Would love for the reaction system to be similar to Solasta.... along with just about everything else they did regarding rule implementations and such. <3

EDIT:
Here is the thing about a prompter asking if you want to take a reaction, and if so; what that reaction will be:
It *WONT* make things feel "slow" or stop the pace of the battle. Why not? Because it's on an enemy turn. It will just feel great because even though the enemy is doing things on their turn, suddenly stuff pauses and YOU get a say in the development of the enemy actions! It gives the player agency and control, and that wont feel like "the battle is slowing down" or anything like that, cause these things happen outside your turn.

I *TRULY* wish they implement something like that.

+1

Really liking the ability to block an incoming attack with a shield spell.

Heck yeah! The biggest advantage is really that you can make decisions more carefully and on the spot, rather than just relying on randoms procs that happen without your input.

Agreed....Being able to choose *when* to use your reaction (and on *whom*, in some cases - thinking of my paladin with protection) is pretty important, and that is missing in BG3 now. I like this aspect of Solasta....but I imagine many people will complain if they have menus popping up during combat. I think Solasta does allow a time-limited reaction (still with menu though), but I prefer having time to decide what to do rather than being rushed. I

Haven't played solasta... yet... but can certainly get behind a more faithful implimentation of core rules...

some of the seeming "off hand" changes made to action economy and what is and isn't a standard action dont pass the smell test for simply transitioning tabletop rules to a PC game... and actually detract pretty significantly from what could be... i cant remember even seeing an option for reactions...

in BG3 reaction spells like featherfall seem to fire when needed, assuming you remember to cast them earlier in the day ;-) So you have no choice - you may (for whatver reason) not wish to use the spell at that point.... Other reactions, I'm not so sure about.... I thought I had used 'protection' for my fighter, which should be a reaction....if I recall correctly that does impose disadvantage on a nearby attacker of an ally - but you can't choose which ally to spend it on in a turn, which is bad.

Yes, let's make BG3 like Solasta...........................................

+1

That's not at all what I wrote or even implied.

No, clearly it's a straw man of your position.

But it's not that far from my position -- I want the two games to merge. Solasta is really, really ugly and badly voice but combat is a blast. BG3 is lovely, has some good roleplay options and the NPC stories look really promising.

Buuuut the devs need to have more confidence in the DnD ruleset.

I want to play a DnD game that looks good, has a story, an open world and many different ways to complete tasks. Right now I see parts of what I want in two different games.

Glad im not the only one ...
Solasta this, Solasta that, Solasta good, you bad. -_-

It really starts to feel like advertising bots sometimes. :-/

I would like much more control of my reactions.

This. I want BG3 and Solasta to have a baby.

I definitely want reactions RAW. Especially with spells like Shield. What good is having an Abjurer subclass nerfed on hp and no Shield spell. Basically you leave Wizard with only one option, a blaster. That is NOT what a D&D Wizard is designed for. It's the least effective way to play a 5e Wizard. And the most boring. Sorcerers and Warlocks are better blasters anyway.

But with casual players complaining about the length of combat, I seriously doubt we'll see anything close to the 5e reaction system in BG3. Shame

The length of combat wouldn't be an issue if it weren't so boring. This is largely down to enemies taking way too long to make decisions, but getting to make decisions about reactions could help a bit.

I would have to agree with you on this one here

I agree too!

Enemies will get faster at making their decisions as Larian has more time to upgrade the AI. The speed at which they think now shouldn't be taken into account when deciding major game design choices.

Oh, there are plenty of reasons why I find combat boring right now. Speed is just a big one. And I'd like to think that they know it's an issue, but the squeaky wheel gets the oil - if we talk about it here, there's a greater chance that it gets prioritized.

Not only that but it takes forever to load the game

I thought that was a feature they added for folks who want to discourage save scumming.

I agree to the thread title.

selecting when to use which reaction would be really nice.
Of couse this would mean to implement the reaction spells properly.

The 5e Spells mod has the Shield spell. It's not quite like Solasta's but it's works.

Enemies seem to take longer, the more patches we get.

First time I read Solasta thing here, I said to myself : well there are just a bunch of advertisers of this game, bla bla
I checked, and read that Solasta did not really respect all the rules (some different classes, because they are not ALLOWED to implement the full set of rules)
So first it strenghtened my first impression
BUT...
I gave it a try, and, oh my... ! It is so true : implementation of reactions with choices offered when it is the right moment, respect of the bonus actions, movements on SQUARES, ETC... this is SOooo d&d ON THE TABLE
So yes, yes, yes, there are definitely some ideas that Larian should check here, for the happiness of d&d lovers, and we are many here

This.

Ugh, no. Combat moves slow as hell as is, without it constantly interrupting me "Hey, you wanna cast shield? Hey, you wanna use your opportunity attack?".

NOT this. AI is hard, adding more variables makes it harder. This shit isnt easy to code, so I don't know why you would expect it to magically happen.

Solasta looks like a mobile game. If it was a tabletop simulator mod, it would be pretty cool, but right now it's just mediocre graphics with a straightjacket rules implementation and no DM running the show. I play D&D for fun, not to simply bask in the "glory" of D&D's often mediocre rules. A D&D video game needs to capture the gist, but primarily be a good VIDEO GAME.

Oh course it isn't easy and I wouldn't expect it to magically happen overnight. I do however acknowledge how much pride Larian takes in their games and I expect that they will continue to upgrade their AI until they are satisfied with it.

Given the comparison in AI turn speed between DOS and BG, I'd say it's safe to assume that they aren't satisfied yet and we will see great improvements in the AI by the time the game releases.

Yeah i think combat speed wont be an issue at release. There are a lot of things (double-clicking for dash, clicking for sneak attack, separating jump from disengage so we dont use it every round - these already add a lot of time to combat) they can tweak so it doesnt take away time unnecesarily, regarding the long decisions of the enemy they are still constantly adding things for the AI to do it which means they have to alter the action priorization and behaviour setup eventually and usually thats only finished when they start to work on difficulty levels etc. (closer to release) i remember dos2 combat AI was much slower at the beginning of EA to decide what it will do and got faster for release. Im pretty satisfied with the speed of animations i have to say it will add a lot to the full picture.
And i agree, for me: combat needs to be more interesting (less repetitive) but thee is a lot of feedback on that already. Regarding reactions I think some of them could be left automated but not the tricky ones, we will see which route they will go soon i guess.

Absolutely agree as well.
+1

Here is the thing about a prompter asking if you want to take a reaction, and if so; what that reaction will be:
It *WONT* make things feel "slow" or stop the pace of the battle. Why not? Because it's on an enemy turn. It will just feel great because even though the enemy is doing things on their turn, suddenly stuff pauses and YOU get a say in the development of the enemy actions! It gives the player agency and control, and that wont feel like "the battle is slowing down" or anything like that, cause these things happen outside your turn.

I *TRULY* wish they implement something like that.

The best solution to appease everyone would be to leave the reactions icons where they are but give them three states (off, manual and automatic). Off and automatic work how they do now, manual means there is a three second popup on the screen to allow you to make a reaction. If you’re not paying attention, too bad – it is a reaction after all.

Yeah that's good. Give people options. =)

+1

I don't know if Solasta's solution would suit BGE but we have to be able tu use our reactions like in D&D.

This is a core feature of D&D and what makes combats more "realistic" / more "Real time" / "less common TB combats".

I don't know how but they'll have to find a better solution.

Yeah. Like Maximise I'm not going to say "Solasta does it this way, make it like that!". But there has to be something. Some effort at interpreting these mechanics.

Agree.

AOO and several other reaction spells are already in the game and it happens automatically that's good enough.

I fine with either forms of reactions.

I find it kind of funny that Solasta is not allowed to use many Dnd things, but they try hard to be RAW. In contrast BG3 is sort of given free rein, but they want other things besides RAW. I like both games and I'm very much looking forward to them both.

It really isn't though. Right now the reactions don't even always work or happen, but even if they were to work; you don't always know what you want to do until the battle is happening, and then you might have clicked away some choices you truly wanted to use, but even before they happen, you might have already procced a reaction that you didn't want, like an AOO, but instead it turned out you should have saved your reaction for a shield spell.

But even if you only have the shield spell (for instance) active, what about a situation where a small little critter comes up and hits you, and you wouldn't want to waste a spell slot and a reaction on that, because a far larger threat will attack you afterwards? I know the shield spell lasts the round out, but it could be some other reaction. In the cases of reactions, it's all about prioritising depending on what the enemies do and what you think is the best choice for the time being, not depending on automatic procs.

If I want to play Solasta, I would play it.....

It's not about just "ripping off Solasta", it's just that Solasta did the core ruleset implementation far better and more true to the letter than Larian did, even though Larian claimed they did all they could to have a super faithful implementation, which is clearly not the case. If they were to change the way reactions are handled and be inspired by the way Solasta did it, that would be awesome. I don't WANT them to be another Solasta, since frankly BG3 is far better in so damn many ways in my opinion. But sometimes it's worth taking a look at how others did things and improve upon one's own product.

+1 to OP

just give as a tick box in the game options: automatic reactions on or off

My first post on the forums! I don't think people saying they'd like to see some things be more like another game is inherently bad. To reject such things at only a glance is blatant tribalism. Both games are based off the 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons system and I don't think I'm the only one in saying that I'd like to have the feel of playing the tabletop D&D in this game. Solasta does the combat aspect quite well in reflecting this. The players just want that same experience with the quality of a big name studio such as Larian, and as well as the official licensing support that they have in order to make the most excellent game that we've all been dreaming about.

No it is, its in the game. If it works or not doesn't matter, really shouldn't have to say this but you know, ITS EARLY ACCESS!!!!!!!. Truthfully I don't really care, if little critters are standing next to you and you cast shield maybe you should of thought about it in the first place....like really?! come on, use your head and plan your turns out instead of blindly rolling your face on the key board and complaining its not working.

You don't seem to understand my points at all. And I am quite aware it's early access, hence me writing "but even if they were to work". The point is CONTROL. You don't want to lose control to automatic processes that might fire when you don't want them to, and you cannot turn the reactions you've chosen on and off when it's the enemy turn. Hence, you lose control and are limited in making your own calls when you get a chance to a reaction. Did you even read what I wrote? Seems to me you just want to be belligerent.

If you understood it, you would of never brought it up. An yes its a control freak situation, instead of planning ahead and trying to counter play. You need a pop up saying hey, you want to do this now. No, its not like that, get over it, and actually plan your turns out.

Perhaps you should explain what it is you think reactions are, because it doesn't seem to coincide with my understanding of them or anything else I've seen posted in this thread.

Reactions have nothing to do with planning your turn out. The vast majority of the time, they don't happen during your turn. Reactions are, by definition, things that you can choose to do in response to what's happening around you. In order to choose to respond to things, the game has to ask you if you want to respond when things happen. Currently, it makes assumptions about when and how you should respond to things and this doesn't work well for players who want a measure of control over what they're doing.

I am not sure you know what mechanics I am referring to. I am talking about reactions like attacks of opportunity, shield spell, hellish rebuke, defensive duelist and the like. These are things you cannot "plan ahead" as they happen during the enemy's turn. Therefore, the "popups" will allow for a variety of different choices in some situations, and you can then choose to prioritise whether or not a certain reaction should be taken, or not, in case you wish to save for another potential reaction later. As it stands now, those options do not exist. I just want those choices to exist.

You would obviously not cast Shield in this situation. If the game is forcing all reactions to be automatic then it would make you cast it when you would rather save it for later. Counterspell too, why waste it on something silly when you can save it for something important. Hellish Rebuke even, why waste a spell slot on a nearly dead enemy or one with fire resistance. Some reactions make sense to be automatic like Shield master, Uncanny Dodge and probably others, but not spells. Perhaps make the manual/automatic part a menu toggle for those that don't care or don't have any reaction spells so you don't have to worry about it.

duh the name of the feature is self explanatory. Easiest one that comes to mind is AOO which I said in my first post, if you don't know what that is it is called Attack of Opportunity.

Now in BG3 its automatic, you attack the first person that leaves your area, does not interrupt game play, game moves forward fluently.

In Solasta as soon as someone leaves your area, you get a pop up mid battle asking if you want to do attack of opportunity.

This pop up slows down combat, handholds you and stops you thinking. Are you going to cast a reaction spell while the situation doesn't require it or is less favorable? No, you will cast another spell or do another action. It is seriously panning your moves ahead of time, is it possible to fail or have a outcome that you didn't expect, yes.

This is not 100% needed feature and truthfully its out right terrible.

I actually bought that game played it for 14 hours and unistalled. They have a sticky on the steam forums posted by the devs explaining the rules they adjusted for 5e, that game is not 100% faithful to 5e (this is just encase anyone doesn't understand that).


This is probably the highlight of my day, have a wonderful day tomarrow Zarna.

It could be made optional, allowing people to have automatic reactions now with no pop up, and allowing those who want to use different kinds of reactions to have a popup instead if they have a valid option to react with. Player choice and control over the experience is what RPGs like this is about and making systems optional would likely satiate everyone.

Hey fallen,

In 5e it's actually called an Opportunity Attack. AOO is older editions.

Question:

You're in a combat with a Lich and two zealot acolytes; you know the Lich has some pretty nasty effects up its sleeve, including some very high level stuff. The zealots, you know, mostly cast minor buffs and create chip annoyance with cantrips. You've already rolled initiative; the turn order goes: You, Zealot 1, Zealot 2, Lich.

How do you 'seriously plan your moves ahead of time' so that you can tactically and intelligently respond to the situation and counterspell only the enemy spells that are most important to counter, without wasting your reaction on counterspelling a zealot casting shield of faith, and not having a reaction to stop the finger of death that comes later in the same turn?

You seem to be implying that you can and do and others should, without the game asking them when or if they want to use a particular reaction when it becomes available - could you explain your reasoning and method to me?

Sorry I don't agree. I think it increases strategic thinking. Using @Niara's example, you are facing the lich lord and his imp familiar. The imp throws a rock at you. Are you going to burn a spell slot to cast shield or are you going to take the hit so you can save that reaction for when the lich sends a volley of level 9 magic missiles at you?

Or, in Solasta itself. You are completely surrounded by undead, you turn undead and they start to flee. Are you going to have the mage try and hit the vampire with her staff -- which ends the turned state and returns vampire to battle -- or are you go going the let than one run while you focus on the undead that weren't turned. The pop up is doing something important.

And, sure, make it automatic for those who want it but I suspect that will lead people to ask "why am losing my spell slots after each battle"?

And yes, Solasta has house rules. Some are really fun. What I really like about those devs is they've started from the position of "the rules are great, how do we recreate the tabletop experience" instead of "these rules aren't well designed for a video game, we're going to have to make so major revisions.

OOF you got me on that


companions? CC Zealots and use counter when you think your going to needed it. Line of sight, use companion as meat shield, what's your inventory, potions?, cleric?, grease bottle? Barrels around? where are we? How many turns till he usually casts death?

There is usually a good amount of choices you can do in any given scenario

Counterspell isn't in the game yet from what I can gather its a 5th level spell (3rd level spell slot). I know there is a couple reaction spells for warlock already in the game, do you guys cry yourself to sleep when something doesn't work like you wanted it to? Use another tactic or maybe save scum.


No, point was this feature is not needed and they do it auto in this game.

Almost 2am I got to work tomorrow, later.


The only reaction spells I've seen so far require you to cast the spell, you get a buff / icon showing you have the spell active and when said action happens that spell goes off. Like I said this is how a couple of the warlock spells work.

Here add this last part before bed, I had a guy in my multi game that would take about 5 minutes per turn trying to decide what he wanted to do. Now in that game I would actually dig through my inventory look at my abilities, initiative order, contemplate my next move and so on.

Now add a pop up for opportunity attack and any other stupid reactions that want to prolong the battle even more.

good example

I asked you a very simple question. I defined the example. The turn order is set; everybody mentioned in the initiative is mentioned. That is the scenario. There is no save-scumming for a better situation; this is the encounter I'm defining. It's turn one. That is the turn order as rolled; the lich is going to cast finger of death on you. The zealots are going to cast minor buff spells or cantrips. That is the entirety of the scenario; a door has just slammed shut behind you, leaving you in a blank, empty, round room that is 30 feet across.

Your goal is to counterspell the finger of death, because not doing so will result in your death from the base damage alone, even if you make the save. How do you do it?

Any sane implementation of the rules allows you to do this, straight up, without fussing; it's a tactical decision that you as a player can make - to not use your reactions on things that you don't want to use them on, and to use them on things that you do. It's your choice.

You could certianly try to crowd control the zealots, as you mentioned. You try that - it only sticks to one of them. Now what? You just die and reload, and hope it sticks to both of them next time? Why do you feel that that is better than being able to choose when and when not to use your own spells?

It’s not just casting spells. How will paladin smites be handled? Smites can’t be automated as you need to choose the spell level and even if you want to perform a smite.

It needs to be a reactionary action after a hit so the player can decide what kind of smite to use.

Dare I say it...but in Solasta ;-) .... you choose which target and what level spell slot to use. As you would in 5E...as the rules mandate. There are so many things in 5E that require more precise control like this, I really don't see how Larian can't fix this. And as noted - for those who don't care, have a toggle "auto" vs ""core rules".

+1 for being able choose when and how my team uses their one (1!) reaction per turn. Paladin smiting, Eldritch Knights using Shield spell, opportunity attacks are great examples of why a reaction disk of would be great. Have options to let the AI decide how to automatically react if some people actually prefer that is fine by me. But that is one thing Solasta does far better than BG3, IMO.

Yeah I rather have player control and agency and capacity to make informed choices than "LOL THE BATTLE SURE WENT FAST".

Your made up scenario is based on one character which doesn't involve bg3, its a bad test/scenario and your tunneling the outcome in your favor.

This doesn't prove anything. Sorry btw I didn't make my answer simple enough for you.

Okay. How would you automate paladin smites? That’s a simple general question.

I don't know if 5e changed it but smite is a paladin spell attack. Like magic missile for wiz.

did they auto basic attacks? Let me know when they auto basic attacks so I can watch you people complain about something else.

So in this scenario you want to compare a basic spell attack to reaction skills / spells. An why you can choose basic actions while you can not choose when to do a reaction. Why do you think Larian did it this way? Why do you think any game would do it this way? My answer would be still the same from previous posts, scroll up and reread them.

amazing

In 5e, Divine Smite is neither a spell attack nor a reaction, it's a class feature that you can tack onto a successful melee attack.

That said, it is indicative of the kinds of choices that players need to be able to make and currently cannot (or are currently made in a way that is both awkward and doesn't follow 5e rules). Examples off the top of my head include reactions, sneak attack, battle master maneuvers, and divine smite.

Yes it is but how do you implement it on auto fire?

You can use smite on a hit but you can also increase damage by suing higher level spell slots. There’s a lot of choices involved that can’t be satisfied with a toggle. It has to function like a reaction in Solasta.

Anyway whatever they're saying reactions are an AWESOME opportunity to improve TB and lead to a less static system.

Having things to do when it's not your turn is something totally missing in many TB games and Baldur's Gate 3 even doesn't have the ready action (which is called "ambush" or something like that in other games).

If they find a good solution, and I would say a better solution than in Solasta... BG3 could totally define what the TB genre should be.

It works in Solasta and you never wait doing nothing during ennemies turns. It add a lot of depth to combats, a lot of things to do and to manage whatever it's your turn or not.
But it slow the flow of combats (not their duration).

I'm not sure the way they manage reactions would suit BG3 but Larian definitely have to find something to implement proper reactions. That's an important part of D&D (action economy, classes balance, classes features, "realistic" or "reactive" combats...) and it add a huge value to TB combats.

The real question is how...

What we have at the moment is cheap and that's a fact.
I personnaly think BG3 deserve better than cheap mechanics.

It might slow things down but later powers and certain class abilities really do depend on reactions, in fact one of those powers was made weirdly with hellish rebuke requiring casting before, which actually can make it proc on the wrong thing and goes against the purpose of the spell.

Generally sounds like a feature you would choose what level of smite and toggle it. That would be my guess to keep the game flowing, but who knows what Larian will do.


Truthfully we are still in EA, who knows what they'll rearrange / redo mechanic wise. Not only that but possibly pushing back full release with covid still active, along with special edition even after full release (if they go that route like they did for DOS 1 & 2).

With this not just a single player game but also a multi presuming my buddy will take 30 minutes instead of 5 if they go this route. Can't wait it'll be punching monitor fun.


Later levels presuming it'll get even worse, that is if opportunity attack increase, so instead of just one OA you have multi and you'll be ask for each one.

Hellish rebuke was one of the warlock spells I was referring to earlier, you prep before hand and stays on you till it procs.

Having multiple toggles you have to switch seems a whole lot more cumbersome than a reaction window when you make a hit. Especially I can see people forgetting to set it properly before each attack.

According to 5E rules, you can only have one opportunity attack per round.

Honestly, your method of just having toggles just means we'll have lots of toggles to manage. I don't see how that's easier and more intuitive than having a reaction option window pop up when an event occurs that allows you to use a reaction.

Yeah, but you don't necessarily want it to proc on the first enemy to hit you, saving it for another. Therfor, the current system actually removes player choice in how combat goes. I ahve actually has situations where a smaller enemy procs OA and then the bigger enemy walks away scott free even though I wanted to prevent the bigger enemy from moving, I didn't care about the small fry. Therefor I would like to be able to toggle on or off if I want to be prompted for OA/reactions or not.

So, just to be clear... Fallen suggested that for smites, the solution might be to have the option to toggle the smite on, that you'd have to select and toggle from a choice of multiple different toggle options that are all visible on your screen independently (smite level), to activate if you hit - something that you would need to deliberately do before hand, before attacking, and then need to toggle off again after you swing your weapon, so that you don't continue to burn spell slots every weapon swing... And they are suggesting that that is a better way and preserves combat flow and speed more than having an automated question come up when you hit where you can click once, in a pause that takes less than a second, to choose whether to smite and what level if so (can be done with one click, and certainly in the solasta implementation, the reaction pop-ups are usually on screen for less than a second and do not, in fact, slow down combat in any tangible way at all, compared to the time it takes to just straight up make your move or make a decision about how to react on your turn). That's what it sounds like they're saying here. Is that what they're saying?

So you know, Fallen, since you seem to be making many broad assumptions about 5e rules without actually knowing (please don't do that - do your research first, it helps everyone): no, you do not get more reactions per turn as you level up; you only ever have one, whether you're level one or level twenty.

If deciding whether to cast shield or not when attacked causes your friend a decision gate which takes them twenty extra minutes to resolve, that's entirely on your friend and nothing to do with the game. You likely spend longer on your own turn moving barrels around and shimmying your character carefully around the enemy to ensure that the auto-path AI doesn't proc an unnecessary OA on you. Exaggerating to extreme values does not serve to enhance your argument - it actually weakens it, because it demonstrates that you need to push to extremes and treat them as normal just to make your stance look tenable... which is usually an indication that it's not.

What? I mention toggle for one ability, it would be equal to I think they did spells like this. Where you have say smite on your action bar, you click it it pops up a list of levels you can have for smite and click on that. Popup on your action bar that extending out showing what to chose kind of like how totems were on WoW a long time ago for shamans.

Just a idea, I'm not creating the game so who knows what it'll be.

At least I'm not ripping features from another game and throwing a fit cause its not like that.


There used to be a feat you could take that increased the amount of OA you could do in a single round. don't really know if they transferred it over to 5e or not though.

I wish that Tactical Adventures had the same money and resources that Larian does and I really hope that they get to a well-known and respected AAA level.
Their take on a D&D game is so refreshing. None of the UI or mechanics bloat, no relying on cinematics for every single minor interaction, and characters don't feel like superheroes thanks to a catch-all convenient story hook.
The reactions are just one tiny thing that Solasta does way better than BG3 in its current state.
And although more simplistic, the game feels substantially more optimized for an Early Access game. The Div 4.0 engine was a mistake.

Can't say I agree with you, generally dropped that game after a little bit and will continue when it goes live. While BG3 I've played multi play throughs single and multi along with more to come and mods possibly pushing more.

Not trying to pick on you but you accuse others of ripping off features but then present an example feature ripped from WoW...

I had a feeling you liked MMO layouts from your comments. I don't know if that will work with BG3. Spell casters like wizards will have around 20 unique spells available at level 10. That's not to mention special abilities, scrolls and other objects that will clog up that hotbar. The old MMO layouts to me are archaic at this point.

The Solasta layout is very well done. It changes as you expend actions whether they be full actions or bonus actions. It's very elegant for the game. I agree with the critics, it looks too modern for a fantasy setting game but that is a detail that can be remedied. It may also be too big and has a lot of wasted space, again something that can be fixed. And why not rip off the UI? Practically every MMO out there rip each other off and most function the same.

its a ui feature that is used in multi games including from what I understand this one also. nor am i throwing a fit if it doesn't come true.

ill agree that solasta does have a nice ui but they shaped it like a mobile game with big blocky grey squares, doesn't really look that great. Hope they change it up before launch.

and ya ive played wow since vanilla and returned for each expansion, currently returned to swtor.

It's the polish. BG3 is definitely very beautiful and slick. AAA graphics and voice action goes a long way, not gonna lie. And BG3 does have all of D&D content available.

If TA had Larian money and were able to make their game as beautiful and polished as BG3 with the FULL official D&D rules? I'd never even consider BG3 since other than it's shiny features, it's a pretty shallow game tactically due to DOS game mechanics.

No one is throwing a fit, well at least I'm not. I am just being critical to Larian when I think they need critical suggestions.

I won't disagree on how it looks. It completely looks out of place. At least we can agree on that.

Questionable, the writing was pretty dull for Solasta from what I played, maybe itll pick up later. BG3 has really bad cringy moments for sure but, over all is more entertaining.

If TA was actually given a mass amount of funding, I don't really know what kind of game would spew out. It would be interesting to see for sure.


Fair enough

Why not create a time window where you could press the space bar to pop-up the reaction menu?

If you don't press it, combat flows normally.

If you press it, then the menu shows up.

It could have an indicator when an action triggers a reaction window.

Awesome! =)

On top of that, you can add auto-reactions if you want or always pop-in menu like in Solasta.

I REALLY hope they go for something like this. Sounds heavenly.

Wait until we get multi-class and can do a smiting sneak attack with Green Flame Blade. The UI is going to need to be pretty flexible!

LOL. I didn’t even think about multi class. Yeah. UI needs an overhaul. What they have now cannot handle all that 5e will throw at it.

Crap, didn't think of that either. It's going to be a mess unless they improve it.

Multiclassing will probably cause a lot of issues with the current systems to surface. Right now summoning is kinda borked so IDK how I am going to do my Warlock and Conjuration mage build. Reaction based spells are going to get to be an issue and then monk reactions with a class that has reaction spells might cause things to not work under the current automatic system. And the paladin's smite with other melee attack abilities might not properly work or might be implemented wrongly. Pop up boxes really might be the best way to faithfully translate 5e

Did they even say they were going to allow for multi-classing? That would be so cool if they did but they would have to have a lot of the current bugs and issues worked out as well. After all the feats and some of the weapons are currently bugged yet

They've said that multi-classing will be available, yes, but I think they may only have said it once, in one place... and with the way the game is at the moment, it's looking like tall order for the time being.

I fully agree with you that is why I was surprised when they had mentioned multiclassing as there are so many things that need to be fixed. Of course, we do have over a year before the full game is released so a lot can happen between now and then

I would much rather they get things working properly in a game without multi-classing, rather than scrambling to bolt it on (with all it's added complexity and balance issues...minefield) and yield a lower quality experience in the end. If they implement all 5E classes and races (and maybe borrow from some other non core classes, published by WotC) then that is already a huge amount of supported play styles. A year is not that long really....Even though 5E is much simplified compared to PF or 3.5E, it's still a big system to implement faithfully.

Solsta is a game I just checked out on steam. It says it's in EA

Yup, true!

Ok I added it to my wish list will have to check it out closer and see if it's worth the purchase and d/l. Thanks

If you like 5th ed rules or just want to learn what they are it's worth it.

When looking at the graphics you need to remember that its small operation on shoestring budget

They’ve done incredibly well for such a small team. I particularly like how they’ve implemented the zone map and world map!

Unsurprisingly, this thread airs the same arguments and concerns as previous threads discussing the reaction system in BG3, and suggests the same set of possible solutions.

The Solasta reaction mechanism works for them, since they are aiming their game mainly at the smaller ( ~10M ) 5e audience, so a TT-feel with minimal production values fits well with player expectations.

The problem Larian have is that they want to create a game with general appeal to the larger ( ~200M ) videogame audience, so they want smooth high quality animation and gameplay. This is difficult to achieve if the flow of the game keeps changing due to reaction choices, so they have their automatic system that allows the game to process reaction choices before animating a turn.

It's fine at the present ( unless you are really grumpy about deviation from tabletop ) because there are few reactions implemented, but it will become increasingly unsatisfactory as more reaction behaviours are implemented.

It seems obvious that, one way or another, if Larian don't want to have a stop-start animation experience, they will need to have a highly configurable reaction system; and even then there will likely be players that don't like any form of automation.

Options are key. Leave it on auto for the masses, give experienced 5E players the ability to do reactions manually if they prefer. Earlier infinity games (including BG), despite being real-time, had user configurable options on when to auto-pause, which is really no different. It would essentially stop the flow of combat to let you ‘react’ to various situations.

There seems to be this assumption that in combat, reactions are going to be popping up all the time. Is there anything to suggest that this is the case? Most of the fights that I've been in, I don't use any reactions at all. There just aren't that many opportunity attacks getting triggered. And if you do use your reaction, it shouldn't ask you anything else until your turn comes around again (for each character you control).

I'm just not convinced that having it ask you whether you want to use a reaction is actually that cumbersome. And for those who think that it makes combat longer, I would argue that being able to use your reactions effectively might actually shorten combat by making you more efficient. Again, something I don't think we can really know until we try it.

Giving players the option to either use automatic reactions or set them to being triggered manually wouldn't lessen their sale numbers one bit but would make a lot of players very happy. I don't see how anyone could possibly argue against having at least the option to choose between either of both things.

+1

I don't see how giving players an option would make it worst. It can be a simple toggle if people just want to automate reactions.

They kinda give players options ...
By supporting mods.

But ideally, the point of EA is so we give our feedback on things like this, and ideally you want a product to be complete and not have to mod it to have that complete experience. And I would argue have the combat system closer to DnD but under the player's control is something that would allow the game to be closer to being complete as a product.

Very well put!
+1

Exactly!

Such mods aren't options... They are bandage.

Exactly like the "6 characters party mod" that will, among other thing, cure the lack of action points/round and the slowness of combats if Larian stick with parties of 4.

If this is your way of thinking then what are you even doing on an EA forum? Just wait for the full release of the game and get going with your mod projects afterwards.

One would say its obvious ... i like the curent system.

It's actually very unclear what your point is. Are you saying that you like that people don't have much control over what their characters do or that you like it when half-completed games are published and it's up to consumers to fix the broken bits?

If you like the current system then you would have no problem with what I suggested to give players an option to choose from. Or maybe you simply enjoy to be contrary to other people just to mess with them.

That would sound like logic assumption, wouldnt it?

Sadly ... i was liking the old casting system, since i dont like popup menus ... there was people who was sugesting to ADD OPTIONAL popup menu, so people can choose what suits them best ... what do we have now? A popup menu for everyone. -_-

So ... nope, sory, all i say is: I like it as it is.

What is it you don't understand about "optional"?

I dont think there is any reason to be so offensive. :-/
I also believe that i allready described example where optional alternative was proposed, and how it ended ...
I also believe that example should show my reasons to why i dont want this system to change the same way as the other one did.

I would also like to remind you that Larian have litteraly no obligation to follow our instructions, so even if people will write the word "optional" to every single sentence, there is litteraly no guarantee that final product will include that optionality.

So once aggain i repeat: Therefore i like it as it is and i dont want it change.

If I remember well Larian already said that the current reaction system was work in progress.

They know that it's not so good at the moment and very limited compared to D&D.
Sure they don't have to follow our instructions... But the game would be way more deep and interresting with proper reactions.

If you are afraid of change because the end result might turn out worse than you had hoped for, then I would advise you to copy the current EA version of the game to an offline environment and keep it there and never update the game ever again. Because chances are that one way or another the game will change quite a lot and if your best argument to any issue is "don't change anything" instead of activily finding a solution that works for (almost) everyone, you might find yourself on the "losing" side more times than you like.

So, I hear you. You like it how it currently is and say "f*ck the others". However I would like to find a solution that works for everyone, so once again I repeat: please ADD the option for manual reactions ON TOP OF having the option for automated reactions.

Exactly. He just doesn't seem to understand what people mean with making things optional. And I am NOT being rude here. It isn't easy to communicate ideas across any media or social platform, to be fair. I would prefer a reaction system that gives you player control and agency, he doesn't want that. Ideally, there would be options where you select what system you want.

Or ... you can use mod, its quite the same situation, just turned around.

Well, i didnt ... you did.
And since you dont seem to actualy read what i tell you and just keep repeating the same over and over ... i dont see much point in continuing in this conversation. :-/

Reactions are a core part of 5E - so people want them done properly. Adds a lot of tactical versatility - if Larian consider it a work in progress, it's going to change, which is good. Hopefully in a way that allows greater control for those who want it - or an auto mode for those who don't.

Yup!

Absolutely

Mods is the stupidest solution / answer when we're talking about important things that could totally change the experience.
Mods can't properly implement everything and mods are usually only available for PC.

But don't be embarrased... Even Sven use this shitty argument... (For the party of 6)

BG3 doesn't deserve to become like Mount and Blade 2. The modding community shouldn't work to finish games.

Yeah mods are a "slap on" solution I sincerely hope we can mostly do without.

Agreed. If this follows the DOS2 trajectory, the best mods will (kind of) end up on other platforms… but as gift bags. But I would much prefer the core game was right first, without resorting to drip-feeding fixes.

Cute ... first please bother to read it whole, then we can talk.

Err, your solution is to use mods, your point is quite clear.
But we are asking for a game to address the problems sometime in development so that mods do not have to be a solution. This is an EA forum for us to give our feedback, in other words, the point of EA is for us to influence how this game turns out. If the solution to every issue we have is mods then there would have been no point to EA, they wouldn't have wanted nor needed us and the game would have come out 2021-2022 completely without our input. But they released it as an EA title and asked us for our feedback, and so far a large amount of people are giving the feedback that the reaction system needs to be updated, either entirely or with optional features. And some people's feedback is that it is fine the way it is. Yours is that it is fine and mods will solve any issue, but that does not really give insight into the issue and feels more like a non-solution even though it is in the latter camp. Mods are meant to come after a game comes out and add extra player made content, but if a mod is required for the experience to be what was intended then that looks poorly upon the game. BG3 is supposed to be a transference of 5e to a video game with some changes to make it better for a better gaming experience. As such, I argue that resorting to mods is not within that goal and updating reactions to better fit that goal is best.

This is not meant to be confrontational and I am sorry if it turned out to be so.

Ok, i see that asking to read was too dificiult ... i try to put it simplier:
If you bother to see what im i reacting at, you can see that original poster sugested me to:
"copy the current EA version of the game to an offline environment"
I hope like this it will be noticeble enough ...

THEREFORE here come my reaction with mods, that is just telling that its same attitude ...
If i should "copy the current EA version of the game to an offline environment" ... to dont get the change i dont want.
They shoud "use mods" ... to get the change they want.

Same story, turned around, nothing more.
So all your etical talks about why "use mods" its not relevant reaction is not relevant to curent situation. -_-

Tone it down a bit, please. And you've made your point, you don't need to keep restating it.

I hope so ...
Sadly when reaction to your point is ignoring it and repeating the same satement that caused your point ... its kinda hard to believe that. :-/

You should know by now that everyone has an opinion - this is the internet. No one needs to accept yours, and you don't need to accept theirs. In the end, we don't know what Larian will implement - but we'll find out as the months go by. I for one am curious to see how much feedbacl they take on board - perhaps I'm wrong and they are patrolling the forums and discreetly listening to the many suggestions - that would be good. So far they have removed elemental effects from cantrip , which was a good move back towards 5E - hopefully more of that is waiting in the next patch.

I never forced anyone to accept my opinion in my whole life. O_o
So ... im good. :P

Id go a bit further and merge Solasta system with BG3.
The Solasta team is in France I think, pretty close to Larian's offices BG3 has got the graphics/cinematics and story while Solasta takes care of the mechanics and gameplay.

... not too bad of an idea

Haha, yes 😁
+1

I thought you meant read your response and not what it was a reaction to, and therefor constructed my response to yours. I apologize for my lack of tact and perception to the conversation at hand.

Nae bother ... i should probably do that too. :-/
So i shall ... i also apologize.

If Larian handled the writing I'd agree to this.

They should consult ZA/UM for writing. ;-)

That would be a dream right? Tactical adventure for uh... Tactical combat and ZA/UM on writing.

Larian could buy both studios since they are flooded anyway.

No clue what za/um is

Makers of Disco Elysium!

Oh crap, i need to finish that game. an ya the writing is really good.

I personally feel it's important for the game to have a proper reaction system.
This would not need to be just like Solasta in anyway, but a good reflection of gameplay from DnD 5e.

**************************
At the start of character's turn set reaction resource = 1

Attacks of opportunity
>If enemy moves to provoke an attack of opportunity
>Game checks for reaction resource = 1
>If conditions are met pause, let a |Attack|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD
>>If attack, set reaction resource = 0
>>If player selects pass, play resumes

Ready Actions
>Add a ready action command to the HUD
>Player readies an action, resource stays at 1
>if enemy meets conditions for ready action pause, let a |Readied Action|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD
>>If player selects react, ready action is used, set reaction resource = 0, and play resumes
>>If player selects pass, play resumes

Reacting to attacks/spells (explained below why this is in italics)
>Enemy attack has a check for reaction resource = 1
>Game checks if character has spell/ability that can react
>If conditions are met pause, let a |React|Pass| slide up from the bottom HUD
>>If player selects react, they can choose from their reaction ability, set reaction resource = 0, and play resumes
>>If player selects pass, play resumes

Players would have the option to use keyboard for |option 1|option 2| with |1|2|

While this seems simple, problems can arise with magic such as counterspell. What should the reaction system do if two characters have counterspell available?

So now does every spell need a check?
>Character casts spell
>game checks opposing party for counterspell
>game checks characters for reaction resource = 1
>Player gets |Counter|Pass|?
...

What should the game do if the player party has four characters who can use counterspell?
>If character who can react (would need a variable name) > 1
>create micro-shared-turn
>Player/AI selects character to use counterspell or pass
...it just gets complicated.
...should counterspell only be a ready action?
**************************

I would definitely like to see proper Attacks of Opportunity and Ready Actions in the game, they are more obtainable and something we could have sooner in early access. Spell reactions are problematic, but proper Attacks of Opportunity and Ready Actions would have the building blocks to make a reaction system work.

For problematic spells like counterspell I can understand why it could need to be changed from DnD 5e to only be a ready action, etc.
(which is why spell reactions are in italics)

For spells like Hellish Rebuke, Feather Fall, Absorb Elements, and Shield I would like to work like a proper reaction.
(If a Minotaur shoves Shadowheart off a cliff I would like to react with Gale to cast Feather Fall).

These four spells would need unique coding, but we're at four. I believe new statuses could be used to make them work in combat.

Hellish Rebuke
Create hidden status "Hellish Rebuke": (Character has reaction resource =1, spell slots <0, and Hellish Rebuke readied)
> If character has status "hellish rebuke" and damaged by visible enemy within 60 feet, pause
> |Hellish Rebuke|Pass| slides up from the bottom HUD
>>If player selects Hellish Rebuke, prompt player to select spell slot, set reaction resource = 0, enemy is hit with Hellish Rebuke, and play resumes
>>If player selects pass, play resumes

I think it's important to let the player choose to take attacks of opportunity, use Hellish Rebuke, etc.

Feather Fall would be similar with a falling status, Absorb Elements, and Shield would be similar.

Especially with how many elements can go around in combat, I would like Absorb Elements to be in the game.

This seems pretty much what others are asking for, a system that checks the availability of a reaction and then allows the player to choose to act. This would also help when counterspell and the monk drop.

Impressive, most impressive.

EXACTLY! This would NOT feel like it's "slowing down the combat" because these things happen on an enemy's turn! That will only make it feel like YOU have more control, which you would have! That's a good thing! But of course, you should ideally be able to choose if you want that or just automatic responses!

Exactly, giving players something to do on enemy turns would only make the game more engaging, not less. Similarly when you’re playing co-op and it’s not your turn.

Anything like Solasta for the gameplay combat would be great.
But Larian has a way to do things...their way, and I doubt (hope im wrong...) that they would emulate a similar system from another game maker. Hopefully they are open minded to game design.

I'm not disagreeing, but I'm just going to put it out there - if they aren't prepared to put their own way of doing things on hold, and instead emulate a different system, then they should never have agreed to make a 5e dungeons and dragons game, nor advertised to their fans that that was what they were making. Because that's a different system to their style, entirely, and having taken on a commitment to make that, and having advertised their intention to do so publicly, they now have a duty to deliver it... A duty which they are not meeting as of yet.

The other game would not be something that they would be copying, in this sense - its existence just highlights how badly they are not adhering to their own undertaking and what they advertised to sell copies, at the moment. The other game has a faithful 5e implementation of reactions. Asking for BG3 to faithfully implement reactions and their function as well is not asking them to copy that game, it's just asking them to do as they themselves said they were going to; the other game is just demonstration that this works and works well, and doesn't need to be tinkered with.

I agreed! They advertised the implantation of faithful 5e and that i why I brought into this. IF some of my other dnd group ask me to play 5e and then changed the core rule... then I won't play it but unfortunately... I have already paid money for this product. (I still have hope, but we'll shall see).

And there have been trials for less than that... But I am confident they don't want that. I think there is still hope, and that we have to keep insisting and reporting our feedbacks.
I think it all depends on how they will treat us with Patch 4. For the moment, we are a lot of people here pointing at their lack of communication. So if they choose to ignore our feedbacks about D&D on top of that in Patch 4, more than 4 months after launch, well, I think it will mean they do not care at all, and it might trigger anger. But if they show some respect for us and D&D in this patch, well, it will be a very good indicator regarding the final release and our upcoming adventures with Larian.
Fingers crossed for patch 4.

Let's hope so. We even have a very good example of "trials for less" with Cyberpunk2077 and the hate train it caused (which did get blown out of proportions due to people hyping themselves up and imagening features that would make it in without these features being announced, but still).

So far what I have seen, BG3 is popular for many people still because it is flashy and because of all the romances. Not really that it is a good fit within the Baldur's Gate saga, or because it is a good 5e DnD to CRPG translation.

Even if BG3 ends up more or less like it currently is mechanics & feature-wise (let's hope not! that would force me to play easy/story mode - and not because of the difficulty), it won't be nearly as big of a mismatch between what was advertised and the reality like C2077. That game was advertised as - beyond other things - "next generation open-world", they literally misadvertised the genre of the game...

Yes exactly!

Does anyone with modding experience know if it's easy to implement changes to reactions, to get options as they come up during fights?

My suggestion on it, would to allow players (restricted to the characters their control for multiplayers ofc), to be able to navigate through each character to enable/disable reactions duration the enemy phase. Also adding spells like Shield to reaction window, or even put allow reactions spells/skill there, instead of having them to cast ahead of time.

I don't really understand what you mean. Well... I understand, but I don't see how it would work in game.
When 10 goblins are playing, will you have to focus and have 2 sec to click at the right moment with the right character ?
What about spells you can cast on an ally ? (i.e feather fall)

Don't think it would work.

I really don't see any other solution that Solasta's one to create a proper reaction system... But I'm not sure it would suit BG3.
Maybe a popup for 5 seconds would be better and more dynamic ?

The actual system is completely uninterresting and something has to be done but anyone has suggestions in mind ?
We already talked about this before the EA but I have to admit that my memory is not the best^^

So we are relying on mod now? And to think of this is just EA, shame...

Hopefully we wont have to rely on mods, I just wondered if it would be easy to implement things with mods, since *maybe* the reaction system (among other things) wont be implemented in a way that actually allows for full control over your choices, which would be a damn shame to anyone who wants to decide things for themselves rather than relying on a flimsy automatic function.

It's more than likely to be quite possible in the future, particularly after full release with mod support.

Oooh! Lovely! =)

Uncanny that the same person who was pushing the point that players can get what they want via mods was also trying to majorly argue to make the game be a certain way.
If you're so ok with players needing mods to have the things be they way they want, then let them have the game changed to be their way and YOU can mod it to be your way.

Kinda amazed I got through 9 pages of this with nobody mentioning the Battlemaster's counterattack, which uses one of their limited dice. Same as using a spell slot for a reaction spell, of course, but still.
Definitely need the ability to decide whether or not to use reactions at the time they'd be used, not beforehand.

How do you propose doing that?

Every time you get hit, the game pauses for a pop-up that asks, "Would you like to use Riposte now?"

That would be the desire all 9 pages of this thread are about, yes. People wanting that to happen.
For reaction spells, Riposte, opportunity attacks; all reactions.
And it's apparently what they do in this "Solasta" game people keep mentioning.

I get the appeal of wanting to decide, but that seems like it might get intrusive on an actual play level. Of course, I haven't played Solasta, so I'm not sure how it works in practice. I'm just trying to imagine what it would look like.

It's not very intrusive at all. It depends on the implementation. For example, the dice rolls for skill checks in BG3 could stand to be -a lot- faster than they currently are.

I have a higher level combat demonstration for Solasta here, and at one point I actually get a triple attack of opportunity from three party members/allies at once, and you can clearly notice my shock when the UI lets me pick if I wanted to spend my reaction with each of my three eligible party members at the same time. Shame the enemies never rolled high enough for the game to let my wizard react with throwing up a Shield spell in this footage, although Greenmage is busted as hell to begin with on a sheer utility level (it's a homebrew wizard archetype with archery fighting style, a few ranger/druid spells, and light armor proficiency!), and my Paladin did get to show off his protection fighting style at the start of the fight.


Then again, this is kind of expected for Solasta. The devs there clearly went all in on having a responsive, clear, and easy to understand user interface for the combat, and it shows. Probably by far the best UI in terms of actual functionality for any cRPG I've ever seen. They did have an interview last week, mostly talking about the recently revealed Dungeon Maker tool. But when the topic inevitably shifted into BG3 and other DnD games, they straight up said that they were focused on the combat for Solasta and did not intend to compete with BG3 in the narrative department.

That's actually a really nice video, Saito... it captures quite a few different elements and showcases a number of things. Hopefully it can put an end to the arguments that want to suppose properly implemented reactions will slow down combat; this is an excellent example of how they don't.

I actually have another video of a lower level fight in Solasta (from an earlier EA phase where they had the controversial homebrew rule where attacks against enemies in dim light imposed disadvantage - this ended up being axed rather quickly) where a boss actually uses Fly, Shield and Counterspell against my party. It also has a brief showcase of using ready action ranged attack to launch arrows at enemies during their turn, when there weren't any viable targets during my own turn before.

(But the boss also tried to 1 VS 1 my Greenmage Wizard and lost horribly because Flaming Sphere is actually a hard counter to his flying shenanigans, which was probably why the enemy AI was banking on trying to break his concentration with Scorching Ray. The one Scorching Ray that did hit rolled too high for my Wizard to counter it with Shield, so the game doesn't bother asking you if you want to cast it there, as it would be essentially wasted anyway.

Also my Wizard having the highest bonus to attack with his bow shots but having the lowest actual rolls seems like it's going to be a recurring theme for me.)

Those hater that hate "gray boxes because looks like mobiles games" , "reaction box appears every god damn times" and "graphics look like shit" not gonna change their mind no matter how many proofs that Bg3 need more improvement.

Funny you mention that first part. I used to be in the 'UI graphics > functionality' camp, up until I realized I'd much rather have a less stylish UI if it meant that I wasn't going to be wasting a lot of time fighting the game's controls instead. And let's be honest with ourselves, probably a good 10% of our play time in BG3 is probably inflated by some UI-related shenanigans.

Jumping in BG3 should really be automatic outside of combat, for instance. But instead I have to press the jump button and spend half a minute fishing around for the correct angle for my character to actually make it across that gap. If party members can make it across automatically just by following you, I don't see why the first character can't automatically jump by just pressing a space on the other side to move towards as well.

Great video.

Yes, combat of Solasta and its functional UI combined with the size, graphics and story would be the game of the century.
I have not played Solasta yet, but I can only repeat what I said before:
BG3 is an absolute masterpiece in terms of graphic, exploration and reactivity.
But UI, party control and some game mechanics are terrible.

It's so nice seeing a "use spell" button to show all cantrips and prepared spells.

It's also great seeing a reaction for Divine Smite and Attack of Opportunity.

I'm genuinely baffled by people who compare these two games.

Solasta is a low budget, grid and turn based strategy game with light roleplay elements

BG3 is a big budget/triple AAA cinematic rpg, albeit with turn based combat

This isn't to disparage one or praise the other. It is just to point out the differences. BG is like Pathfinder, Solasta is like Xcom. That should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has even watched a video of both. They differ vastly in their scope, ambition, core market and most importantly basic design philosophy. Like Pathfinder, all the dice rolling is done behind the scenes and the result is depicted realistically and cinematically in BG3. The dice roll is displayed prominently in Solasta, all the information is available to the player. This isn't just for artistic reasons, it is because both game treat information differently.

In the video linked when smite applies a dialogue box appears. It is addressed to the player. There is no pretence that this is a realistic action by the character. It is an option for the player to choose.

How many times have you seen such a dialogue box in BG? Or any other cinematic rpg for that matter. It's rare, because it breaks immersion. It's very common in strategy or tactical games. RPG's are controlled almost entirely by context dependent menus and hotbars.

I just wonder how people asking for reactions would expect them to be depicted graphically? How do you know when to cast shield if you can't see the dice roll? How do you counterspell when the act of casting a spell and its effect are depicted as almost instantaneous like in BG3? And featherfall, how would that even work as a reaction graphically? In Solasta, if you don't tick the option to have a timer for reactions, the game pauses until you click yes or no. Can you really see Gale, having been pushed off a cliff, frozen in time as he decides whether to cast the spell? That happened to me once with featherfall in Solasta. Time just stopped as I answered the phone.

Genuinely curious. I like both and can appreciate both for the different type of games they clearly are. Anyone that is hoping for BG3 to turn into Solasta, though, is probably in for a sore disappointment.

Gonna leave my idea here from an old thread that i haven't mentioned here before.

What they could also do is implementing reactions the same way they are in tabletop games: by the player getting active and reacting to what the DM is telling him/her. "Wait, I'm going to use my reaction!"

What I mean for the game is that reactions are neither triggered automatically nor does the game hit the breaks and asks you every single time if you would like to use your reaction now.

The round just plays out, all enemies taking their turns, unless you hit a reaction button to pause the game and select an available reaction for what has happened within the last couple of seconds.
Got hit real hard by that goblin? Hit the reaction key and select uncanny dodge for the last damage value you received. The damage then gets retroactively halfed and the rest of the round just continuous to play out until it's your turn again.

I generally agree that comparing both games is kind of an exercise in futility, but it's not exactly what's happening in this thread, so I don't agree with your overall argument. People are largely comparing combat mechanics, which is the one common topic shared across both games, and comparisons are naturally going to happen when both games are supposedly adaptations of the same source material.

You could argue that BG3 shouldn't have stuff like proper reactions because it's supposed to be cinematic and immersive, but that's a flimsy cop-out bottom of the barrel argument at best, because chances are extremely high that's not actually why we don't have things like reactions, ready actions, and dodge actions to begin with. Features are generally cut due to budget constraints or engine limitations, not because 'they don't fit developer vision'. If the latter reasoning actually is at play here, I'm pretty sure we would have heard something about it from Larian by now.

I'm quite sure if one tried justifying that kind of reasoning for the lack of reactions even at the BG3 subreddit, no one would accept that argument, even if that place is infamous for being an echo chamber that generally worships everything Larian and harasses anyone with any kind of criticism without a second thought. Most people would definitely prefer greater choice and control over such a highly subjective concept as 'immersion'.

It's a poor argument when one considers that BG3 combat in itself is already as non-immersive as it gets. Because if one is really trying to pin the lack of certain key combat features on such a vague concept as cinematic immersion, they should also be prepared to try and justify things like freely sneaking around and dropping barrels while all nearby combatants are unable to retaliate, for the sole reason of one player character that has rolled initiative purposefully twiddling their thumbs. Is that supposed to be a legitimate cinematically immersive experience?

(Do you know what actually was a major mechanic brought about by developer vision? Dim light disadvantage in Solasta, which the devs there publicly walked back several months later when they realized that it had an overwhelming effect on the game's encounter balance and actually clashed against the rest of the game's vision of being as faithful to the source material as possible.)

Seconding that by sticking to a turnbase system, BG3 has already prioritized mechanics over cinematics for combat. Turnbase combat is inherently non-immersive - characters taking individual turns is something that fundamentally breaks reality. As it stands, there is nothing done with BG3's combat animation or camera angles that make it any more cinematic than Solasta's. Both companies have chosen to keep combat visuals mostly functional, which is a design choice I agree with (as impressive visuals can quickly wear thin when constantly repeated).


Here's the thing though, we've already seen this implemented in game. Dialogue in BG3 is far more cinematic than combat - yet Larian has implemented a "visual interruption" with the skill check dice rolls.

Every time we meet Astarion and he puts a knife to your throat (which is far more cinematic and specifically animated for that moment), the game waits for you to make a roll while the two of you rock back and forth in an endless struggle.

On top of this, even if we accept that Larian does in fact want to prioritize cinematics, other AAA games that are far more cinematic than BG3 have implemented various forms of "visual interruptions" for years. This is essentially what Quick Time Events are.



Making them similar to the dice roll pop-up that interrupts the dialogue cutscene (but a bit faster to fit the combat), would be a good starting point. The alternative is something similar to the tutorial pop-ups they've just started implementing, if we want a less intrusive implementation.

In terms of triggers for specific spells/questions:

1) Shield - since information is freely available in BG3 (no metagaming issues), the reaction to shield should only prompt when the +5AC can prevent the hit

2) Counterspell - slow down or freeze time as the enemy is doing their incantations, show prompt

3) Feather Fall - slow down or freeze time as character is falling, show prompt

And lastly, there's nothing stopping Larian from keeping the current options too. Instead of simply having "on/off" for reactions, the reaction prompt can be the 3rd option - i.e. "on / off / prompt me".

This way for characters with less reaction options (aka the martials), you can just keep opportunity attack turned on instead of manually clicking each time.


My bigger concern of why we might not get proper reactions is similar to Saito's, in that the current engine doesn't support it. For example, it doesn't seem like the current engine support a "proper pausing" at all. There is currently no way to pause the game at all without quitting. Menus don't do it. Entering turn-base mode outside of combat is still a clunky mix of real-time and turnbase.

Larian people should play Solasta for a few hours to see how D&D combat should work and feel like. After that they can decide if they want to go more in that direction or not. It is their game after all.

But even Solasta has it'a issues. Apart from the really mediocre grahics it is really awkward sometimes. A real clickfest

I think a slow down with something like 5 seconds to react would be really awesome.

Magic missile incoming : cast shield ???
Shove on your ally : cast feather fall ???

It could lead to really dynamic combats in which the player have to be carreful and to act during the ennemy's turns.

Not sure about how.
Not sure "like solasta" is a good solution for BG3.

But this is an incredible opportunity to define what all TB games should be in the future.

Five seconds is a really long time. Two or three would be enough.

Eh I'm not a fan of slowing things down for reactions. The game is turn based, so it should stick with turn based and not add psuedo Quick Time Events. In a turn-based system, I expect to be able to leave my computer at any point, and come back not having missed any opportunities.

I'd prefer that time froze and a pop-up window appeared asking "do you wish to use [reaction]?"

Tbt is turn based but if you take to long to use your reaction you lose it :P

I guess if they can slow down and add a timed popup... They can easily pause this moment and freeze the game until you click that popup.

My fear with a pause is that it would be like... In Solasta. I love this game but those pause appear more than once on every turns. I can deal with it but I don't think lots of players would like this.

I hear you, and that's why it should be an option like others have said. You can choose either toggle reactions or pop-up reactions. I suppose Larian could also add a third QTE option, but if I had to choose between pop-up or QTE I definitely choose pop-up.
I like the pop ups in Solasta. They only get to be slightly too much when you have a Paladin plus characters with the Protection fighting style.

Even then I think it's fine, I love the options. I truly hope they implement OPTIONS for it! =)

The reason you see many pop-up questions in Solasta is because it is *not* only for Reactions.
If you play a Paladin, every hit ask you if you wish to smite. It is too much.

Reaction options are more rare : Shield spell, Batte Master Riposte, and a few rare others. For many parties, there will be no Reaction options, so no pop-up: just a standard Attack of opportunity (once per round, so there is a choice there if many enemies are in reach).

Yeah true, the popups are for much more than just reactions, which I *LOVE* as it gives you more options, all the time! I love CONTROL. I would like to at least have the OPTIONS of that much control in BG3.

With how the system is set up at the moment, where class is basically meaningless because of massive unbalance issues and homebrew gimmicks it wouldn't contribute much. They would have to start making an actual D&D game first and forget about the whole DOS reskins.

Solasta is the poor man's Pathfinder atm and this is still DOS3.

Woah woah woah, I never said that thing you're all quoting me on! That was @Maximuuus, who I was quoting.

I have 0 fear that a pause like this would be like in Solasta. I love Solasta and the pop ups and think that BG3 should be more like Solasta, at least in how reactions are implemented.

Also the protection fighting style. My playthroughs have involved 2 fighters/paladins, which means I often get 2 "Do you wish to impose disadvantage?" prompts every turn. And even with that + Smite, I'd rather have the pop-ups than toggle reactions that proc on the first opportunity.

Exactly!!! The OPTION is amazing to have!!! MORE CONTROL!!!

Looks like you're the bad guy !!

Anyway yes definitely, I said it many times in this thread. Proper reactions are necessary, this is something I totally want in BG3 and this is a real opportunity to improve the TB system to something a bit less static/a bit more dynamic.

This toggle ON/OFF doesn't make sense to manage one of our (re)action/round.

On the other hand I'd like something a bit less intrusive and/or a bit faster than in Solasta if possible. Something a bit closer to real time or something that won't freeze the TB again.

Maybe a small popup time limited while the action is slowing down a bit or something...

I don't know, I don't have a real good suggestion in mind but I hope something even better could be done.

Of course I'd like frozen popup like in Solasta way more than what we have now.

I don't like the reaction pop up windows in Solasta. They kill the flow of combat. I've also never missed a reaction mechanic in BG, NWN or any other crpg. Those games play better without constant interruptions or the tedium of having to toggle reactions on and off trying to guess how things will play out.

There's a simple solution to this in BG3. Bonus Actions. Larian have already converted many Actions into Bonus Actions because they feel players need more to do during a turn. So... convert Reactions into Bonus Actions.

E.g. Shield -> Bonus Action spell, +5 AC for 3 turns. AoO's can be automatic. Riposte can also be activated as a Bonus Action and be "active" until discharged. Active is the key word in using abilities rather than the passive toggles you forget about.

Kind of wonder how NwN 1 & 2 did AoO, been way way to long. Was it like a passive and it just happened or did it not even make it to the game?

It just happens automatically at the first opportunity. That covers 99% of the cases. I never felt the need to pick the feat that gives you more AoO's.

Interesting, I know that was a popular feat for my pnp group back in the day. Video game wise, don't know, guess I can see it not being as useful.

Its been ages since I played NWN1+2. I can tell AoO happened automatically but I am not sure if you could have more than one.

In Pathfinder Kingmaker there is a feat that allows you to have more than one AoO per round. (combat relexes).
WotR has it too, plus a mystic feat to get more AoO.
It makes sense to use this feat:
- When standing close to an archer you get an AoO for every shot they make unless they have a feat to avoid this.
- Several of your chars have outflank and/or seize the moment. When somebody makes a crit against an enemy, all other chars get an AoO against that enemy. If the AoO is a crit it can lead to a long chain of attacks.
Should the enemy still be alive after this, the next char can get a crit with the regular attack, starting a new crit chain.

But DnD 5E has different rules ( I am not an expert, please correct me when I am wrong)
- Shooting while being close to an enemy gives disadvantage, not AoO
- You have only one reaction and AoO are not the only possible reaction.

I'm presuming NwN 1 had Improved AoO feat which let you do 1 AoO per person leaving your square. But my knowledge of the feat comes from 3.5 and that would be NwN 2 since NwN 1 was 3.0

oop maybe it was called combat reflexes.

Edit* Ya it is, didn't bother getting the actual books, found it here: dandwiki NwN 1 doesn't have this feat but has two feats to get away from AoO.


d&d 5e freebe pdf, Ranged Attacks, Page 76 (you can download it off d&dbeyond some where on the site)

Range
You can make ranged attacks only against targets within
a specified range.
If a ranged attack, such as one made with a spell, has a
single range, you can’t attack a target beyond this range.
Some ranged attacks, such as those made with a longbow
or a shortbow, have two ranges. The smaller number
is the normal range, and the larger number is the long
range. Your attack roll has disadvantage when your target
is beyond normal range, and you can’t attack a target
beyond the long range.

Ranged Attacks in Close Combat
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe
is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a
weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have
disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile
creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated.

Reaction Page 73
Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you
to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is
an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can
occur on your turn or on someone else’s. The opportunity
attack, described later in this chapter, is the most common type of reaction.
When you take a reaction, you can’t take another one
until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts
another creature’s turn, that creature can continue its
turn right after the reaction.

Knee-jerk reaction: I hate this suggestion.

But honestly, if Larian is going to keep in all their other homebrewed bonus actions (jump+disengage, eat, probably dodge, Land druids' wild shape, hide, dip, shove), then it wouldn't be the worst idea to change some reactions to bonus actions. At the very least, doing this will prevent you from always using Larian's overpowered bonus actions. I'd still prefer pop-up reactions, at least as an option.

3 things to consider
--If these abilities do cost a bonus (or standard) action to use, then maybe they shouldn't use up your reaction as you've already spent the cost to activate them.
--If these abilities still do use your reaction (and are either a bonus or a free-action to "activate"), then you should have some ability to choose targets to react to so you don't waste your reaction. E.g., Protection Fighting Style: you select a nearby ally, and if that ally is attacked you impose disadvantage. This prevents you from wasting it on a Tank who probably wouldn't be hit anyway.
--I don't actually trust Larian to balance things properly if they make these changes. See all their homebrewed bonus actions and their thoughts why players don't like Bless, not considering how their surfaces and height/backstab advantage affect the usefulness of a concentration +1d4 to-hit spell.

Making reactions into "bonus actions" is a terrible idea. It just seems best and easiest to me to implement a reaction system similar to that in Solasta, AS AN OPTION, and then people can make their own choices when they create a new game.

Shield as a bonus action lasting 3 turns would be a significant buff. However I would still like to use spells as reactions.

I think most reactions wouldn't be an issue. Divine Smite might be awkward as it can come up frequently, but it's not really a reaction anyway. Jeremy Crawford's input, you can Divine Smite on an Opportunity Attack.

It could work as a "prepped" reaction, similar to how Hellish Rebuke is represented now. The player would prepare Divine Smite, and if the next attack connects the spell slot is spent and Divine Smite is applied.

As I've posted earlier reaction spells should work as reactions, Hellish Rebuke, Shield, Feather Fall, etc. It's nice to have engagement on the enemies turn. Auto-opportunity-attack is fine, since the enemy never gives the player an opportunity attack. (However if a character has reaction spells, or other reactions they should be asked if they want to use their opportunity attack.)

As I've mentioned before, if the character has Hellish Rebuke and available spell slots they should get true reactions. With how potent shove is, being able to react with Feather Fall would be great.

I'm fine with what Larian has done except that disengage still doesn't work well. Tried to disengage, hit the button, picked my location, game made my character move first, got Critically Hit, and lost most of my HP because my character didn't properly disengage.

So Reactions in BG3 for me only stink cause they either don't work well with Disengage or because I think I can move past an enemy only two provoke an attack somehow by accident. Vwe need something more substantial than a red arrow you can barely see on the ground at character's feet.

I've also noticed characters don't always trigger reactions when they should. I put Lae'zel right next to an enemy. They didn't disengage but she didn't hit them with her axe.

It's not "by accident". You should never be able to move close to an ennemy without triggering an AOO or being able to disengage as a bonus action jumping like a kangaroo.

What's the point of AOO ?
A bonus attack only for the player because it's so cool ? No... AOO are supposed to give melee character the control of a zone on the battlefield. At the moment AOO doesn't give any control the the ennemy because of this disengage + exploit turning arround.

Anyway I'm also +- ok with AOO as auto reaction even if it may not be the best. It's not like if they were a lot of melee ennemies so usually you're engaged with only 1 or 2 at the same time.

As DragonSnooz said it becomes a real problem when it cost a spellslot and use a powerfull spell like hellishrebuke on... bad luck, the goblin that have 2HP left... Warding flare is another exemple to understand how bad the toggle on/off is for reactions.

It will be +- ok for smite even if this toggle is something tedious to manage at each turn.

Oh I agree about AOO. I meant simply that it isn't easy to determine how close is too close right now, and sometimes the game has your character get too close when you don't want it to. And I REALLY want them to fix Disengage so it isn't jump. That's why my character got criticalled. Moved away from the enemy to jump but I hit disengage. If I hit disengage, I shouldn't get hit by AOO. Ever.

That make sense.

I also agree with you and Dragonsnooz.

I think there is no need to change things from Solasta and we should have the Solasta combat rules in BG3.
Its a turn based game with tons of abilities so you have to click lots of stuff anyway.
Reaction means that you can do something when enemies have their turn, so it becomes more engaging and you do not just watch when enemies act.

Bet it's hard to manage, though, with multi-player from an IT perspective. Auto-Reactions are more IT friendly. Allowing users to interrupt an enemy's turn in multi-player has got to be tough to not have it be buggy.

maybe we could get an option to turn automatic reactions on or off? then everybody can decide and play the way they like.

And, you know, I was giving it more thought too. Not sure why it might be more difficult for multi-player now that I think about it. It's turn based. You COULD allow players to pick their reactions similarly to Solasta. Enemy attacks with magic missiles, game pops up a window asking if you want to cast Shield. You click Yes or No. Game resumes. Enemy casts the spell. If you hit Yes, missiles hit you and nothing happens. If you hit No, missiles hit you and do normal damage. Wouldn't drag the game pace down that much. It works for Solasta. I actually like that feature in that game.

Same with deciding if you WANT to use your reaction on a particular enemy as AOO. Sometimes you are surrounded by more than one enemy. You may want to use your Reaction to hit an almost dead enemy who tries to flee, but one who has more health moves first. In BG3 now, you would auto-react to hit the bigger enemy and thus the little one gets away and shoots you without even triggering AOO. However, if I was given a choice, I might not use my Reaction to hit the first guy but to hit the second.

But you are right. Making it another Option in the Options menu would allow players to play whatever way they like. The only issue that might come up from that, though, is that Larian has to do a lot more coding to implement manual reactions just so people have the option to do it. If we keep making them add more features as options just so everyone can play the game the way they want, the game might wind up being 300 gb in size before we're all done. Not saying they shouldn't and that it wouldn't be good. Just saying that I could see that as an issue with the idea of making it an option.

I personally think manual reactions would be awesome. I'd love to see it.

A proper Reaction system is essential to a host of class abilities, spells, and feats. Asking this of modders is really beyond the pale. Larian should keep in mind that at least some players will want a functioning mechanical system in lieu of whatever it's that they are trying to make. Even if that functioning system has to be modded in.

I'm actually waiting for Realms-Beyond. If I remember correctly it's suppose to come with a mod tool as well, looking forward to it.

I have another Solasta demonstration, part of a new sidequest from the patch two days ago. Even something as simple as implementing reactions makes even level 3 combat look dynamic and highly tactical. You get to make decisions even during the enemy turn, which is why I chose to disengage with my Wizard towards the end thinking it'd result in the enemy risking a triple opportunity attack - and it's exactly what they did.

(Also my Wizard got X-COM'd. He had shield up and guess what happened. >_>)

EXACTLY! Part of why I love their implementation of a reaction system is that you get to do things even doing enemy turns, that you can CONTROL and make decisions about! Love it!

Reactions are pretty important in 5e so the fact that we don’t see it in BG3 makes me think the DOS engine isn’t capable of such actions. Or it can at the cost of major resources.

Larian just prefers to use their resources on things like voice acting and what hairstyle each origin character will have.

I am pretty sure their engine can handle implementing a proper reaction system. I am sure it can even be made with mods.

I haven’t seen any but I could be wrong or forgot something. Even attacks of opportunity isn’t a real reaction system. It’s a toggle.

They probably can, the real question is exactly how. There's no prior precedence for a proper reaction system in DOS2. The closest thing DOS2 had to ready actions was the skill Reactive Shot, and it just allowed you to fire up to 3 arrows at enemies entering or moving within a specified area without a movement skill (which are also the prior precedence for the jump/disengage bonus action that exists in BG3).

If it's ultimately left up to mods like I suspect it will, it's not going to be as easy as you'd think. It's the kind of undertaking that would probably take a year or longer to figure out an elegant solution for, especially since it appears that this engine lacks any form of proper pausing. That's going to be the biggest hurdle to overcome, forcing the game to recognize when you can use a reaction other than a non-controllable opportunity attack, recognize if you even have the resources to use it (for reactions that require spell slots like Shield), and then interrupt an enemy turn so you can take that reaction.

Really enjoying the Solasta spring patch and I really hope that BG3 has a similar system. As @madscientist says it's a turn based system and that already involves involves clicking and decision making.

The paladin class really comes alive with the reactions. I had previously thought that paladins were weaker than weapons masters but Solasta changed my mind. My paladin with lightbringer sword, divine favor, and smite is doing serious damage. And I'm able to avoid being hit by casting shield.

I want to be able to make the decisions on when to cast smite -- if I waste it on a monster with 4 hit points left I won't be able cast shield the next turn. Resource management is just an important part of RPGs -- the decisions are part of the fun.

Yeah, some here would argue that reactions would interrupt the flow of combat too much... But the alternative is not being able to do anything during the enemy turn at all, which is an even bigger downside and leads to a huge lack of tactical consideration.

The reaction system is really the one major thing that separates DnD and other tabletop systems from a standard turn based game.

I don't understand the argument that reactions interrupt the flow in a turn based combat system. If it was RTwP, then I get it but turn based is methodical by nature.

The biggest argument I can think of is for multiplayer. Reaction pop-ups will result in many more times where most of the players are forced to wait for a single player to make a selection. Thus, everyone would have to pay attention to the entire combat and not just their own turn.

But honestly, this isn't a very compelling argument. Is it really the worst thing if, once in a while, you have to wait like a minute or two for your friend to come back from getting a snack?

Finally, here are many ways of addressing this:
-Allow the option of toggle or pop-up reactions
-Add a timer to the reaction pop-up window

Yeah, it's not compelling at all. If your friend ran off to get a snack, the game gets delayed regardless if it becomes their turn when they are off to the fridge. I mean that's the nature of multiplayer. You will be delayed at some point if everyone isn't paying attention to the game.

I don't like toggles because there's too many times I forget to turn it on or off. But I'm guessing that's how Larian will handle reactions. It'll be cumbersome, just like everything else in the game.

I can see timers but if it's too short, then players may feel too rushed in their decisions (not that reaction choices are that complex).

Their engine should definitely be able to handle a reaction system as it'd mostly just be adding a pause and then allowing player to to choose something. I think it'd be less having to remake things and more just adding to what is already there. But this might be too generalizing or completely and utterly wrong.

I hope so but I suspect the reason we aren't seeing any reactions (attack of opportunity) is because Larian doesn't really have a good solution. It's probably why we haven't seen paladins yet as a major part of their core powers is reactionary smites.

But I lost hope with Larian after their patch 4 reveal. What we are seeing is what we are getting, with only minor changes.

I should mention that Solasta actually added an option to have a reaction timer in the latest patch. No one really talks about it because hardly anyone found reactions to be a problem with how *fast* the game still manages to be to begin with.

There literally isn't any downside anymore.

I just started playing Solasta and man, have I been missing out sticking with BG3. The Ready Action, which works like Reactions, is really cool. My party was sneaking around a camp full of goblins and I set my wizard's action to Ready Action - Cast Cantrip. The moment a goblin came within line of sight of her, she stood up, cast firebolt, killed it, and then went right back to sneaking. Or my Paladin would set the Ready Action to perform a melee attack and then put him next to my party members, so that the first enemy that comes within range to attack the party gets a sword in his face.

The wizard has the Shield spell memorised and when attacked, I get a pop up asking if I want to cast Shield. If I think it might do a lot of damage if it lands, I'd cast the spell. This is such a cool power in 5E and it's a real shame that BG3 simplifies all Reactions to a passive toggle.

EXACTLY!!!!! It's *SOOOOO* much better with those amazing options!!! I wish SO DAMN MUCH that Larian implements something like that, because it enhances the gameplay by a ton!!!

I honestly don't have many issues with the gameplay of the game and feel like most of the D&D problems this game has (some rule changes like height and backstab, lack of subclasses, etc), while not ideal, could be changed in the future with some modding, I feel like this one is a real big one and will be much more difficult to implement for modders, so Larian has to find a way to figure it out themselves. And I do feel like this one is a really big one to leave out of the game. feels like adapting a Yu-Gi-Oh game without implementing trap cards.

Welcome back Abits

I wish I had as much faith as you.

Yup. Now that I've seen what a true CRPG representation of the DnD core rules is like, I just can't enjoy BG3's combat anymore. BG3's fights are now just annoyances I have to get through to advance the story.

In BG3, the wizard is just a poorer damage dealer than the fighter or the rogue, and whose main worth is casting Magic Missiles, and maybe Feather Fall if you wanna go to the Underdark through the spider lair.

But with reactions, you get to feel like the wizards in movies and novels. Look! The enemy's mage is launching an attack at us! The wizard looks up, and discerns that the spell Slow is being cast, and quickly mutters an incantation that counters that spell, completely nullifying it. The wizard is more than just a second rate damage dealer playing second fiddle to the martials. He is your defence against the enemy's magical attacks. Without him watching your back, your party would be at the mercy of enemy wizards and could be Slowed, Charmed, Poisoned and hit by all sorts of maledictions.

Not having proper reactions in BG3 does a huge disservice to DnD 5E and makes new comers to DnD think that wizards and other casters are useless, and that a party should just have martials and a bag full of pig's heads.

I'm just going to add how quick and smooth combat is in Solasta. The game has pop-up reactions AND combat is faster than BG3.

The logic that pop-up reactions may slow down the pace of combat, is not true at all.

The enemy can use reactions too. So it'd be a structure similar to...

• add a reaction table for the round (reactions are bound to the round, not the turn). It'd be similar to maintaining initiative order.
• when character uses reaction ability, reaction point is spent
• for each character with initiative, reaction point refreshes on start of turn
• create conditional classes/statuses to prompt use of reactions
• use those classes to pause combat (player side) and prompt the player
• create combat AI for enemies that may use reactions (probably always will, unless out of spell slots, out of reactions for the round).

Of course more needed code would come out of the woodwork when implementing/optimizing. I think it's totally doable as well.

I'm just going to leave this here.



I had never really appreciated the concept of Counterspell until now. Characters that are able to see the actual spellcasting get to roll an arcana check to identify the spell, and then if any one of those characters have Counterspell, they get the option to counter it. If you fail the arcana check but are still in range to interrupt, you can still counter it, but you won't know what spell you're trying to halt.

There's a lot of strategic layers to unpack here, and that's just weighing the risk of stopping a spell or letting it continue - if you even have a reaction available to counter to begin with, and the enemy didn't bait it with something like you using Shield or an opportunity attack beforehand.

Also, I had been previously concerned that Solasta was actually pretty easy before. This patch made some fights brutally hard, but still feeling very fair within DnD rules (it's almost like you are encouraged to use everything you can when you don't have a blatantly easy answer like shoving an enemy down a cliff isn't thrown in your face in nearly every fight). Almost feels like I'm playing a X-COM game at times, really - and those games are considered the pinnacle of tactical turn-based combat for a reason. The below is a level 4 boss fight, and I came dangerously close to a party wipe - but managed to turn it around with some quick thinking. Granted, I did not come into the fight with stealth because I had grossly underestimated its difficulty (and I really should have been blasting them all with Scorching Ray).


That said, one could argue that BG3 combat is lacking partly due to the fact that we're capped at level 4 there, and will probably stay like so for at least another year. Solasta's full release is estimated to be within the May-July period, so Larian will have plenty of time to take some notes before finishing development on BG3. (I say another year for BG3, because no one sane should really want BG3 to be finished this year. Unless WotC is spiteful enough to force Larian to rush it out the window to directly compete with Pathfinder WotR, which will most likely release in the July-September period - and it would be a fight that BG3 in its current state would most certainly lose.)

Yeah, and there are reasons for and against countering the harmful spells. Since Counterspell is a level 3 spell, and you need to have the spell memorised and have the spell slots to cast it, you'll have to consider the potential harm should the party members fail their saving throws vs burning a spell slot to counter it. This is an example of the tactical considerations players get to make, which is sorely missing in BG3.

I'm trying to think, as it currently stands, how they would even add Counterspell into BG3 right now. And perhaps this, and other L3 spell mechanics, is why the level cap is at L4 to postpone having to deal with Larian having to think about things like this.

I can't even wrap my mind around how they could implement Counterspell "Larian style" and make it seem impactful. I honestly think they would make it where like "creatures in x range of you cannot cast spells for 1 turn" or something. LOLOLOLOL.

The spells and mechanics only get more complicated as levels increase, as multi-classing comes into play.

Well, since I don't know the technical details of the engine, I can only judge based on what is in the game currently. If Larian were to implement reactions using what's currently in the game, then the wizard toggles on Shield and Counterspell in the Reactions tab. A goblin shoots a fire arrow at your wizard. The game forces your wizard to cast Shield. The fire arrow misses, hits the ground at his feet, sets it on fire, and does 2D4 guaranteed damage to the wizard that he can't roll Dexterity save against, and then rolls a Constitution save to keep maintaining his Concentration spell that he'd previously cast. In the next round, a goblin booyagh casts Sacred Flame at the wizard, forcing him to cast Counterspell, burning a level 3 spell slot to nullify the enemy's cantrip.

Also, ready actions add another layer of tactical consideration, but not really as much as reactions. Still important if you don't have any other viable options, or are hoping to successfully predict an enemy to come close to another party member during their turn so that you can immediately punish them with a sneak attack, as I demonstrate in the video below.

This was a really fun fight that I went into blind, and while it may look easy, that's because I built my party to be very defensive (as in, 3 of the 4 party members have access to the Shield spell, for one). I quickly figured out that the Spirit Guardians spell (a Cleric spell that summons an aura that inflicts radiant damage if an enemy enters its area of effect or begins their turn within it) was my best defense against those enemies, because fire elementals realistically aren't smart enough to realize what it does.


(And for those of us not too familiar with DnD beyond BG3 - treat this as a preview of how crazy Paladin can be at tanking and smiting with huge amounts of burst damage, especially from level 5 onwards.)

LOLOLOLOL. Or it's just a targetable buff you can place on yourself or others that negates the effect of the next spell cast on target. No reaction mechanic implemented.

PRECISELY!!! Perfect example of PERFECT implementation in a game! In BG3 now, as it stands, it's all just automatic and whatever happens first just happens. No strategy, no thinking, no options and no INTEGRITY and indepence over your own character choices!!!

Yes!!! Hahaha!! Spot on. And *THAT* is why it sucks. I just wish Larian read these things. I really hope they do and understand the problems here!

This is exactly why I want proper reactions for spells.

Also, there is a lot of merit to having actual communication for even seemingly minor things.

One of the bigger criticisms from the latest Solasta patch is just how readily available magic gear and magical arrows with poison damage are now. The devs quickly went out and said that it’s only that way right now because they want people to test them, and presumably they’ll be made a lot rarer in the full release.

Full release is apparently around the corner for the most part, all of the major systems are seemingly now in place and now they’re filling in all the details.

But the Solasta team has way more people at their disposal to be active and engaging with their community in comparison to Larian.... oh wait.

When my wizard countered her first spell like a boss, I grinned and cheered. When she cast scorching ray and got countered, I cried especially since I cast it as a level 3 spell. There's nothing like this in BG3.

The problem I have with the Solasta is that it's more of a D&D combat simulator than an RPG.
The game itself is quite average and most likely if not for BG3, hardly anyone would have heard about it.
I understand that the game is low-budget, so it's hard to expect amazing graphics, but it's hard to explain the story or probably the ugliest interface I've ever seen in an RPG game.
If I saw this game somewhere by accident, I would think it is some kind of mobile game. I dislike the chessboard so much but I admit the combat system is OK, but whether it is really better than in BG3 is a matter of opinion. Summarizing, Solasta is a better D&D simulator but BG3 is definitely a better game.

I'm not sure what to think about the reaction system.
On the one hand, it's functional, the problem is that I completely don't like pop-ups during combat. There are too many of them. I just don't like them.
It would be much better if instead of a pop-up in the center of the screen, for example, an icon at the bottom of the screen.

Regarding the reactions in BG3, I'm not sure if the Solasty system is a good idea. The game is primarily developed as a multiplayer game. BG3 also puts a lot of emphasis on role playing.
At the moment, introducing the reaction like in Solascie will significantly extend the fights (many people are already complaining about it),
unless we are talking about mindless clicking as soon as a pop-up appears on the screen.
The problem will be especially noticeable during big fights like the goblin camp.

I have one more problem with popups which is much more significant (at least for me).
Pop-ups take the player out of the game (not sure if that's the right term).
Some people would say that barrels or food in combat do the same, but I can't agree with that.
In the case of barrels, you have to try to use them in any sensible way, especially since the opponents do not use them too much.
Moving barrels is really no different than keeping 30 swords in your pocket.
I don't know, maybe I've played too many games before because it doesn't bother me at all.
Equipment always treated as something "attached" to the game which doesn't have much sense.
Many of my favorite games didnt even try to pretend realism and gave the player unlimited equipment.
Eating in combat although stupid isn't uncommon in games.
It is also not as big of a problem as some say. Food heals too little and often weighs too much to be useful anywhere but the beginning of the game.
Once you can buy better healing potions, it will become useless.

Hmm... yeah, I get what you're saying! I do agree that Solasta is in NO WAY as good as BG3 in terms of story or immersion or aesthetics or anything like that. I do love their reaction system though, in terms of the options it gives you as a player. If there's another way to give players that kind of control and those amounts of options but implement it in a "better" or more appealing way, then sure! Or maybe even better; give us a few options!

So here's footage of a current late EA boss fight where I pretty much combine a lot of reactions and ready actions together to counter the boss' primary mechanic of casting Darkness, taking advantage of the fact that he can only attack in melee to bait him out of the cloud to take several readied stabs to the face. As you can see, there is a lot of forward thinking and prediction that goes into this, an entire dimension of tactical thinking that exists purely because of the existence of reactions and ready actions. I probably end up acting during the enemy turn just as much as I act during my own turns in some situations, being able to counter a lot of what they do. BG3 makes you feel completely helpless during the enemy turn by omission of these mechanics in comparison.


Oh yeah, I should probably explain Legendary Actions for the uninitiated. It's a feature that certain very powerful enemies have in DnD where they can act independently of the turn order, 3 times per turn. They can also use one of their three charges per turn to instantly succeed at a saving throw as well. It's a concept not really utilized much even in tabletop unless there's a really good justification for a boss having that kind of thing.

I explain this because we should probably expect to see bosses with Legendary Actions in the later parts of BG3 as well. If the current combat design remains as is, that should be very scary to many of us.

Yeah that video certainly demonstrates how freaking wonderful and tactical it is to have control over the reactions and similar things (such as when to apply smite and such) in fights. It adds immersion, player agency, control and options. I just see *no* downsides with it. Some might argue it's annoying with popups but I am sure there are other ways to implement those things without it being intrusive and still offering the options it does.

The game concepts look very similar. I already bought BG3, and I don't need two of them. People want reactions because they want to be able to manipulate combat situations more versatile-ly. These same people should feel fine with using cheese tactics.

Quite a leap in logic you've made there. Reactions, which are part and parcel of DnD 5E, allow the player to make meaningful tactical decisions, because they always involve a cost to the player for a potential benefit, such that the decision to react or not often involves the weighing of the cost and benefit to taking that reaction. For eg. your wizard's arcana skill discerns that an enemy mage is casting Blindness, a level 2 spell, at the party. You are allowed to react by casting Counterspell, a level 3 spell (not in BG3 yet), to nullify it. You'll have to weigh using a 3rd level spell slot to nullify an enemy's 2nd level spell vs letting it through and hoping that your party member can roll a successful Con saving throw. And you're allowed only one reaction per round. You have to think about the pros and cons of making that reaction.

Cheese tactics are decisions that give you vastly more benefit than it costs you. For eg, barrelmancy. It is easy to do, and does a lot of damage with little cost to the player.

I don't think you quite understand the depth of game play that the player can enjoy with the correct implementation of reactions, if you so blithely equate reactions with cheese tactics.

I agree with you, but someone on Reddit found footage from Larian Lead Game Designer, Nick Pechenin, who stated during a Q&A video that the Solasta-style reactions would not flow well in their game and they decided against doing it.

And that came directly from his mouth before EA was released to the public. Now, they may have changed their mind since then (doubt it) after seeing all the feedback and comparisons. But as I said before, I have already prepared not to be able to use reactions in BG3 the way they function in Solasta.

Yeah I do know about that statement, but my hope is that they now realise that it's not such a bad idea and that they at least implement the OPTION to use a system like that. At the very damn least, I certainly hope they do massive improvements to the system in place.

+1

Extremelly confused as to why people keep saying the fight would take too long if Larian would implement a proper reactions system. Also, think about this scenario: you have a charmed/feared enemy; they start running away from the caster, but they run towards one of your allies. If the character has Attack of Opportunity enabled, he will attack that enemy, breaking the charm/fear/frightened effect. That would be extremely frustrating and dumb. You should be able to choose if and when to use an AOP/reaction spell. Picture another scenario: you are a wizard and you have counterpell ready. You have a high arcana level. Your character identifies that the enemy casts fireball; given that information, you use counterspell and you negate a shit ton of damage. Now with the current implementation, if you have counterspell, you would just toggle it ON in the reaction bar, and if the enemy casts a lvl 1 cantrip your character will use that reaction. How is that even a question??? which system is better?
I absolutely love Larian, and played more than 300hrs of dos 3. Trust me, I'm not a hater here. I`m just trying to help other people understand that there is no bad side to having a proper reaction system. The flow would not brake, because you would be more engaged, the time would not be longer, because you would react during an enemy`s turn, and for God`s sake , the pop-up is the LEAST of our problems. Who cares?? You could consider a pop-up a tutorial video, or your inventory. Anything that appears on your screen during combat could be considered a pop-up. but i`m not hearing anybody complaining about the fact that many of you probably open your bags in combat, am I ?
So just think about it. No major downsides to having an absolute awesome experience while also adding depth to the combat tactics.

I mean, really, as I've said before in the most practical and pragmatic terms, a proper reaction system will save more time by letting you directly control that counterspell against that fireball (or that fire bolt cantrip going for that barrel next to you) that's otherwise going to wipe your party and force you to reload the game, more than any popup could ever hope to waste.

Too many people think of the immediate, but a truly well designed turn-based game must account for the long term.

Yup. 100%. Lots of people have been making points like these, and it's frankly shocking that it isn't perceived as an obviously, objectively better system.

I am pretty sure it's even possible to implement a "flashy" and "cool" popup reaction system, making time slow down, changing camera angles and whatnot.

Didn`t even think of that, such a great suggestion. that would be awesome!

I think it'd be great if it was unique for each reaction.

a time slow-down is great for feather fall, an alert sound that is unique with the pop-up for shield, etc. There's a lot of flavor that can be added to a reaction pop-up.

This way it doesn't feel repetitive and players can react quicker because they can sense what reaction is triggerable without having to read the pop-up.

Indeed, that is quite obvious we need a good reaction system in BG3 ... Haven't they say they will implement reaction during their video for the latest patch ?

correct me if i'm wrong. is larian not implementing the correct implementation of the dnd5e rules? if so why larian does that? i basically in favor of the implementation of how the rules supposed to be.

Larian used borrowed code from D:OS2 to launch Early Access faster. Said borrowed code was not written with 5e rules in mind. And, each patch we've had improvements to get closer to 5e (mostly from player feedback).

I don't know about code, but according to Larian themselves, it's not entirely accurate
https://wccftech.com/larian-studios-interview-innovating-baldurs-gate-3/

I have my doubts that Larian built a game with D&d 5e rules as written (in entirety), and then spent time changing the code again to be more like D:OS2.

thanks. that explain why BG3 have striking similarity of being a DOS2 enhanced edition. most software developers they basically just copy paste and rework on the assets, UI and content from old codes and assets. they should perhaps change different artist and graphics designer as there won't be much difference when they reuse the same one from DOS2 devs.

back to point on reaction. i prefer the Solasta reaction. I believe it's the way how it depicts 5e. pls correct me if i'm wrong.

Yeah it does sound stupid, but still that's what they said. Even if they did it and even if they didn't, this just a very stupid thing to say.

They did not, but they also made and are making substantial changes - it is not the same engine that run D:OS2 - that should be obvious just comparing them side by side. And considering how much stuff they add and change, I don’t think “engine doesn’t support it” is a reason for anything.

They clearly do want to keep many things from D:OSs - that is creative choice however, not an engine limitation.

I suppose an odd quote is this:


I wonder what form it took - did they added functionality to their D:OS engine? Or did they created basic prototype in which they can mess around with stuff? You hear stories about devs prototyping ideas within days to prove a concept - they might have tested potential implementations without going full in and building proper framework for it. I doubt there is another build of BG3 with faithful 5e implementation, but that doesn’t mean that what they said is a lie.

I don't think they lied either. I suppose I just wonder what exactly did they do and what exactly "didn't work" according to them

Yeah, “we saw the things that didn’t work” is ambiguous. It could be from a technical perspective, like “our engine doesn’t let you take actions outside of your turn so reactions don’t work”. Or it could be from a design perspective, like “we can’t really constrain the frequency of long rests, so the short rest/long rest balance baked into 5e doesn’t work”.

Reading that Larian quote, I always assumed it was the latter but reading this thread I think it might be the former.

i beg your pardon for reviving this thread. but why is reaction is something that didn't work?

"We took the D&D fifth edition ruleset, we ported it to video game format, and we saw the things that didn't work.".

I think reaction is a nice mechanic. They shouldn't have remove it? If they claimed that they took the dnd5e ruleset and ported it over to a video game. Also, while it's nice that bonus action was given to everyone, i think that's not a right thing to do? As i checked the bonus actions only available to certain special abilities, or feats:

"Various Class Features, Spells, and other Abilities let you take an additional action on Your Turn called a Bonus Action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a Bonus Action.".

Thats easy ...
Some people believe that reactions would prolong the combat, wich is sometimes allready quite tedious.

We don't know exactly why BG3 doesn't have a more 5e-like reaction system. That quote implies that Larian internally implemented and tested it, but decided it wouldn't work because [some reason]. Theories for this reason are on previous posts ITT and don't really need restating.

Unfortunately, we as the EA players/testers can't judge whether Larian's implementation of a functioning 5e reaction system is actually tedious or not because we've never been given a chance to test it. We can base our opinions off of other games' implementations, or what we think Larian will do, but that's not quite the same.

Larian has indicated that there is a reaction system overhaul in the works. So who knows what we'll see and when/if we'll see it in EA.

I know right?


Word



Yea...Solasta is definitely more of the Spiritual successor to BG 1 and 2 because it is actually D&D (They trusted in the rule set...never even questioned it).

Larian did not...like at all. BG3 is NOT D&D its DOS at its core, but will be fun once you understand and get past this.

Love child...perhaps a third company that will be faithful to the rule set (Solasta game play is absolutely fun), but with the budget to make it more modern and sandbox like BG3. I would also support Tactical Adventures if someone backed them in going big.

Tactical Adventures had a small budget and made it feel big.

Larian had a large budget and has made it feel wasted on a genre they do not fully understand.

seems like this thread get revived. did larian implement reaction in the latest patch yet? correct me if i'm wrong, reaction is part of the core rules of dnd5e. if solasta able to implement it, why reactions doesnt work for larian? i checked fighter has the protection fighting style that can use reaction to impose a disadvantage on enemy attack rolls within 5 feet. also archer can ready action when enemy closing in. those are cool implementations i really like seeing.

Nope, reactions are still either automatic, or turned off.

They can't even maintain internal consistency for the main reaction they have - Sometimes they call it by its correct name "Opportunity Attack", and sometimes they call it by the name that was used in earlier editions but is not correct in 5e - "Attack of opportunity", and it flip-flops back and forth depending on where you look. This may not seem like a big thing, but it's hard to have faith in a company doing right by a ruleset in their adaptation of it, if they cannot even maintain internal consistency with the terms of reference they use.

It's EA. They'll still clean all this stuff up. I'm sure.

Right? RIIIIIIIGHT?

I was thinking that was odd because they’re not D&D veterans at Larian, but of course… it was called Attack of Opportunity in DOS2

Larian seem very well organised, they have a large army of internal testers to do all the Quality Assessment they need, and they might even have a large army of feedback gatherers who can process everything we report on these forums. So, provided there is some will to deliver a clean product, I don't see how minor things like the name of a mechanical feature would slip through the mesh of the cleaning net/sweeper.

On the other hand ... well, I don't have any degree in software engineering, but I would have assumed that a good approach to coding something would be "first, get it okay, then, get it better, finally, get it perfect". I think I remember Swen, during the first Panel From Hell, saying Larian likes to iterate a lot. And David Walgrave talked again about that iteration philosophy in the Wireframe interview. Maybe they prefer to start with a mediocre version of any given feature. This way, they can iterate more before they get it perfect. Sure, it will take more work, which could have been devoted to other features, but maybe they focus on the journey more than the destination.



In defence of Larian, maybe they're not aiming for internal consistency ?

I mean, some writers made time a big pressure in the story, while some other devs programmed the camp cutscenes so that you need to rest frequently if you want to see them all. Some PR folks made a big thing out of verticality, but the devs still program mostly for a 2D game world. The speed of the enemy AI hasn't dramatically improved, but Patch 4 made the fight against the Druids during the Minthara's Attack involve even more numerous (and tankier) enemies. I can no longer list the Jump/Disengage action that would expose you to Opportunity Attacks, but I could easily go on. Point is, perhaps it's unfair to criticise them for lack of internal consistency if that is not what they're shooting for.

Unfortunately, the specifically said they don't want to grow much bigger. Founder of the company already founded one successful studio that grew too big for him to actively work on games. TA very purpose was to be small enough to avoid that

They wouldn’t need to grow substantially bigger to put out a more polished Solasta 2. They could outsource more of the design/modelling and take advantage of new tech like Metahuman that does a lot of the hard work for you.

Yeah, in some cases few key roles to the right people can make more difference than hiring tons of employees.

Not sure if any of you have seen the trailers/gameplay for Black Myth: Wukong – but Game Science is only a small studio of 30 and it's one hell of an impressive looking game.

What? I mean, sure maybe Larian isn't aiming for consistency. But that doesn't mean it's unfair to criticize them for that or that lack of consistency is good.

Take the camp frequently vs story time-pressure example. These are completely contradictory gameplay motivations that don't work well together in BG3 the way they're implemented. Especially because there are in-game consequences for not resting, but there are absolutely no consequences (or even comment by a NPC!) on resting frequently.

They could work together though. If there was in-game explanation/motivation for why resting frequently was needed, and/or there were consequences for resting frequently and players had to balance pushing forward and missing X vs resting a lot and incurring Y, that could be interesting. But there isn't such a connection between these two gameplay styles, and so players just have to ignore the less relevant one - time pressure - or they'll strictly lose content. This is bad game design and deserves criticism regardless if it is intended by Larian.

As another analogy, take cantrip surfaces. Larian was specifically "aiming/shooting" for gameplay involving plenty cantrip-created surfaces, similar to DOS. Was is then unfair to criticize Larian for doing so?

I was being sarcastic.

In part, I was saying that given BG3's rather poor track record with internal consistency so far, we shouldn't be too surprised if a given mechanics (Opportunity Attack) has different names in different places.

In part, I've long been of the opinion that our goal when providing feedback should not be so much to tell the devs "I think you should aim for this rather than that, because I like my games better when they do this". Rather, it should be tell the devs "your vision, what you're trying to achieve is that, well, the way you're currently doing it fails at delivering that because reasons". At least that how I'd like my feedback to be.

With that in mind, I was thinking that it was maybe pointless to tell Larian "hey, your game isn't even consistent with itself", if this would lead Larian to reply (virtually, in their heads, since they don't reply to anything) "oh but internal consistency isn't remotely part of our vision. We simply don't care about consistency". Of course, we would then be able to then reply that


Although, I don't fully agree with you here. I think this is atrocious game design.

Ah, my bad for missing that. IT's been a long day/week.

Interesting way of thinking about things. That's of course assuming we can accurately gauge what the devs actually are aiming for, which is...not necessarily straightforward for BG3 :P

Well they nailed combat, and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

I never participated in EA, so I never had a bad taste in my mouth (the growing pains).

I imagine that they went through their share of negative feedback on their road to completion.

Keeping this in mind, I am enjoying BG3 a lot more on my second play-through of EA than on my first.

I did, although I was pretty late to the party - I discovered and bought the game maybe 2-3 months before the release. The "taste" wasn't bad at all; of course there were some issues, but devs were pretty quick to address them. Also, their presence on their own forum was considerably larger than that of Larian's - despite the fact that their own preference was (and I believe, still is) Discord.

Right. SUCH a much better experience. I suggested things. People responded. It was relatively friendly and some things were implemented. Some not. They released updates relatively frequently and gave fairly regular news posts.

It was not like this. It was not the vacuum we're experiencing here.

But then, the fan base was much smaller. 18,000 BG3 posts at one point compared to 2-3,000 Solasta. Not quite the same. People weren't flooding Solasta with gazillions of posts hourly.

Sure, BG3 has a lot more EA players and feedback. But Larian has a many more employees (and indirect-employees, and possibly volunteers).

And while processing the textual feedback, i.e. the players-to-Larian communication, takes more time when there's more feedback, giving updates on what's being worked on and what will not change, i.e. the Larian-to-players communication, does not.

Larian's policy of no-communication with players/the forums is a choice, not a technical limitation.

Sometimes keeping your mouth shut and your ears open is a good thing.

They have increased their staff to 400? They are certainly committed.

I do see improvements.


I feel inclined to appreciate their hard work and gauge their progress by the single means they seem to to be communicating the best with:

Updates

P.S. I see evidence that Larian wants to keep its promises, best not to say something you may wish to retract.
Perhaps they are not sure of some choices at this time.

I support this too

What do you support?

Reactions like Solasta?

Or what Van'tal said?

Or both?

Poll time.

Reactions like Solasta.

That's 1 for me.

Post +1 if in favor of -1 if not. No reasons. There's been enough discussion. Just +1 or -1.

If you don't know Solasta Reactions, just don't reply.

+0,5 ?
I dunno ... i really like them mechanicaly, but it looks horrible (as everything in Solasta) ... so, there certainly is something to take, but not whole. :-/

-1

I much prefer a more cinematic flow to combat and pop-ups that freeze combat is unimmersive and therefore eeevil. Yes, even in a turn-based game. I imagine something like a slow-motion effect when reactions are applicable affording the player a short time window to decide whether to react - similar to the renegade/paragon reaction check (but in slow-mo) of Mass Effect would make for much better gameplay.

EDIT: The current rigid pre-set system is unacceptable though. If Larian decides to go with this lazy implementation, they should compensate the character with more reactions/reaction resources as you can't decide to use as situations occur and therefore likely to waste many reactions stupidly.

Same here.

I don't really know how, but I'm not sure it would be good to have reactions "like in Solasta" in BG3.

Full control over our reactions "like in DnD" is what I'd like. But probably not with a massive popup hiding the screen and pausing the game everytime.

Even if the Solasta system would be 200% better than the terrible toggle system we have in BG3, I think something more dynamic would be better.

Again, the best solution is probably a system where you can set each reaction to: Off/Ask/On
Off: it won't ever trigger
Ask: you get a pop-up, timed with a slowdown or static until you click it. Exact implementation can vary
On: it triggers automatically when conditions are met

Yeah. I retract my vote.

Upon playing Solasta again, the higher the level, the more popups appear. It's annoying that EVERY time I attack an enemy, Smite pops up with my Paladin. Every time I do Rage with my Barbarian, another popup appears. "Do you want to Frenzy?" Every time I cast a spell, my sorcerer gets a popup. "Do you want to use one of your Metamagic abilities?" EVERY... DANG... TIME.

I'm not sure what the solution should be, but the popups in Solasta are definitely getting more and more annoying as you level up.

I don't think its elegant, but you have near total control - and I'm prepared to pay that price. I have just finished another run through of Solasta, so speaking from recent experience too. I don't want assumptions made on my behalf by some gaming system. That sacrifices my agency. Sure, some people won't want that. Give them the ability to set up some sort of defaults. I want *full* control.

Same here.
I wrote recently about how reaction in the way Larian implemented turned out to be one of the worst aspects of playing Patch 7 (especially in Grymforge):


https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=94314&Number=728467#Post728467

Relevant quote:


If the issue is just "making it look fancy because a rectangular pop-up is lame" then THAT is the issue Larian should address, but removing control from reactions is NOT the way to go.

The issue for me is more that Solasta's window is constantly popping up. Sorcerer spell cast, popup asking if I want to use metamagic. Barbarian, asks if I want to frenzy. Paladin, asks if I want to smite and at what level.

I do like what Fuji said. Maybe some sort of toggle so if I don't want the game to ask me if I want to use metamagic, I can toggle it off until I want to use it again or something.

Then all you would need to do is set all your reaction spells on "ask" ... and you would have full control.
People who would like to spend their reactions no matter what on first opourtunity, would set them "on" ...
And people who want anything in between would set it also to their prefferences.

That is the beauty of such system, everyone can set it EXACTLY as they want. ^_^

+1
however i would much prefer the "ask" as default instead. prefer a pop-up static decision (game paused until i click it). that's acceptable since game is in turn-based in my opinion.
currently playing solasta and i must say the game is truly awesome!. the only issue i have is that it lacks polish and the visuals are dated. now in caer calem and i kinda love the game already!. it feels like a faithful adaptation to dnd5e.

i hope larian will really do bg3 justice. playing solasta getting me learning some dnd5e.. however, not sure if it's just me. there's no high ground advantage in solasta? i don't seems to get advantage when firing arrows from elevation.

You don't have advantage if you're higher nor in Solasta, nor in BG3, nor in DnD5e.

You usually gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, or spells. [...] The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result. (PHB 173)

Consider granting advantage when: Circumstances not related to a creature's inherent capabilities provide it with an edge. Some aspect of the environment contributes to the character's chance of success. (DMG 239)

Performed a search and found this. "Some aspect of the environment contributes to the character's chance of success" perhaps i misunderstood this part for getting advantage. However, In BG3, they grant +2 to attack correct me if i'm wrong?

BG3 started with Advantage being given for high ground & Disadvantage if low ground, but changed it to +2 Att for higher and I think -2 Att lower(not 100% on the -2 Att for low ground). The +/- 2 Att BG3 applies has been said to be a reasonable compromise for kinda factoring the optional GM rules on cover into the game.
Personally I think Larian should remove even the +/- Att along with the overblown trajectories bows have and make them straighter like spells. Higher ground in Larian's game is advantageous enough without adding mechanical bonuses and negatives.

Edit: that was OT, so on topic +1 here too for optional full control. I'd play it, not trying to force it on all.

Having recently played Solasta for the first time, I've got to say their reaction implementation works flawlessy and doesn't interfere with the flow of combat at all in my experience. I truly hope Larian will make some real considerations on how to properly implement reactions. Whether my mage uses his reaction to attack a fleeing monster, or saves it for a potential shield cast later, has a very big impact. This is something that is highly unlikely to be fixable with mods, and needs proper support from the game itself.

i must really say.. i'm growing on solasta. bear in mind i honestly just completed bg3 EA for only once (since the launch) and really don't have much motivation in starting at all seeing what larian is really focusing are just cinematics and visuals. i was really surprised, solasta implementation of the dnd5e is close to flawless for me (however i read that they nerf the darkvision as due to that human is really on the losing end). i must say i truly didn't pick human at all.

reactions in solasta is really a game changer. not to mentioned the implementation of half-cover, 3 quarter and full cover. bear in mind.. before playing solasta.. i know NOTHING about dnd5e. and that game teaches me the rules.. i'm speechless.

Some classes, like paladin or bard, got their gameplay mainly based on reaction, so I'm really curious to see how Larian will implement it (and maybe that's why they didn't released those classes yet)
For example, about the paladin, Divine Smite can be cast AFTER you made your attack, and so only cast it on a critical roll, or choose a low level spell slot on a normal hit and a big one on a critical. It's why that ability is really powerfull and without that, paladin will be way weaker.
Right now, you only have the choice to cast Divine Smite before your attack is made, and the spell slot is used only on a hit, but it's not enough.

Wait and see...

i read that there's this help action but i can't find it in solasta. not sure why it's not included though. anyway i really hope that larian implement the reaction mechanics. without it, it's not dnd5e in my opinion.

The Help action is kinda squishy in tabletop, since it's got a fair amount of DM discretion built into it.

In simplest terms, you use your action to give another creature advantage on the next 'thing' they do against a particular creature. Usually that's an attack roll, but it's not hard defined.

Solasta has a few context-based help actions where you can just click on the creature needing help, but haven't implemented a full help action with its full flexibility. BG3 hasn't touched it yet, and I don't think they will, at this rate.

the latest solasta DLC lost valley has this new fighter archetypes called Commander. it provide a small aoe to allies by giving them advantage. also the new Paladin archetypes The Oath of Judgement channel divinity can restrain the target giving advantage to party. i believe they remove the help action to put it into classes/archetypes instead?

Quite possibly - Since Solasta only has licence for the SRD, they have to homebrew the vast majority of their class archetypes. What's noteworthy is that in doing so they've demonstrated a very strong understanding of 5e design philosophy, and a degree of care and attention to it; they've created dozens of class archetypes that are their own new(ish) things, and yet still manage to quite strongly capture the feeling of legitimate D&D/5e class archetypes. Some of them are a little bit over-strong, and some of them under-perform a little, but on the whole they've done really well. It's by no means perfect, and some of them probably wouldn't pass the unearthed arcana muster post.... but I'm a harsh critic, and generally speaking, they're very much designed in the spirit of the system, and with respect towards it, even if they don't have the official license.

I have no idea if their engine can support this or not, but I think the flow of cinematics is important in their game but having a fuller, more correct interpretation of DnD5e is wanted by the player base.

One way to help resolve the differences between the two desired outcomes is to implement the reactions in such away that no animations are performed until all actions/reactions have been selected but the ruleset happens, doing all the actions/reactions of an actors current action. Once all completed, the game will play all the required animations needed to play out what happened in the rules. Example:

Paladin A, controlled by Player Z, wants to move and attack Goblin G. (Player Z clicks next to Goblin G)
- Game plays animation of Paladin A moving to Goblin G. -
Player Z chooses to attack Goblin G. (Player Z clicks attack on Goblin G)
[Game internally does a roll for the attack roll vs ac. It displays a 19 + 3, scoring a critical hit. This is shown in the combat window.]
Player Z receives a reaction window saying "Do you wish to use Divine Smite?". (Player Z clicks "Yes")
[Game internally does the damage roll and shows the current attack damage roll.]
- Game plays animation of the Paladin swinging their sword, flashing into a glow and smiting the goblin -

Basically, the game plays in the background in terms of mechanics and if reactions are needed, the game prompts the required actors (AI or player) for the needed inputs. Then, then all the needed inputs are done for the action being performed (and the reactions that will happen from the chain of events, like an action that allows a reaction that might set off another reaction), the game will play the animation based on the inputs. This allows the game to play the animations smoothly all in one go based on said action/reactions.

The other way to achieve this is to allow reactions to stay automatic like now, but allow the player to setup a FSM (finite state machine) for the various actions that you want automatic. If the reaction doesn't meet the requirement set, then the reaction won't trigger. This does mean reactions will be tedious to setup in the beginning and might need to be changed from time to time dependent on the fight, but would achieve the same outcome of not interrupting animations.

What does everyone else think?

Reaction Popup: No, Reaction Popup: NO, Reaction Popup: HELL NO.

Computers don't have intelligence, they will hard spam you with popups. Reaction is fine in Pen and Paper, as I can say do reaction and the human DM can handle it, but the other way around is messed up, you do not want the DM to ask you every time a reaction is possible.

You do not want to create a situation where you give players game stopping popups when one of the answers is DO NOTHING. This one of the worst design mistakes, because humans just doesn't have the capacity to endlessly respond to the same and enjoy it.

Yeah, actually, I do. That's what they're for - to tactically chose what and whether to use different things at opportune moments, usually outside of your own turn.


Actually, you do... because doing nothing sometimes is the essence of tactical decision-making. You want to be able to say "no, I don't want to use this ability *yet* - I could use it now, but I don't want to, not on this 2hp goblin." The ONLY way the game can get that information is by asking you.... otherwise it's making the decision for you, often the wrong one, or something you didn't want, and is cutting you out of tactical decision-making in the process.

To be frank, combat in BG3 has pushed the line of feeling repetitively mind-numbing and dull far more than any situation I've dealt with in Solasta so far, and the latter game shows that reactions can be handled smoothly, and in a way that is acceptably fluid and which doesn't interrupt combat flow in any notable way - have you played this game? What was your experience of it?

Cant quite imagine any example of such situation honestly ...

And what exactly is stoping the person in setting their reaction to either auto and have their resources spend in few seconds without any control just as they want ... or set it to off, and quite litteraly "do nothing" ?

All I want to say is that the new Solasta campaign is on such a higher tier of difficulty from the original campaign that I'm glad there's actually a fair amount of prompts there.

I've had situations where I didn't want to use the Shield spell to immediately block attacks directed at my Wizard because I needed their reaction available to Counterspell that enemy 5th level spell that I knew was coming later that turn. I would also purposefully try to bait an enemy counterspell so that they couldn't try to counter an even more important spell from my other spellcasters later that same turn. The idea of baiting enemies into wasting their reactions and resources is a concept that doesn't really exist in BG3 in any meaningful way at the moment. Though to be fair, that same concept didn't really exist in Solasta's original campaign because there weren't very many spellcasters or enemies even capable of utilizing reactions other than attacks of opportunities either.

Reactions probably aren't that important a thing in BG3's level 1-4 play right now. Once you hit 5+, you're going to WISH you had them. Not just for the ability to defend yourself during the enemy turn, but it's another avenue towards designing interesting combat scenarios too.

right now solasta already has a very successful reaction system.. larian only needs to follow. there isn't any shame in following.. isometric top down RPG wasn't designed by Larian. so just implement whatever that is awesome for your game.

There are some enemy spellcasters in Solasta's OC. Enough for me to have the same thoughts about reaction baiting that you describe. Although, you can probably achieve the same effect by having an expendable summon, or your Rogue to run through the enemies with Dodge activated, bleeding them out of their reactions.

Haven't tried the new campaign yet, people are telling weird things about random encounters, like a party level 4 stumbling upon a Green Dragon and some such.

Yeah, you know how the original campaign had random encounters in the earlier areas outright fleeing from you once your level got high enough? None of that appears to exist in Lost Valley due to the more open-ended nature of that campaign. While you still run into stronger enemies the further you get away from the main city in Lost Valley from the looks of it, the more open-ended nature of the campaign (as in, it's possible to reach endgame in some of the factions very early if you super commit to them instead of trying to advance all of them as far as possible first in order to gauge your options) means you can probably run into the harder random encounters a lot earlier than expected.

Especially if you fully side with the Resistance or the People early, since their quest lines quickly take you to the edges of the campaign map where most of the highest level random encounters appear to be.

Honestly, it seems like the intended progression is to progress with the Forge faction first, since they control the vital Scavenger system, it seems almost impossible to get into negative relations with them outside of some VERY specific choices, and that's the only faction you can reach near endgame in without pissing off the other four factions (you only get a reputation drop in another faction towards the very end of that questline from what I've observed). The faction questline is also the longest and there are also a fair amount of sidequests started by NPCs of that faction too (including one that leads to an entire dungeon which none of the other factions point you towards), while the other factions don't really have any sidequests at all.

I'm sure I've said it before, but I have my own idea for reactions, which combines elements from both Solasta and BG3 ways of doing it.


1. PC's can toggle what reactions they prefer, but there are still always reaction pop-ups. What the toggles do is set the default to either use or don't use. Example: a Wizard has Shield as "yes" and Opportunity Attack to "No".
2. When a reaction is triggered, players have 6 seconds to respond - that helps keep things speedy for multiplayer.
3. If players pick a choice, either use or pass, it happens immediately in both cases.
4. If the players instead wait for the 6-second timer to elapse, the default reaction gets used. If the prompting action is an archer shooting which will miss the Wizard's AC + 5, the Wizard will by default cast Shield using the lowest available spell slot. If the prompting action was a goblin running out of the Wizard's melee, the Wizard will do nothing.

This solution gives the players flexibility to use their resources how they want, and the timer on the reaction keeps the action moving fairly quickly even if the player has stepped away.

***

I have to say that I also like Solasta doing automatic Arcana checks when a spell which could be countered is going on. If the player passes the Arcana check, the Counterspell reaction prompt identifies the spell, letting you decide to take it or counter it. If you fail the check, all the reaction prompt says is "X is casting an Unknown Spell", and you have to gamble on whether it's worth the Counterspell usage or not.

I didnt read futher ... this would make it HARD PASS for me. :-/

I wouldn't mind if it was a full pause, but I believe Larian had stated in the past that they want a fully automatic reaction system with no player input, in part to keep combat flowing smoothly for multiplayer. I'm trying to suggest a compromise because it'll be more likely to be positively received.

I dunno, sounds like excuse to me (and lazy one actualy) ...

Sure, smooth combat would be fine and true timed reactions could help to achieve that ...
Then some player gets their turn ... and they are choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... and choosing ... you get the idea.

I mean ... make multiplayer as smooth and fast as you like Larian ... but if you pick one design phylosophy, aply it to everything.
This game (at least so far as i can tell) in every single aspect goes with phylosophy "take your time, the WORLD will wait for you, player(s)" ... and that should be either applyed to everything, or completely changed ... no middle ground here.

sadly i'm no multiplayer person here. believe it or not i have yet to start not even once DOS2 multiplayer and have no idea how it played. thus i don't care much about multiplayer but i like the best single player experience. this is not to shaft multiplayer gamer but just requesting Larian for not shafting single players as i bought the game for the single player experience.

I don't do multiplayer either, at least not in a single player game.

If I did, I would want macro reactions.

My wizard get below 5 hp and auto bonus action teleports and runs willy-nilly yelling "Feets don't fail me now!"

Dear friends, a question for the connoisseurs of the 5th edition of DnD and Solasta. Solasta has a bonus feature that can be selected at level 4, Flawless Concentration (cancel the saving throw to maintain concentration when taking less than 10 damage). The question is how it is implemented in DnD 5 itself, and is there any chance to see something similar in bg 3. IMHO with this feature, playing as a druid becomes much less ass-burning.

It's actually a homebrew feat since Solasta can only use the SRD.

I think the closest thing to it in official DnD is the War Caster feat, which also has the same advantage on saving throws to maintain concentration that Flawless Concentration does. Except instead of canceling saving throws if you take 10 or less damage, you get the ability to cast spells as an opportunity attack reaction, and the ability to cast spells even with weapons and/or a shield taking up both hands (the latter of which I don't think BG3 will bother with, for good reason).

I gues this is as good topic as any to mention this ...
I was just recently thinking about popular auto/ask/off suggestion ... and while i suported it in the past a lot ... i may have find a tiny detal that can potentialy make quite some mess. :-/

I mean, if it would be universal setting ... and all reactions would be either auto, or asking ... then there is no problem.

But once you set every reaction separately, there is no way to set some on auto, and some to ask ...
Since (and feel free to corect me if im wrong) it would quite suck if you would have Counterspell set on ask ... bcs you dont want to spend your spellslots willy-nilly ... but you cant cast it, when you wanted bcs some enemy allready triggered AOO on your caster, and therefore you have no reaction anymore. O_o

Thoughts?

My main thoughts are that I want full control over whether I ever use my reaction or not, in the moment, every time... And you're highlighting one of the reasons why even having a three-way toggle, as palatable a solution over the current system as it may be, is going to come up less than satisfactory at times. The only way it doesn't is if the toggle is universal, rather than individual, and then it can only be flexible enough if set to 'ask' - which puts us back at putting it in the player's hands every time.

To be clear, I'm still for options with a fully fledged reaction system, allowing players to automate it to various degrees if they want to; the three-way toggle is the best way to make everyone satisfied - as long as those options contain full player control, ask me every time, as well.

There's no problem here in my opinion. You decided to set AOO to "auto" or "ask" and said yes, using up your reaction for that turn. If you wanted to ensure that your wizard would have the opportunity to cast Counterspell, then you should have either set AOO to "ask" and said no, or set it to "off." (As a caster, you probably almost always want to have AOO set to "off.")

I kinda agree mrfuji3 ...
I just thought it should be adressed (maybe with some warning sign, or at least by its own popup in Tutorial), so players are not surprised and frustrated if (gods forbids) Larian would decide to implement it this way.

+1
I'm always in favor of improving BG3's tutorial system for all its mechanics & UI.

TBH I feel the same but for different reasons.
I'd also like to have full control or at least a better control than the ON/OFF thing.

But playing bards highlight something else... I just dont want the game to "ask" me things so often.
With combat inspiration it could lead to :
- Attack roll : ask
- Damage roll : ask
- Ennemies turns : ask (ST, AC)

I love the system in solasta but lets be honnest, it annoyed me a lot sometimes (a reason why i never re-played a paladin) and it really break the flow of combats. I'm not sure I'll enjoy playing bards if it may mean 4+ more reaction popup in a round...

I guess universal toggles set on "ask" would become boring really fast due to the number of possibilities some class features may lead to (depending our subclasses and party composition).

And what about individual toggles ?
Does the combat inspiration gives 4 toggles to set up on/ask/off or a single one ?
Managing 4 toggles is already a pain. I cannot imagine what it would be if it was deeper than "on/off"...
But a single one doesnt give you any control if not set on "ask" and will ask you a lot of time if it is. So what ?

Well, i gues you are right ...
Still think this matter should be adressed in tutorial so new players are informed well.

As for Paladin ... i can imagine it goes frustrating.
But i believe in this particular case (since feel free to corect me but i think Smite is not a reaction) it would cause not colision, if set on auto against stronger enemies so you dont have to re-confrim it for every single swing.

How do you say "auto against stronger ennemies" with a toggle ? Should they add multiple toggles for everything so we can enable/disanle things ?

You're right with divine smite but it can be used during an AoO.
So lets imagine we have set all reactions on "ask", the game is going to ask if we're doing the AoO and THEN if we use pur divine smite + which spellslot ?

On top of that, what when 5 ennemies are moving together with the new "swarm AI" ?

The more I think about it, the more I think we should be able to manually configure our reactions during our turns with specific options to have more control.

Like Hellish Rebuke.
The problem with Hellish rebuke, in my opinion is not that you have to cast it before. It's that I have zero control on the target.
The game could just ask me to target lets say up to 5 ennemies (or click the "all ennemies icon") before casting the spell.
Lets say I choose 5 targets, the first one in the initiative order among those that's attacking me I've selected burns.

If I can "recast it for free" at each turn, I have way more control on the triggers than currently for the price of an additional things during our turns on top of not adding flow breaking questions during rounds.

DAO tactics system letsgooo

Eh. If we have to recast reaction abilities each turn, specifying the targets each time, then I feel that will end up with *more* clicking than pop-up prompts.

You dont have to. You can if the reaction hasn't triggered yet.
I'm not sure but if I'm not wrong DAO has some kind of sheet to manage the AI of companions that could apply. Seriously I don't have a lot of fun managing things written in a virtual book. But it may be a mistake, or just an opinion.

I never said with a toggle. O_o
I just presumed there is still a player behind the desk.

Honestly, i believe this all could be done in single question ...

> would you like to use your Reaction for AoO? Y/N
> would you like to add Smite? Y/N/Crit Only
> wich spellslot? 1/2/3/...

(Obviously it presumes that if you miss, it will not consume your spellslot, since that would be just nonsense.)

You set whatever combination suits you, and the game will do it.

I would not like to have "Ask" option to ask you every single step one-by-one that would be pretty anoying indeed ...
But i believe we can make few steppes at once in this.

No idea, believe me or not i havent seen it yet.
My game was extremely unstable until just recently.

Will tell you, after i get this new feature under my skin a little.

This sounds like good idea. :3
I like it!

I'm mostly sure there could have a good solution for all reactions in the game. In my opinion it could be a good compromise between combat flow and control.
Characters turns are a bit longer and the player has a bit more things to spend than speed + action + bonus action, which seems interresting to me.

Not something you have to do each turn but you can depending how things are going.

It could become a specific feature to use like spells and class features. You set up actively your reactions during your turns rather than writting conditions in a book or answering the constant questions of a popup.

This is what I have in mind to interract with reactions.
Skills you can customized "and cast" during your turns to define which reactions will be available during the round for your characters.
It would also allow us to manually select our targets.



No, it's not how it works in DnD

But
You don't have a popup that break the flow of combats constantly.
You'll have a decent control over your reactions. The reactions trigger under YOUR target's conditions when you've enabled them.
Creating "customized skills" seems fun gameplay-wise. Toggles used to custom your variations.
Re-doing said customized "spells" because the situation has changed a few turns later seems appealing tacticaly too.
It doesn't prevent to keep the actual system (on/off toggle on characters hotbar) as a secondary tool for players that want to go a bit deeper into management when a reaction has been made available.
Default options could be defined on "Select all" and with all variations toggled ON (as it works now).


The biggest next question I now have in mind is : when should ressources (spellslots, bardic dices, superiority, remaining charges,...) be consummed ?

- If they're consumed right when you use the skill :
Everything become a Hellish Rebuke. It mean that you spend a ressource for something that may never happen. Even if you can recast it freely at each turn to re-configure it, you'll still don't have your spellslot left, maybe killing your chances to win because a Feather Fall would have finally been better.

- If they're consumed when the reaction trigger it means that you don't have any limitations to prepare your reactions :
You can cast as much things as you want at each turn until you don't have the minimum requirement left (after which the whole toggles would be removed on all characters and impossible to "create").
But what if you have 1 bardic dice left ? You can customize as much reactions as you want but it will be deleted after 1 on them trigger ?

It doesn't seem to be an issue to me because I usually know what kind of reactions I'd like to use, when and VS which target(s)... I won't have to spend "too much" time into this. You can go deeper. You can go shallower.
But we should absolutely have to be able to change our mind at least during our turns (remove the custom reaction, choose another variation or different targets,...).

In th end I'm absolutely not sure we'd have (a lot) more click to do with such a system than with the current one or the "ask me anything" one.

It would not give us a FULL control though.

I'm just now sitting here thinking, can you all imagine what it would be like if Solasta didn't exist? What would the feedback in BG3 EA even look like if there wasn't such a clear frame of reference for many of the systems?

Lately there's been an anti-reaction push on the subreddit and it's just baffling. That said, that one thread on the subreddit has a ton of people on both sides accusing each other of being a vocal minority, so I'm kind of interested in starting up a poll on there to really see how the community feels about this. Let's say that regardless of whatever plan Larian has in regards to reactions, what would people prefer more, the current reaction system or a complete Solasta-style reaction overhaul?

(Don't actually answer that question in this thread. Or answer, if you want. Can't stop you.)

I've been thinking about some sort of gambit system in regards to reactions. Solasta already has reactions not trigger if they wouldn't affect the end result regardless, but we could probably go a step further than that. Like we could have it so that we aren't prompted for 'defensive reactions' if the incoming enemy attack does less than X damage and/or could be potentially lethal if the attack lands (if the character's current HP is lower than whatever condition we set for the former setting). And we could have a setting where we aren't prompted for 'offensive reactions' such as Smite and Hellish Rebuke if the enemy is below X amount of HP and/or their current HP is low enough that they would be KO'd by the base weapon damage die alone, if applicable.

And then there could be a toggle that flips between 4 options: 'Use Normal Reaction Settings' (which involves the settings above), 'Ask for all Reactions', 'Never ask for Reactions - use automatically', and 'Never ask for Reactions - Do not use Reactions'. The latter three obviously acting as overrides to whatever settings you have.

I want to naively believe that our feedback would be the same, just with less screenshots and videos of Solasta ... but more verbal description of exactly the same.

This is something you can observe in any discusion ...
Even here sometimes.

People tend to believe that their opinion is the right one, and often fail to see how can anyone want something different ... it sucks, but its completely natural. :-/

//Edit:
Well ... i believe that to create full control with tons of pop-ups would be possible for some skilled moder ...
Your described method would be imho a little harder to implement ... so if Larian would go that way, i believe we all would eventualy get what we want.

...Is it just me, or did Reddit actually disable the ability to create polls? I can't find anything explaining why the option to create one is greyed out. Wondering if they gated it behind some crappy paid membership system or something.

EDIT: No, it looks like the moderation staff for the BG3 subreddit for some reason specifically DISABLED it there. The hell? Digging deeper, it looks like this was done nearly a year ago, and after a large series of poorly thought out polls that were basically designed to fish for specific results and fights in the comments. Hm.

Im' not sure it would be hard. They already implemented Hellish Rebuke.
The only thing to add is "toggles" in the variation windows if it make sense and a mechanic to select our target (which is something they should add at least for bless/bane/sleep/...)

Of course it would require a bit of job on every reactions. But they'll have to create something anyway.

No, not "hard" ...
"harder when compared to pop-up for every single potential reaction".

No spamming of Solasta on the BG3 forum? I wish!!!

Jesus Christ.

Solasta's implementation does have the caveat that any amount of damage of 10 or lower is an automatic concentration success. However for instances where one attack has two types of damage (like Piercing and poison), Solasta considers both of those to be separate attacks, which mean two concentration checks, and perhaps two death saves, from one single attack, which I don't like.



That is one reason why I would either set reactions to off or ask, never auto. But some people seem to want to select "auto" for certain things. "Auto" would be more useful for Fighters who want to either use AoO or Riposte. Auto would probably be less great in many other cases.

Spitballing stuff, don't mind me...

So I've spent the past few hours figuring out how we could go about having a far more fleshed out reaction system utilizing prompts, but also having additional settings to help automate the frequency of prompts based on player preferences, mitigating the potential issue of 'too many pop-ups'. I'm trying to go for a sort of gambit-style system in regards to reactions, and this is what it would probably look like.

Feel free to add to the list for situations I've overlooked.

---

Defensive Reaction settings:

* Never prompt for reaction if expected damage is below X amount (you can input a number in this option)
* Always prompt for reaction if incoming enemy attack or spell has a chance to KO a party member (a yes/no checkmark option which would override the first option)
* Always prompt for reaction if incoming enemy attack or spell would result in a party member being forced to make a concentration check or break concentration (a yes/no checkmark option which would override the first option)
* Always prompt for reaction (checking this option overrides/greys out the other options above)
* Always use reaction automatically (checking this option overrides/greys out the other options above)

Defensive reactions would include the following:

Shield, Protection fighting style, Bardic/Combat Inspiration: Saving Throws, Combat Inspiration: AC increase, Cutting Words, Evasion

The above is not meant to be a full list, but you all get the point.

---

Offensive Reaction settings:

* Never prompt if enemy HP is below X amount (you can input a number in this option)
* Never prompt for reaction if expected damage without added damage from reaction has a chance to KO the target. (This only really applies to Smite and Bardic Inspiration: Damage rolls. Let's say you're attacking a goblin that only has 5 HP, and your weapon damage alone already does anywhere from 6-11 damage. There'd be no reason for the game to ask you if you want to smite in that situation.)
* Always prompt for reaction (checking this option overrides/greys out the other two options above)
* Always use reaction automatically (checking this option overrides/greys out the other options above)

Offensive reactions would include the following:

Hellish Rebuke, Combat Inspiration: Damage Rolls, Smite

Again, not meant to be a full list, but you all get the point. I am certain there are more that would fit into this category, feel free to mention them so I can flesh this out a bit more.

The game would clarify that while Smite is not considered a reaction, the way it is used would utilize the same system for determining whether you want to use that feature or not. The game would also clarify that Bardic Inspiration: Attack Rolls is similar to Smite in that it is not a true reaction, but it will always prompt whenever its use could determine the difference between an attack landing or missing, unless the 'Always use reaction automatically' option is checked.

---

Utility Reaction settings: (Utility reactions are handled on a case-by-case basis, since they're potentially on a whole other tier of importance compared to the above two categories.)

Counterspell:

* Never prompt for reaction if the enemy spell being cast is below X spell level (you can input a number in this option)
* Always prompt for reaction if the enemy spell being cast is identified as a defensive spell (examples being healing spells, Shield, etc.)
* Always prompt for reaction if the enemy spell being cast is identified as a utility spell (examples being Darkness, Fog Cloud, enemy Counterspells, etc.)
* Always prompt for reaction if expected damage from the enemy spell has a chance to KO a party member or force a concentration check
* Always prompt for reaction if the enemy spell inflicts a status effect
* Always prompt for reaction if the enemy spell being cast is unknown. (This option assumes that Arcana skill checks to identify enemy spells before you attempt to counter them are in BG3.)
* Always prompt for reaction (checking this option overrides/greys out the other options above)
* Always use automatically (checking this option overrides/greys out the other options above)

Feather Fall:

* Never prompt for reaction if expected fall damage is below X amount (you can input a number in this option)
* Always prompt for reaction if expected damage can KO a party member or force a concentration check
* Always prompt for reaction (checking this option overrides/greys out the other options above)
* Always use automatically (checking this option overrides/greys out the other options above)

Hmm, are there other utility reactions besides these two that should be handled on a case by case basis?

---

Attack of Opportunity settings: (This would be a toggle option for each character that you can view during combat. It's split by character because a Wizard would probably never want to blow their reaction to AoO if they want to save their reaction to, say, counterspell. Martial characters like a Fighter that doesn't have much else for reactions probably would want to AoO at every opportunity.)

* Always use automatically whenever possible
* Never use this reaction
* Always prompt for reaction

---

Reaction Override toggle settings: (Basically a way to override custom settings quickly during combat, if let's say there's only a couple enemies left and you just want to get things over with without the game asking you for any prompts. Think of the practical use of this being like swapping from turn-based to RTwP in one of the Pathfinder cRPGs. This would also be grouped into defensive and offensive categories. Utility reactions and attacks of opportunity will retain their custom settings.)

* Use custom settings
* Always Prompt for Reactions
* Never Prompt for Reactions (do not use reactions automatically)
* Never Prompt for Reactions (always use reactions automatically)

On a side note, I do wonder how feasible it would be to use these settings in regards to multiplayer. Everyone having different settings might throw a wrench in this programming-wise. It could probably just be simplified so that only the host's settings will apply to everyone. It's their room, after all.

I know the chances of Larian doing something like this is unknown, considering we haven't heard anything in regards to the reaction system this past year. But maybe it could act as a frame of reference for some crazy mod programmer in the future if the game does release with reactions remaining as is. I also wonder what would happen if the Solasta devs were to implement the above. All the pop up complaints would probably vanish overnight. For all we know, they might already be doing something similar for their upcoming Bard/Monk/Warlock release...

So I tried describing something like the above over at Reddit.

https://old.reddit.com/r/BaldursGat...a_full_reaction_system_with_settings_to/

The amount of downvotes this is getting along with no one even bothering to reply seems to tell me that people would rather argue about things instead of actually coming up with any solutions at all. It's the ultimate evidence that it's a shit platform for actual feedback and discussion, because whether your ideas are seen at all basically depends on what kinds of people happen to see them first and they effectively decide if it gets an audience at all. I hate that Reddit has effectively replaced proper forums for this reason.

The overall community has quickly spiraled into a lost cause in regards to actual gameplay discussion ever since the patch was released. Maybe we've reached the point where discussion of gameplay has circled down the drain so much that everyone's just tired of hearing about it. Probably one of the negatives of having such a long EA period.

Eh, I should probably just delete that thread and try it again on the weekend when more people are around. A quick glance at the current subreddit activity over the past hour tells me that there's a number of people online on that subreddit right now that seem to treat any suggestion that implies that there's anything inadequate in BG3 like a direct attack on Larian or something.

Or maybe many people don't care about this as much as you do. Always good to reflect.

I certainly think the Solasta method is better, but in terms of stuff BG3 does wrong and should fix it's not top of the list.

Maybe, but there are other threads with people discussing this exact sort of thing that have gotten many upvotes not even a whole 24 hours ago. All I've done is put it into a fully fleshed out format for the sake of gathering feedback in case there were situations I've missed, and to act as a guideline for what Larian might be trying to implement if they happen to see it, or for future mod creators if the game's going to release with the reaction system remaining as is.

Plus whether people care about things is irrelevant anyway. We as mere onlookers are free to prioritize whatever the hell we want, but what we want to prioritize doesn't really matter, when the actual reality is that Larian as developers are fully capable of doing multiple things at once. If only because it's not like the writing staff works on the same things as the gameplay design staff.

I tried to go take a look, Saito, but it's already deleted <.< >.>

In general, I'd recommend, if you're going to brave the reddit mire, to at least give threads ~48 hours to percolate; it may look bad initially, but there are audiences that check at different times, and at least a portion of them check based on new posts, regardless of other people's ratings.

I don't know how much of an impact the time of the day has (it's got to be the middle of the night somewhere).

Also, I think your post was very long. What's more attractive, especially on Reddit, an image macro meme or a wall of text ?

Finally, and this is just my personal opinion,


is not my job. It's the devs' job. I generally take very little part in "the community brainstorming and coming up with solutions".

As GMTK puts it, "focus on problems, not solutions" (section at 7:49 in this video). The advice is meant for the devs, but I feel it is valuable for players giving feedback as well.

That's why I always prefer to analyse what doesn't work, and why it doesn't work. And I prefer describing what the criticised feature cause in terms of player experience (impracticality, tediousness, frustration, feeling of unfairness, break of immersion, boredom, un-engaging gameplay, etc).

Yes, I occasionally make suggestions. Often they are requests (e.g. adding options for an equally deep experience as a non-musician Bard). Sometimes, when analysing an issue with a feature, the solutions are pretty clear, so I might suggest some. But that's overall rare.

On top of all that, Larian really does not engage with their community. And they certainly don't motivate their changes or non-changes (contrast with how the devs of Diablo 2 Resurrected commented on their patch notes). There is no way to know why Larian hasn't implemented satisfying Reactions. It is a lot harder to look for solutions when you don't know what the problem is. And it is harder to convince someone to do something when you don't know the reasons for their reluctance.


So, as far as I'm concerned, I upvoted your post (in the hope to increase visibility for the general issue of Reaction, not so much out of agreement for the detail of the proposed solution), and moved on.


——


I always sort by "New" instead of "Hot". I hate the idea of seeing mostly/only what others have upvoted.

Selecting our target should work with the current system since we can select to attack. When we cast Shield or Hellish Rebuke we should be able to select the enemy who we want it to trigger with. It would be better than having no control. I still think a toggle system would be best though. And bane, bless, and sleep should have definitely been fixed.

You probably made all the pixel sex fanatics' heads hurt so they downvoted you. Your idea looks complicated on the outside but it would offer the most flexibility.

Same here. I cannot stand popularity contests, especially somewhere like Reddit where stupid stuff gets the most upvotes and intelligent stuff gets nothing or downvoted.

Solasta reactions are horrible. Pop-ups are clunky and will become very tedious to deal with if you have a bard in a party. Just because DnD purists want a videogame simulator of the rules they obsess over doesn't mean that the majority of casual players will like it.

I think that we should be able, when we CAST the "reaction", to choose which toggle we want to be available on the target.

If I want a combat inspiration for damage roll on Lae'Zel...

Currently :
- cast combat inspiration
- click Lae'zel
- select Lae'zel (=> she has now 5 new toggles)
- toggles OFF 4 reactions

What I'd like :
- cast combat inspiration and select "damage roll" in the variation windows (or "toggle OFF" attack roll, ST, skill check, AC bonus)
- click Lae'zel (=> she has now a single "damage roll" toggle)

This would allow us to go deeper into reaction management on top of being a better gameplay imho.
We'd still don't have a perfect control but at least we could choose what we like during our turns rather than constantly having to toggle OFF options we're not interrested in.

TBH I could live with my Lae'Zel using his bonus to damage roll not to the best target I'd personnaly have chosen if it trigger during the ennemy's turn... But I have a hard time with the "now you have to manage Lae'zels toggles or her bonus is totally out of control".

Depending the reactions we could also be able to target specific ennemies.

In exemple cast "riposte"on my fighter the only variation is the target(s).
A ON/OFF toggle appear on my fighter's hotbar but the reaction will only trigger on the target(s) I've chosen.
If I want to change the target, I just have to "recast" riposte and select another one.

I just can help the feeling that this is once again work for options.
Create whatever half, or fully automatic stuff you want ... and just add option for people who are not bothered to confrim popup every few seconds ...

Everyone will be happy.

And the game will be released in 2026. It was already delayed way too much and looks very outdated. At this point the focus should be on polishing and not on adding features that old Divinity code can't handle.

Out of curiosity, where are you seeing these "DnD purists" who "want a videogame simulator of the rules" and who "obsess over" said rules. I'm interested to know where you're interacting with people like that, because there certainly aren't any of those kinds of folks around here... in which case, you should probably leave your denigrating language out of posts you make here, where such people aren't really present to defend themselves.

Im affraid your crystal ball is cracked.
Or broken in some other way ... since it gives you inacurate prophecies.

Nah, jokes aside ...
Such piece of code would add most likely one week ... month, if everything would go extremely unwell.
But certainly not 4 years.

Not at all is too much? O_o

I mean, i know start of Early Acess was "delayed" for ... how much it was 2 or 3 weeks if i remember corectly?
But if i recall Swen, it was bcs of some really bad bug, they had to fix ... bcs it caused really heavy instability ... so the game would be unplayable anyway.

But since no date was set so far for final release ... nor even met, obviously ... how exactly even could this game be delayed? O_o

//Edit:
Im affraid i must disagree with this sentence ...

While it may be difficiult to find even single person who wants everything exactly by the book and not even a slightest change ever ...
Comunity as a whole contains many fragments of such person ...

One person want spells to be more like DnD ...
One person want monsters to be more like DnD ...
One person want reactions to be more like DnD ...
One person want weapons to be more like DnD ...
One person want magical artefacts to be more like DnD ...
One person want resting systems to be more like DnD ...
Etc.

And if you merge them all together, you get exactly that ... DnD purist who basicaly wants game simulator of tabletop rules.
So i wouldnt discart this desire ... since it IS there ... in some form.

Lol. It IS a D&D game. Right? D&D world? Why is it so bad that people want it to be more like D&D and less like DOS 2?

And more D&D doesn't mean pure D&D. Many of us "purists" have come up with many non-5e concepts to try to help make the game better.

For example, I don't mind shove going farther than 5 feet. I just don't like having duergar shove Lae'zel 60 feet off a ledge into lava. 10? Maybe 15 at most, I could see, but 60? I literally measured it with the movement tool. 60.

I know you wish really, REALLY hard for people to agree with you on this, but for the vast majority of players who are actually familiar with both games that's absolutely not the case.

Time to accept it and move on, maybe.


Also, as we discussed a million times already, if the issue with controllable reactions is that "pop ups look clunky" maybe an area of improvement should be precisely to improve in how they are presented, rather than just automatize everything.

For the most part, I agree, but my paladin was annoying in Solasta after awhile. Every time he hit, popup window. Smite 1, 2 or 3? Or cancel? Yeah. That got a bit annoying.

But MOST reactions and such in Solasta were quick windows. Click. Gone. Super easy. Hardly slowed down combat at all.

Doesn't sound like you're disagreeing to me. Sounds like you're agreeing with me that such a person is not, in fact, here... since in order to achieve such an entity, as you say yourself, you'd have to merge many different people together... and even then, by your own reasoning, you'd just end up with someone who wanted more than is currently present, and more similar to the system it was advertised as... not someone who demands a pure and literal translation.

I do, indeed, want all of those things you mentioned, personally... and yet I am not a D&D purist, I am not obsessed with the rules, and I am not wanting nor expecting the game to be a strict 5e simulator - and again, no such person exists here, or ever has to my knowledge. Some people like to joust at windmills on distant hills, however, so they imagine that anyone asking for more D&D in this advertised-as D&D game must be a raving zealot... because that is the only way their derision seems at all rational, when in reality it isn't, even remotely.

I'd like this D&D game to more resemble the system it was advertised as being a game for; I'm wanting (but no longer expecting or even hoping for, let's be honest), a video game that is clearly based in 5e D&D and is a reasonable adaptation of the system to a video game format.

It's almost like it's supposed to be a game based on an OFFICIAL D&D license, rather than your average backyard table with a million of questionable homebrew rules thrown in for shit and giggles.

Then again, I'm never even been particularly invested in D&D itself, so it would be already something if they could at least come up with changes that feel like actual improvements, rather than "Amateur DM thinks he knows better and messes up everything he touches".
It's somewhat hilarious that all the greatest mechanical improvements we got in EA so far consisted pretty much in Larian reverting some of the most questionable changes they introduced to begin with.
Remember when doing a couple of steps around an opponent was enough to get ADVANTAGE, to name one?

All i can agree on is that i didnt seen him, or her, or it, or w/e else people call themselves today.

Just wanted to point out that your reaction seemed dismissive to me ... like "either show me the person, or stfu" ... not quite this way since i know(?) you are not so straight forward agresive, but simmilar.

That was where my disagreement was ...
Like i dunno ... i was trying to point you that maybe finding single person who wants everything is not so important as to realize that if (or when) you take under concideration wider amount of people, you get close to (even tho maybe not exactly the same) desire that imaginary person would have.
And that was the point ... the desire, not the person.

I guess that depend on definition.

All we can say for sure it that you wouldnt concider yourself one.


I have litteraly no idea what were you trying to say. O_o

Well ... maybe ...
And maybe my standards were lowered by the time of EA ... but im glad that at least sometimes is our amateur DM willing and able to admit that not all his new ideas are pure gold, and reverts them back or at least closer to RAW.

Cut for length

I have never used combat inspiration so not sure if my idea is similar to yours. My idea is for something like Shield, we cast it then select an enemy, the next attack that enemy makes against us that hits would then trigger Shield. Not an ideal system but would at least allow us to control it a bit more, the enemy in our face with a flaming greataxe will probably do more damage than the one with a basic bow so we would select the one with the greataxe even if the one with the bow goes next. For something like Hellish Rebuke, we cast it then select the enemy we want it to affect. It would be less likely to be wasted on the enemy with one hit point this way. I would prefer full control over all reactions and when to use them, but this idea I think would be doable with how things are currently set up.

The lovely thing about toggle options in the menu is that these "casual" players will not have to ever worry about not wasting reactions and deciding the best tactical uses of said reactions if they don't have the option to do so selected.

I agree, 100%. I have zero interest in popups throughout the game. I shudder even thinking about it.

As for DnD purists, of course they exist.

Yes, this is exactly my idea.

But for some reactions I think it would be very hard to add.
Shield, Hellush Rebuke, Counterspell, Riposte and so on...for a lot of reactions the only thing to custom would be creatures that trigger the reaction.

=> "cast" + select target (ennemy) = done

But I guess it would be harder to implement more "complex" reactions. In exemple it's easy to allow us to cast bardic inspiration (with lets say the +2AC bonus on a character) on a ally.
But it would be harder to then say "the +2AC bonus only trigger if this ennemy attack". It would require 2 customizable layers rather than 1.

=> cast + select target (ally)
=> select ally + select target (ennemy)

I could live with some of such reactions triggering on the next target.

The popups really aren't that bad in Solasta. Like I said, paladin smite popup is annoying because it's every time you hit, which is almost every attack, and when the paladin gets 2 attacks... Ugh.

But things like Counter spell work pretty well. Enemy is casting a Fireball. Popup. Do you want to use Counter spell? Click Yes. Shows you cast a spell to counter enemy spell. Doesn't happen that often and it's super quick. Same with Shield.

And some Reactions are simpler and could be handled via Scripted Reactions. What I mean is how Larian kinda has AOO enabled currently. If enabled, and an enemy meets trigger requirements, the Reaction triggers. This could easily be done with Shield. When you enable Shield spell as a Reaction, you get to pick "Any Attack" or "Magic Missile Only" or both. Now, no popup for that.

Smite, which isn't a reaction, could be handled mostly like how BG3 has implemented the Battlemaster combat maneuvers. The only time a pop-up would then appear is when the paladin does an AOO. Then it would ask if they want to use Smite when hitting as an AOO. Again, wouldn't be too often.

Well, I don't think it's a problem of how I said it.
Then again maybe my English is failing me.

Do you want the the alternate wording?
An officially licensed title is not (and should not be) the same as a gathering of four friends with a free pass to come up with whatever stupid homebrew rule then want.
It should stick to the source of the license as close as reasonably possible.


Well, I'm glad too, but that's not the point.
The point is that the very fact that any major improvement we got so far consisted fundamentally in Larian removing some of their "homebrew" proves that maybe disliking some of their past and current choices is not really about "being a D&D fanatic" and there was something wrong with their decisions.

My god, NO!
YOU? OF ALL PEOPLE???

It helped, thanks.

But i still dont see relation to what you quoted from me.

This alone is kinda tricky sentence ...
Since "reasonably" is the part that will (obviously i would say) differ from person to person.

But that is the same "based on" topic we had several times ...

And i still believe that it doesnt really matter if Developer refuses to make some mechanic same as it is in tabletop rules, bcs they cant find a way to implement it from technical point of view ... or they can, but dont want to, since they find that way to be boring.
Both can be described as "dont translate well in videogame" ... and that is exactly what we get.

Oh that ...
Yeah, i agree ... whatever is that worth.

+1 Smite is, imo, the ability that least needs a pop-up and can best be translated into a toggle (perferably) or hotbar icon. With a toggle that refunds your slot on a missed attack, the only difference between it and RAW is that you can no longer crit-fish smites.

So if you have Paladin Smites is implemented as such, you'll have *many* less pop-ups. If you also you don't have a character with Protection Fighting Style or have it be a toggle/hotbar-activated stance, and (I'll even concede this) you leave AOOs as a toggle, then having ALL other reactions be pop-ups would be a miniscule percentage of your time spent playing. And well worth the flexibility, especially for powerful abilities like Counterspell that you really don't want to waste on an enemy cantrip.

I mean seriously. For my Sorcerer in Solasta with Counterspell and Shield, the number of times the popup occurs is minimal, and when it does, you WANT it to pop up.

Enemy mage is casting Lightning Bolt, about to fry your entire party because you mistakingly put them all in a line. Popup. Counterspell? YES!!!!! THANK GOD!!! Animation of my Sorcerer casting Counterspell. Lightning Bolt dispelled.

I will ABSOLUTELY be okay with the game pausing for a brief moment to give me a popup to let me counter that spell.

But, yeah... minor spells and abilities... no. Let's do some sort of Scripted Reactions or something to avoid popup windows for those.

I dont remember that you know the spell casted before using your counterspell in Solasta... bad memory ?

Characters with arcana (and/or spellcaster PCs? Or only characters that *can* cast counterspell?) automatically make an arcana check to identify any spell cast by enemies that they can see. This happens before the "Counterspell?" pop-up.

Party members in range to see the enemy spellcasting automatically roll an Arcana check to identify an enemy spell. You do it with advantage if you already know how to cast the spell they're attempting to cast. You can still counterspell even if you fail the check, but the game will tell you that the enemy is attempting to cast an unknown spell instead.

I believe this is actually one of Solasta's homebrew rules done out of convenience, because I remember reading about how the normal rules for that mentioned something about how identifying an enemy spell counted as a reaction itself, or it was something that would prevent the person doing the identifying being unable to cast counterspell afterwards.

Counterspell:
https://images.app.goo.gl/ZJ6ATpqWAQrqApUd9

This is too much wording, though. A simple:

Counterspell Slow? Yes/No

That would suffice.

And this:

https://images.app.goo.gl/83XMiGAaB3DZMadP8

No. This I don't want. This every time the paladin hits? No thank you.

And I also don't want this:

https://images.app.goo.gl/j2g3fB9XqmyiPjs5A

I prefer Larian's approach for AOOs.

I think I've always casted counterspell without the information. A waste of ressource, definitely. But not so much of an issue in the end.

This is what I have in mind to select multiple targets (30sec video - sorry but I don't know how to resize and I dont know why it doesnt always work here...)


It would obviously help with spells like spells like bless, bane, sleep,... Currently it's tedious to choose who we want to target.

But it could already give us a lot of control over many reactions Hellish Rebuke in the video, but also with AOO, Riposte, Shield, eventually ready, why not as a part of smite for AOO,...

Here's an idea for Smite coupled with Reactions:

Button like Passive mode enables Smite for Reactions. Enemy triggers AOO. If enemy has 1-15 HP, no Smite used on AOO. If 16-30, Smite level 1 is used automatically because button is enabled. If 31-45, Smite 2 auto used. 46-60 is Smite 3, and so on.

Now, no popups for Smite. Normal Smite attacks are like Battlemaster maneuvers, and Reaction Smites are like the above. Maybe they could even make it so players control the HP intervals. Instead of every 15 points, every 10, or something like that.

Yey, even more automatic everything ... just click a button (preffered name: Play) and watch! Dont do anything ever again!

Lol. Not exactly. More like set it up ahead of time as opposed to the game pausing, popping up a window and asking you.

But hey. That's more for the folks who hate popups. I, personally, don't mind the Solasta popups as much. Even the paladin Smite, though probably the most frequent, isn't that bad to me. I'd rather have it than no Reactions at all. The popups give full control, and I like that.

But I could live with the ability to preset my Reactions:

Smite Reaction on - Set spell level HP increments - default every 15 HP

Shield spell on - Set to Any Attack or Magic Missile Only

Featherfall on - No preset needed. If you fall, and it's on, it triggers

Gift of Gab - Dialogue reaction spell, so... No need to preset

Absorb Elements on - Set to Any Element or pick which elements you want to trigger the spell. You may already have resistance to fire, for example, so you don't want it to trigger if fire hits you

Hellish Rebuke on - Select specific target(s) using shift key and clicking on target avatar or picture. If you are hit by one of the selected targets, and it's on, it activates.

Silvery Barbs on - Select enemies that trigger it, and select ally to benefit from it. If attacked by one of those enemies, it triggers.

Counterspell - This is the only one that absolutely should have a pop-up. I'm sorry, but it's too varied. I don't even know how you'd properly preset this one. The last thing you want is to waste it on a baby spell on accident when you are saving it for the potential of something more powerful. Multiple mage's... One casts Slow, another Fireball. Ah... But what if the last one casts something like Dimension Door in order to escape and you really don't want that? Too bad, you auto-triggered with one of the other two spells.

Pre-sets bridge part of the distance, but only half-way - The problem with having pre-sets like that is that it only allows one form of flexibility for situations, when there are multiple scales at play. The keenest example is that you may have all of your varied pre-sets on, but you'll have to stop the game and change those settings regularly *anyway* as situations evolve - You only get one reaction per round, and that's a resource that needs to be book-kept as well as what resources you're spending when you use it.

You, as a caster, may often find yourself in situations where, yes, you 'generally' want to use featherfall if someone falls - and you'll generally want to shield magic missile if it's targeted at you, and you might have set to hellishly rebuke only the target with the highest max hp in any given encounter.... but now you're in an encounter with a powerful enemy caster, and what matters is that you *have* your reaction ready to counterspell them if they use one of their nasty spells - so you don't want to shield that magic missile from a minion, and you won't featherfall your ally falling 15 feet off the ledge to the lower level, because it's not as important as stopping that disintegrate if and when it comes out, and you don't want to be without your reaction if it does... but of course, you do want to do all of those other things if the enemy caster takes his turn and doesn't pull out a big spell this round, and his minions magic missile and shove allies after him... unless they have legendary actions, in which case you'll still want to hang onto it...

Even with a fairly flexible set of pre-set options to utilise, it's still going to end up being frustrating to the player who will find their reaction spent on things they don't want to spend it on in particular or important circumstances, or not being used when it's okay to use it in others.

That is so true. Plus, with presets, you have to, as you touched on, spend probably MORE time managing Reactions to make sure they're set right. And God forbid you forget to mess with them before ending your turn. "Oh crap! I forgot to turn off Shield Reaction. Now my Counterspell won't work!"

Fireball. Everyone's half dead. I could see myself doing that constantly, But at least you shielded that magic missile. Yay you!

Yeah. For the most part, popups. Like I said earlier, they really aren't that annoying in Solasta, and they really don't slow combat down that much. Very miniscule.

Yeah, this is something I wrote about even when I made my thread about trying the Grymforge final boss for the first time in patch 7:

at some point you find yourself having to juggle between toggles for your reactions so frequently (which is STILL far from ideal control over them) that it makes the "annoyance" of dealing with Solasta pop-ups trivial and smooth to deal with, in comparison.

For how "crude" having a text pop-up may be in terms of presentation, it surely beats having to fight with the multiple tabs of your UI for multiple characters at once, going back and forth between switching things on and off.

I still think that Saito's videos from Solasta are an excellent case study in the fact that having the game check with you absolutely does not slow the gameplay down at all, and in facts speeds overall combat up and makes it feel snappier and more engaging as a whole. They're a direct, demonstrated and tangible disproof to the claim that being asked for each action would slow down the game... it doesn't, not any more than you, the player, want it to...

I agree that it doesnt slow down combats. It has always been a non sense argument for those against a proper reaction system.
I.E being able to counter a fireball is less turn/ressources consuming than healing your entire party...

But it's also true that it break the flow of ennemies turns with pauses. I truly love Solasta but it is not known for his dynamic turn based combats. The animations trigger with a delay, the movements are very rigid... and then there are more or less popup depending your characters classes.


I could totally hear that Larian wants to create more dynamic combats. In my opinion it would be a good thing for the whole turn based genre if Larian succed at creating "dynamic" turn based combats. IMO they've already done a good job.


But on top of that, what would happen with popup with the new Swarm AI ? 5 popups at the same time for an AOO ? A huge popup with 5 targets ? Not the biggest issue I guess...

But what would happen in a game that is totally unable to manage a real pause ? (and that dont want at all to deal with pause for multiplayer purpose).

What in multiplayer when someone has to click yes/no ?
Will the second player see every ennemies moving in place until the first player click the popup ? (Like in solasta)
Will the second be able to "break" the game and engage the ennemies frozen by popup with a hidden character or an arrow ?

I may be wrong but the popup solution raise many questions that could not be (easily) solved with how the game currently works. At least some things could feel even wierder than now imho.