Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback We need to talk about Reactions

Hi there,

I've got about 300 hours in the game so far, and I can't wait to do a few more run-throughs when the next patch releases. I love this game to bits.
Having said that, there is really only one aspect of the game I thoroughly, and I can't stress that enough, *thoroughly* dislike and I feel like is needlessly and arbitrarily taking away so much from the D&D experience. I am talking, of course, about Reactions.
To preface this - this is not due to some misguided purist notions that D&D rules are sacred and can't be reinterpreted. Not at all. By all means, where a change makes the game more fun and where it makes sense, sure. But I really struggle to see any objective reasoning behind having Reactions implemented the way they are.
And another thing - I will not just explain in detail why I think the current implementation of Reactions is so, so bad, I will attempt to provide an idea of how it could work - and I don't think it would be difficult to implement at all. That last statement contains a degree of presumption on my part, but I am also a software engineer.

So, without further ado, let's break the Reactions down:

1. Why are they so, so, *so* bad?

For one thing, they aren't really *reactions* at all. They are preset, conditional commands that are triggered as soon as an external agent or effect satisfies the preset condition. They are triggered automatically, you don't get to *react*. But besides semantics, this has profound negative implications not just for all Reaction spells, but for banal things like Attacks of Opportunity as well.
With the current system, I don't see how you can implement a Counterspell at all, which makes me think Larian doesn't intend to, and I would just say a Wizard without a Counterspell isn't a Wizard at all. If you would want to implement it with the current system, how would you predetermine the level at which you want to cast it, a crucial thing about casting a Counterspell? And even if you somehow got around that, nothing would guarantee that it wouldn't just eat up a cantrip, or some lousy spell you really don't want to spend a spell slot countering.

But it's not just Counterspell, it renders most Reaction spells almost useless, or at the very least reduces their relevance and usability severely.
We don't currently have many examples in the game but take Hellish Rebuke - another good example. A spell that could be an excellent way to burst a tough foe down by casting multiple spells on it in a single turn, but in the current implementation, it's a spell that costs a spell slot that could be eaten up by a goblin trash mob standing next to an ogre for which the spell is intended. Same thing with Riposte.
It gets even worse when you get to classes that have multiple reactions, such as Wizards. Larian said something like, "With a Wizard, you will toggle of your Attacks of Opportunity and toggle on your Shield". Note Larian conveniently leaving out any mention of Counterspell. But besides that, why would I have to toggle off my Attacks of Opportunity? If I didn't use my Shield for the current round cuz I wasn't attacked, and the last foe in the initiative order is moving away from me, I want to do that Attack of Opportunity. At any given turn, I want to be able to use any of my Reactions when they are triggered, and I want the option of not reacting, cuz I am maybe saving my Reaction for something more dangerous or more opportune.

To sum things up - the current implementation of Reactions brings absolutely nothing to the table that makes the game more fun, and it takes away so many strategic choices that would make this game a much more multidimensional and rewarding experience. The difference between real Reactions and what we currently have is the difference between Magic the Gathering and Hearthstone, to put it in tcg terms. And this is not hating on Hearthstone, but there's a reason why MTG is MTG, and HS is not.

2. How to do it the right way?

It's actually pretty straightforward. When an event occurs that can trigger a Reaction, freeze the game in the appropriate place in the animation and offer the player a notification that says what triggered the Reaction, along with the list of characters that are able to react and the Reactions they are able to take. For each character, you are able to select a single reaction, but also you don't have to react if you don't want to. When you are happy with your Reaction selection(s), you click a confirmation button and the rest of the animation plays out. If the Reaction you are taking is a spell, you are able to select a level at which you are casting it, just like you usually would.

Now, let's play that out in a couple of scenarios so you get the picture:

A) A foe is standing next to one of my characters and tries to move away. The creature moves away to the edge of the range in which it provokes an Attack of Opportunity. Then, the creature's movement freezes, a pop-up shows up saying the creature triggered an AoO, and I can react by attacking it. I decide not to do it because there is also another, more dangerous, Frightened creature next to me and I would prefer to spend my Reaction on that. So, the creature unfreezes and just moves away.

B) A foe tries to cast Fireball with a 5th level spell slot on my party. It strikes the initial casting pose, then freezes. A pop-up shows up explaining what's happening, and I have a choice of reacting with my Wizard and my Warlock. They both have Counterspell. Because my Wizard is an Abjuror and I am feeling greedy, I decide I will not waste one of my Warlock's limited spell slots, or my Wizard's limited level 5 spell slots, so I try my luck and I try to counter it with a 3rd level Counterspell with my Wizard. The dice rolls and it fails. The creature plays out the rest of the spellcasting animation. My Wizard also plays a Counterspell animation, but it fizzles. The Fireball hits my party, the animation freezes, and there is another pop-up saying my Warlock is about to take fire damage and offering me to cast Absorb Elements as a Reaction. I do it. The animation unfreezes, Fireball blooms and my Warlock plays the Absorb Elements animation. In case the Counterspell worked, the creature's spellcasting would fizzle out, and my Wizard would successfully cast Counterspell (animation-wise). Also, imagine how cool that would look in the game.

3. Counterarguments

The only 2 counterarguments I can think of are that it is either too technically challenging to implement, or that it would slow the pace of the game down needlessly. As for the first one, I don't find that plausible, because I really don't see how hooking up some user interaction instead of reading from a preset configuration when a Reaction hook is triggered can be so problematic. As for the second one, I really don't mind the game "slowing down". I like that combat is turn-based and that I can take my time meticulously planning out my every step.

4. Compromises

To address potential concerns about the pacing of the game, multiple things could be done. For example, one could check a checkbox in the options that prevents Counterspell from being offered as a Reaction for cantrips. For characters that only have an AoO as a Reaction, you could toggle so they use it up the first time they can, without any prompting. You could even have a toggle that turns on the current UI for *Reactions*, allowing players to preset all their reactions for those who *really* prefer it this way, but I bet they are in a minority. It would allow people to tailor for themselves how they want to balance their game flow with their strategic options. As for me, I want to choose all of my Reactions manually every time.

Please, please, PLEASE fix the Reactions. It's gonna be a great game no matter what but it frustrates me that it can be so much more, and in my opinion what's preventing it from being more isn't some real technical obstacle, but wrong decision-making and faulty reasoning. I am not above begging, and I will beg if I have to. Please!

For the other players, if you are as frustrated with the current Reactions as I am, use this thread to make yourself heard, and hopefully, Larian will take our constructive feedback into consideration.

So basically, do reactions like they do in Solasta? Wholeheartedly agree.

I don't know how they do it in Solasta because I haven't played it, I just know that what we currently have for Reactions is hands down the most disappointing aspect of the game and is unlikely to be dethroned.

You're not wrong, but don't get your hopes up.

I get the feeling from how you describe things you've got experience playing 5e. I've only ever played original AD&D and 2e rules, and for me, the reaction mechanics in BG3 haven't been a source of frustration. The vibe I've gotten is that Larian's target it much more casuals like me that like D&D, like crpgs, but aren't married to any specific concepts.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of things I wish were different (the toilet chain, priority of multiplayer over something as straightforward as a freaking pause feature...), but I've come to conclusion that the forums exist as a place for us to vent these frustrations, rather than an actual source of meaningful feedback.

Not at all. I've played MTG for years, but BG3 is my first brush with D&D. And because the game is so great, I went on to read a bit more about 5e and I immediately fell in love with the spell system. And then got very disappointed because I realized what Larian implemented pales in comparison. Other than that, I like turn-based strategies so I might be biased that way.

LordRhaega that's really interesting.

I encountered 5e when getting my kids into D&D, and the complexity of the rules was hugely off-putting. They read to me like the kinds of rules that computer games are better at than pen-and-paper situations.

When I was a kid, we could throw together a couple characters and play a few encounters at lunch recess, with 5e, there's so much minutia, that when helping my kid put together characters, in the back of my head all I could think was "this should be a video game". So Larian's implementation of it has been mostly satisfying to me.

I certainly agree with all your points, just don't get your hopes up.

Many of us are hoping for a proper reaction system to be implemented, and have been asking for it in threads since day one, so don't worry, you're not alone there.

The main detractors from the request seem to be people who, for whatever reason, actually don't Want to have any control over what they react to when, or if they do at all, and don't view the loss of ability to adequately control your own characters as a downside. I can't say I understand it, but that's the stance I've seen detractors take most often. Other than that, they also raise the 'it slows down the game' argument, which has been demonstrated, multiple times and with strong video evidence by other users here, to be an absolute fallacy - proper reactions speed up combat flow, overall, rather than slowing it down (but just watch - having said that, someone is going to object and claim otherwise, and one of us will have to try to get them to watch some of the video demonstrations that exist again, most likely in futility).

There is a major update/rework of spellcasting and its associated mechanics coming at some point in the future, though we don't know when - at that time, it's believe that things like everyone using scrolls, and wizards scribing every spell, etc., will be fixed. Some of us are hoping very firmly that that is the point where we'll get a properly functional reaction system as well.

If you can spare the time and effort, I'd strongly encourage you to submit your feedback to Larian directly, as well as posting it here - you can access their general feedback from through the launcher; even if you're just duplicating your main post here, it'll still ensure that it also goes directly to them to be read.

==

Out of curiosity, Colinl8, and this is a tangent, but...


could you explain this to me? Like, in a private message if you don't want to derail the thread, even. It's a sentiment that has ever confused and confounded me because 5e is far simpler, more straight forward and more user friendly and easy to get to grips with than any D&D system before it. the rules are simple and uncomplicated, compared to older systems, and it's designed to be incredibly easy to pick up. What about its rules did you find 'complex' that was less so in older editions?

That's actually infuriating. Why are you even playing the game then? Just watch a movie instead, you'll get the ultimate non-interactive experience. Also, on that note, now that you mention it, I find it incredibly intrusive being asked to select all these pace-killing "dialogue" options. I want to be able to toggle my Intimidation on and not actually have any conversations. It slows my game down, maaaaaan. Brooooooooo.

Thanks for the tip, I'll definitely submit feedback directly as well.

This was a fun read, and I definitely agree with you. Especially regarding counterspell.

It makes me a little sad, because I was thinking earlier tonight about all the various ways that a cool Wizard's tutorial might be presented, and of course that's a feature that wouldn't get touched on with the current scheme in place. I also can't help but feel that this is one area where Larian's bias towards Action MP and against anything resembling a "Pause" function is kinda working to the detriment of the game overall. I think probably what they need here is something a bit more like the Red Dead quickdraw feature, but done up D&D style. You know where the game naturally expands time and freezes the animations. To say, allow the Wizard to make some sequential decisions and commands in response, but then compresses time again for the final action animation, once the inputs are confirmed. Just to clarify I don't mean that the game should be Real-Time with Pause, but rather Turn-Based with Pause. The "with pause" part being the critical element that's still missing in my view to make things like reactions actually feel reactive, instead of like preset. I often encounter these weird situations where the turn based BG3 game nevertheless starts to feel like it has definite real-time consequences. Despite eschewing the concept of Time generally, I am still fighting against the game-clock in ways I shouldn't be, since I can't hit spacebar to freeze what's happening lol.

That's a different general point I suppose, but I think its related, because the game doesn't really have a way to delineate time from the player's POV. Either you're in Combat on your own turn in which case the gametime is frozen, or you're not on your own turn, or perhaps not in combat at all, or anymore, in which case the gametime is then ticking and totally outside of your control. People have tended to complain about it more in the very obvious instances, like "why the fuck am I now burning to death on the floor, when 2 seconds ago I was in combat, and gametime was completely frozen?" or "how come player A is in turn based combat, while player B is still running around doing whatever they want like the Flash?" but it really permeates the whole game in subtle ways. The primary justification would seem to be, "because Co-Op multiplayer flow" but that doesn't really hold up for me. I don't think I'll ever play this game in Co-Op, it's just not something I need from a BG game, but even there, yeah if I was a Wizard and my buddy was a Warlock sitting on the same couch... I can easily imagine that discussion, like who's going to react? And to me that would elevate the experience and make it feel engaging, rather than slow. Even if technically it was a bit slower. It wouldn't feel as slow and passive boring, which is the point. I don't really see how Reactions would slow things down anymore than the regular turn taking process already necessitates a slow burn, but it would certainly make those turn cycles feel more dynamic and less like watching the autothon.

Honestly I think the main problem is that, on the one hand they want their game to present like a dazzling ensemble cinematic performance that we watch in real time (because that's how such sequences work in cinema) but on the other they're using a game system that was designed to abstract all that into a sequential narrative where everything happens 1 by 1 by 1. They cut their teeth on a turn based action game, but one that didn't have to pay this kind of obeisance to how things work in D&D. So the goal of making stuff look cool there, didn't really have to butt up against something like Reactions in D&D.

Other turn based games, or games based on older TB systems, often feature something kind of similar as a way to maintain engagement or input from other players even when it's not "their turn." The tradeoff is usually that the rules then become increasingly complex as the game moves from a strictly Rotating Turns conception into more Same-Time or Simultaneous-Turns territory. To use a simple example from a totally different turn based game, Scrambling Aircraft in Axis and Allies Global works in a similar sort of way. It's your choice as the defender, but a reaction to the attacker's move that takes place on the attacker's turn rather than your own. So it blurs the turns distinction a bit. Scrambling works very well on the table top, because all the players are sitting next to each other and it's a quick response question, but if you're playing by email say, it means grinding the game to a halt and waiting for a reply "Do you want to scramble in sea zone X?" The workaround would be to telegraph your moves in advance, e.g. a preset response, but that's not exactly a great solution either because it signals your intentions to the enemy. D&D is more cooperative, whereas Axis and Allies is principally competitive. In D&D our opponent is not the other player characters, but the DM or the game itself. Still it seemed kinda similar to me, like you don't want to be all announcing to the DM in advance "if you do X, then I'll do Y, so maybe don't X please?" lol. Or like if they tried to make G40 without scrambling, just so it would work better for multiplayer online reasons, the entire game would change into something rather different. The bid would go to hell, and probably everyone would cry foul that it's not "real" Axis and Allies G40 anymore. Same deal here with Reactions, just the D&D version. I imagine a year ago, some people might have just said, 'well it's not really possible to do Reactions properly in a computer game' so we just have to take whatever as given, but then Solasta showed a way it might be done, so now that's sort of the yardstick to go by.

Anyhow, here is a link to the mega-thread
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=749449#Post749449

You may find it encouraging to read, or depressing in equal measure lol. Since it's like 14 pages long and started way back in Jan of 2021, but we still don't really have a clue as to how they're going to tackle this stuff. I don't expect to see it in patch 6, otherwise they'd probably be repin' it pretty hard right now. But one can still hope for the best I guess. Like that we haven't learned anything new about it, because their ultimate solution is a masterwork and way better than Solasta's, cause they're just going to copy that and make it look way cooler hehe. Fingers crossed!

Also, just cause there was a lot of confusion in the other thread initially, and this one will likely be merged with it if it continues to get replies...

The important thing about Reactions is that they generally occur on someone else's turn, not your own turn. So any idea that we'd have Reactions requiring us to prognosticate or do presets in advance or set up contingencies and the like, is not really a viable execution of the concept. I bring this up because I think a good solution for how to adapt what Solasta did into BG3, but without necessarily hitting us over the head with it, was offered on page 2 of that thread by LukasPrism:




I don't know about the 3 second thing, which seems a bit brief, but the main idea to have a default Reactions toggle with "Off, Manual, and Automatic" I think is solid. Where the middle option is something more like what we'd want (Me or the OP, et al), but the other options are there to accommodate people who basically don't want Reactions or pop up prompts, and are content with this stuff being automated or nixed out of existence during their gameplay. Other similar suggestions include some sort of time-pause window during which a reaction can be made, similar to what you're describing at the top. Saito put up a video on page 13 that kind of shows how it works in the other game, with the ready actions as well...



Starts cracking after about a minute, when the Game of Thrones knock-off music first kicks in hehe. Sorry the BG3 forums won't dislay it full screen without really taking up the full screen, so to see what's going on you need to open youtube in another tab probably. I bought the game a while ago, but really haven't played it much to be honest and haven't checked back recently. Still, many people seemed pretty pleased with how these things were working there at the time, the lack of BG3 production values notwithstanding hehe. I've heard a lot less about Solasta here, ever since Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous dropped, which seems to be drawing more of the BG3 comparisons lately. Not as useful to this convo though, since Pathfinder 1e is based on D&D's 3.5 ruleset and not the 4e/5e stuff that made Reactions what they are now in D&D. That's like a Pathfinder 2e thing I guess, which has yet to receive a computer translation. Maybe while everyone is distracted by Pathfinder WotR though, now would be a good time for Larian to start stealthily swooping the goods from Solasta and crib a few of TA's better ideas?

I really, really don't want the game to freeze just when a Paladin's attack is about to connect to prompt for Divine Smite.

If they will do reactions as proper reactions / prompts, they should convert as many reactions as they can into active ones, Divine Smite being a good example. >> Charge the weapon as a Free Action until it lands a hit and discharges. Almost the same mechanically but not the massive pain in the ass to use that a constantly appearing prompt that pauses the game at the worst possible moment would be.

Yeah, I also don't like the 3 second suggestion, but like the rest of the idea. Why limit it to 3 seconds? It is turn-based, after all. If you wanna enforce time-limit on reactions, you should do it for actions, too. After all, one D&D combat round lasts for 6 seconds.

I think Reactions are one problem where they *can* make everyone happy with not that much effort. For those who prefer to play braindead and have mistaken this game for a 3rd person shooter, leave them the option of using reactions as they are, or, hell, give them the option to remove the concept of reactions entirely. Dumb it down for them even more. Remove bonus actions for them if they want, wouldn't want to pile too many options on them. Might get in the way of that sweet, sweet action. For those of us who expect a turn-based game to take turns between player and enemy actions and reactions, please implement it properly. Because as it stands now, Reactions feel like a half-baked potato and I'd preferred them taken out completely to what we have now.

people really need to use the search function on the forums.

A lot of people agree with you.

At the last Panel From Hell, Larian did imply a change will be coming to reactions. But, we got no description of what would be changed.

Yeah, I think Divine Smite should be a pre-emptive toggle (if the next attack hits). (1) Divine Smite isn't a reaction anyway, (2) it's the ability that would be annoying to have a pop-up prompt for.

But Hellish Rebuke, Feather Fall, etc. should have a pop-up to react to.

Making divine smite a pre-emptive thing that you pre-load would drastically diminish its flexibility and lead to all of the exact same problems that auto-reactions have - you paladin will end up burning their level 5 smite on a 5 hit point goblin zombie minion that provoked an opportunity attack, rather than on the lich they intended to use it on. That should never happen, ever, full stop; it's a massive weakening of the ability.

Fair point, the toggle could have a pop-up follow when it's toggled on.
Or it could always have a pop up for opportunity attacks (while spell slots are available).

My main point is that Divine Smite should have a unique solution, different from reactions.

I'll take anything as long as the game does not pause the action during an attack animation and prompt me every. single. time. I hit something.

They can buff the ability in other ways, grant more uses. There are ways.

An opportunity attack wasting special attacks as an auto-reaction is exactly what they need to fix. Maybe that needs to prompt if the weapon is charged with something. Even though I generally hate the idea of reaction prompts in a video game.

They need some kind of hybrid system for reactions where they are automated where that makes sense, still offer a prompt where it's absolutely necessary, and some reactions are changed into Bonus Actions or Free Actions where that makes sense.

//Edit: i didnt read the whole topic so i apology of this was allready sugested.
.
I believe i have an idea ... how about alterning curent system we
have by adding option "ask"?

That way we would have all options we want ...
Disbled - never used automaticly
Enabled - allways used automaticly
Ask - allways popup window asking us if we want to use resource needed or save it for other use.

Graphicaly i would distinguish it by HUGE semi-transparent white questionmark ower the spell icon.

And it would be activated by clicking ... Allways > Ask > Disabled

That way everyone shoud have what they want, right?

So you are in the camp that wants less precision and control, and does not want the ability to choose what you react to and when, and if you use your particular abilities or not, etc.,

Videos have shown, very definitively, that your average player spends more time thinking about and planning their turn, or deciding what to do, than they will ever lose on a prompted decision point, by a very wide margin, however, if you don't want those prompts, that's okay.

Asking that they buff things up in other ways to accommodate for an absent control system that strips the player of their ability to be precise and make their own choices about when and when not to use their abilities, however, is not in any way an acceptable option, under any circumstance.

The option, as others here have suggested, for a full normal 5e implementation, and a complete reaction/decision point system that does what it's supposed to... and then there to be options you can choose, between a full 'ask at every decision point', down to 'never pause my game at all' and however many grades in between they feel is appropriate, is the best solution, since it gives everyone what they want.

If you want a game that removes the hassle of making those decisions yourself and will handle them for you in its best guess at what's best, to make your play experience as uninterrupted as possible, that's cool, and I absolutely support you having that option, but it MUST be an option only.

Here's the thing:


Give me one single, solitary example where you can turn a reaction spell or ability into a free on-your-turn action where it does not cripple the players ability to make that choice meaningfully for themselves, or cause them to waste resources on something they don't want to.

Give me one single, solitary example of a reaction or other decision point where it 'makes sense' to fully automate it to an 'always do it this way' system, without similarly crippling the player's agency in regard to that ability, or causing them to waste it on unintended or detrimental moments.

If you've got any, I'm willing to hear them - if any exist that are legitimately so, they'd be good candidates for text-to-video game QoL conversion.

I dare to disagree Niara ... people should have option to make bad decisions, just bcs they want to ...

I dare to say that i can understand how accepting or denyal of every single possible reaction can seem tedious to people ...
So even tho i kinda hate to promote myself this way ... but i will anyway ... i believe that implementation of "Ask" is best way in here ...

For example, Hellish Rebuke ...
You want to use it when that ugly big Bugbear will attack you, bcs it will reduce his HP to half ... you dont want to use it on puny goblin, bcs most likely 3/4 of its damage would be wasted.
Therefore you set it on Ask ... and if you deny that you dont want to use Hellish Rebuke on Goblin attack, but save it for later ... you can ...
On the other hand, when that puny goblin will run around you, you can use AoO automaticly (yes i know it will make your Hellish Rebuke inactive for the rest of the round ... or more likely i presume it will ) ... but you certainly should have that option.

If you simply forbid people to make bad decisions by making all reactions as in Solasta ... many people would be frustrated, bcs they will find it tedious and anoying to have to decide every single move ...
If you allow them to keep some automatic, as they want ... they will probably eventualy find out that its much more benefitial for them to set it all to popup approval ... or they dont and they will not play effectively, but they will have fun and that is most important. :P

How about the case where you have leftover reaction, an adversary triggers a reaction and you know that no other adversaries will have a turn before it is your turn?

How about reacting to an attack that you know you happen to have immunity for?

Anyway, there is tedious and there is tedious. I think things like opening and closing thousands of containers to check them for loot and inventory manegement are really tedious. They should be the prime target of the anti-tediousness movement. I can not imagine doing your utmost to survive a fight being comparable.