Except they are, Max, in that other game that has a functional reaction system, I think you know its name. It's *quite* achievable.
Originally Posted by 7d7
I read carefully this very long thread
I feel you need to consider the aim of the game is to port dnd to a video game format while making it accessible and flow well.
Solasta system with reaction is faithful to the rules but not accessible and poor in terms of flow (let's face it sometime I would even rather avoid an encounter becaus EOF the clunkiness). Also consider if MP would be twice as many pop up (prepare to refuse caster to your party).
Because DM are the reason why reactions work in dnd, the only practical solution imo are presetted readied action. I posted overwatch as a well known tactical RPG example but then it would always be an imperfect solution (e.g. shot the first enemy in my line of sight vs. shot that goblin with low hp if it enters my line of sight and ignore the others)
Considering Larian they would (and should) favour accessible contents to 100% implementation.
I had a bit of hard time understanding exactly what you were saying here, 7d7 - I'm assuming you''re using a machine translation? I apologise if I misunderstand anything, and I do not wish to offend, however...
- Solasta's rendition of the reaction system is Exceptionally accessible - It explains itself in clean, clear language, doesn't over-do that explanation, and makes the function very easy to understand even for someone who doesn't know the game system. Accessibility of its systems is one of the things they do very well there. BG3 on the other hand, is extremely Inaccessible, in the sense that it doesn't adequately explain its system, it doesn't have any documentation to read or access if you want to understand why something happened that you didn't understand, it uses inconsistent language all over the place, and it often fails to show the same level of information or detail consistently - if it ever shows it at all, which in many cases it simply does not. It fails to communicate when certain abilities don't work, but usually doesn't tell you why they didn't, and its interface gives often abjectly misleading or false information (see: targeting circles and character highlights for spells and abilities that then do not actually hit or target those characters - a day one (earlier - it was a problem in D:OS2 as well and was never fixed there) problem that still persists). The controls are temperamental, imprecise and don't allow players proper control of their characters, even for something as simple as movement or targeting. One of these games is very accessible, and one of these games is far, far less so. BG3 is not the winner here.
- The flow is fine, and the reaction system does not slow this down in any appreciable way. In fact it streamlines the combats more effectively in most cases. I've spent far longer messing around fighting BBG3's control UI trying to get my character to move where I want, or to cast the spell I want them to cast without moving somewhere I don't want them to, than I EVER have debating whether to take a reaction or not in Solasta. In BG3, I spend a good amount of time every combat battling against the game UI, and wasting time grappling with a clunky control system when I'd rather be playing the game. I never feel like I'm wasting my time ineffectively or like I'm not actively playing the game in Solasta - especially when I do have to think for an extra second or two about whether I want to burn a counterspell on something or not. In terms of game flow in combat, Solasta currently has BG3 beat hands down, no questions.
- DMs are not the reason reactions work in D&D... I'm not sure where you're going with this or what kind of a statement that is supposed to be, I'm sorry; could you perhaps explain what you're trying to say there a little more?
- As many people have explained in detail throughout this thread and others, no system of presets is EVER going to be satisfactory when weighed against an actually functional reaction system that gives the player control of their own abilities. A functional reaction system can include settings for automaton if players want it, and a functional reaction system is quite possible, and not, in fact, terribly difficult to do... I suppose, unless you're trying to hack-job it into a game engine that was originally designed for something else and is just being viciously cribbbed, stitched and cludged to manage a D&D system entirely unlike the purpose for which said game engine was originally written, rather than designing a new engine to-purpose and to suit the new big-budget project they were embarking on... But Larian is a professional company, so I'm sure they wouldn't do something as offensively trashy as that. Right?