no time at all to set a standard preset that handles your reaction. You may or may not turn off AOO at this point and set Uncanny Dodge to only trigger if damage done to you is above a value that you set. BOOM. Done. 10 seconds maybe?

My point is that we're not talking "multiple characters having to set up multiple reactions for specific characters" unless YOU actually want to use that Selected Targets preset for some reason. Not every encounter would require such reaction finesse.
This sounds like a giant headache tbh.
@GN4Him I responded to Wolfhearts idea, which if I remember correctly was pinpointing which enemies we want to react to.

What you describe sounds more like custom AI from dragon age or Deadfire which is not something I personally enjoy, but would definitely help in utilizing reactions a bit more effectively.
As a curious question...

With the current system does anyone find any skills/spells related to reactions to be particularly useful? I have only done about one and a half play throughs, but after trying out the reactionary stuff I ended up just flat out ignoring all skills/spells related to the system as they seemed kind of useless.

Is that the general consensus or should I have dabbled in them more?
I wouldn't say useless so much as unreliable and fiddly to work with.

Which in terms of usability is the same thing.
Originally Posted by Lake Plisko
As a curious question...

With the current system does anyone find any skills/spells related to reactions to be particularly useful? I have only done about one and a half play throughs, but after trying out the reactionary stuff I ended up just flat out ignoring all skills/spells related to the system as they seemed kind of useless.

Is that the general consensus or should I have dabbled in them more?

Current system doesn't really have many skills/spells related to reactions. It's mostly Attack of Opportunity.

But reactions CAN save your entire party from being wiped if Larian implements them well. That is the reason for the intense discussion on it. I guarantee you'll want Counterspell at level 5+ if Larian decides to throw some higher level spellcasters at us with Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Stinking Cloud, Cone of Cold and the like. Suddenly, reactions will be VERY important.
I absolutely vote for Solasta style. I want to control what my party members are doing. I agree to what Niara said in another thread.
1.) Moments where you are spammed with pop-ups are rare.
2.) When they happen I absolutely want to chose which of the many options I use for the one reaction I have per turn.

It is nice to have some automatic choices, but no automatic system will be perfect and chars will always do something you don't want them to do.

I rather want to be asked if I make an AoO or a counter spell this turn than to select all the time if my char should do one or the other automatically.
Originally Posted by Lake Plisko
With the current system does anyone find any skills/spells related to reactions to be particularly useful?

I always have Wyll learn and cast Hellish Rebuke when I have him in the party. I expect there are better spells from a pure performance perspective, but I find it effective at taking out enemies attacking him as well as thematically appropriate.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by fallenj
I voted, but this post just seems like a circle jerk scenario, like you know what is going to be voted highest.

You'd be surprised to hear that some questioned this would be the result, then. Claiming that "few loud ones were speaking for everyone".
Which is probably the very reason the poll exists in the first place.

Interesting, guessing its just me remembering the pages upon pages on the same topic and only a handful was against it. It has been a while.
Originally Posted by fallenj
Interesting, guessing its just me remembering the pages upon pages on the same topic and only a handful was against it. It has been a while.
Well, you could argue that they are probably just a handful. But they will also proudly claim to represent the silent majority and will warn everyone on the opposing faction to "not speak for everyone", weirdly enough.

Ok, I'm done being smug about this shit. Probably. For the next few hours.
The subreddit is back at the topic again, incidentally:
https://old.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/wl4ca1/my_take_on_the_reaction_system/
© Larian Studios forums