Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Stealth & Ambush Game Mechanics Megathread

I just wonder if anyone else thinks that stealth is so over powered that ruins the game?

I mean I can make an archer and use stealth and kill every thing in the game so far at level 1, and never bother to use any other skills or even rest for that matter.

Also wondering if the devs are going to do anything about it as well

Yes, I think it is a bit OP but I don't think it ruins the game.

Usually in RPGs there are certain builds that outperform others, but for this type of game specially I don't see a problem with that because:

-A big part of the enjoyment of the game is based on making that build you want to work, like for example: let's make the party with the most familiar/pets/minions possible; or a full martial classes party, no spells or arcana proficiency bullshit.
-The narrative is key. Look at my name, I love sneaking an surprising enemies, but most of the time if you start battles with surprise you lose dialogues and all that, so I usually don't do it that much.
-Even games based on the "fame" of it's difficulty usually have OP builds that simplify the game a bunch like Dark Souls / Elden Ring.
-That you find an OP build that simplifies the game is not crazy, you've joined the early access of an RPG 3 years ago. This games are developed for people that will replay it but also for people that this might be their first approach to an RPG, so there is nothing wrong to give tham a more accesible playstyle, sneaking around is a low risk approach.
-Here in the forum i've found some post of people asking to make some encounters easier because they can't find a way to resolve them, I haven't had that problem but here it's a someting to have in mind.

Anyway, how do you resolve it?

-Let's say we make stealth a bit more difficult because enemies move around more, or have a wider perspective. But, the game has a reload mechanic, people that want to do stealthy kills will do it anyway, it's just more inconvenient.
-We tuned down the benefits of sneaking around. No surprise rounds, or advantages... that's going against 5e rules, which there is no problem in that but it's kinda weird to me, also because enemies can surprise us too, so we would be making some encounters easier.


I think that from my point of view the most important thing is that, this isn't a hard game whether you stealth kill or not, there is no gratification because you were able to beat the game. It's more of a game that rewards you (with fun) for being curious and creative, beating it doesn't mean anything.


As an example to this is the D:OS2 build of running around with a heavy object with telekinesis and one-shotting everything. I never used that, now, did it ruin the game in general for people? Nope, some people did it, and had a lot of fun because they like to do those types of things but it didn't affect the enjoyment of the game in general.

It's an RPG, we can choose how we want to play it.

Nah, its fine

I don't believe it's OP, I believe it's a broken system. I try to avoid using stealth in my playthroughs - it rarely results in a coherent gameplay.

Over-powered implies that it exists within the game system and functions as a part of it, but is just too strong of general balance - Stealth is not OP, but rather it is completely busted to the point of eliminating the rest of the game system in its entirety. You can't really use stealth and feel like you're legitimately playing the game, at the moment, because it's functionally game-sanctioned cheating in any encounter.

You can't actually play with and use Stealth as a legitimate mechanic in the game, or work that into your play style in encounters and situations where it is appropriate, because it's such a broken system; there is no 'gameplay' to be had, but rather the personal question f "Do I stealth this encounter" where you either do, and the encounter is eliminated with no danger and no risk, and no chance of failure... or you don't, and you play the game without it. If you want to play with an actually functional and meaningful stealth system, you can't.

If you guys think is OP now, just wait for multi-class and rogue's Assassin subclass with guaranteed crits on hits against surprised enemies


I don't think is that bad, I'm pretty sure most people would have to tinker around for a while to make it work as well as you guys imply, at least in the big encounters. I mean, I killed Auntie Ethel in her lair with stealth without letting her act and with her maintaining her mask companions alive, I cheesed it hard, but I don't know, I don't really find a problem in that because I had to do a bit of set up.
It feels like when people complains about games being too easy, yet they spent two hours looking guides on how to properly build their characters.

Thing is, we can argue if it's okay or not, what I think is a bit more meaningful if we at least suggest solutions.

I have written on stealth on length so I don't want to recount my experiences in detail once again. In short, I have less issue of the system being exploitable to the point of breaking the game (it is a major flaw of the system, but I can just not do it), but that stealth just doesn't work well for sneaking around normally/ambushing enemies.

The suggestions I supported in the past are as follows:

Add hearing circle so one can't Metal Gear stuff while being horrible in stealth and weaking heavy armor.
Make everyone in vacinity join combat when combat is initiated, no matter if they were spotted or not.

That, I think, should give us a functional system.

There is of course the problem of reigning in exploits (like attacking enemies from distance without triggering combat) but I haven't engaged with this system in many patches, I will allow others to chime in.

Stealth is one of those subjects that comes up here over and over again, see eg https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=844163 for a relatively recent discussion, but there have been many more.

It possibly even warrants a mega thread, and if there’s popular demand I’d have a go collecting some of the stealth feedback into one place.

I’ve said my own piece on stealth more than once, I know, but in summary I think stealth at the moment is a combination of overpowered (hide as a bonus action), broken (multiple issues with triggering combat from stealth) and somewhere between the two (restricted sight cones).

Well, both Wormerine and Niara made basically the same point I was thinking reading the title, so just count this as a +1 for "stealth is currently broken rather than OP".

And the idea that you can keep moving around a "battle arena" in real time when there's a turn-based combat going on remains singularly awful.
Without even going into LOS exploits, aggro reset, remaining undetectable after striking and other similar crap.



...Not sure what is even going on in this thread, on the other hand.

+1
Also, when in combat, if I went stealth mode and succeed, the enemy AI don't even know where to check. There should be at least an "alert" state for enemy's AI which if got attacked should enlarge the enemies' "see" radio into a large circle area instead of the default conical area.

+1 for a balanced version of stealth to be in the game so that I can play a stealthy character without:
a.) feeling like I'm cheesing the game
or
b.) requiring me to personally decide when to e.g., unstealth myself because "it's reasonable that, with balanced stealth mechanics, enemies would have seen me by now."

Also, this thread doesn't seem the appropriate place to discuss grievances with a mod. Even if you can't reply to their pm, there are better places to discuss it such as creating a separate dedicated thread (maybe in the General section of the forum, or in the Section: About this Website: For problems and issues about this website)

I would like a mega-thread with suggestions on how to improve it. Can I help in making that possible?

+1 on changing Hiding to cost an action, I have trouble understanding why they choose to make it cost a bonus action, maybe to mitigate the absence of quarter/half cover?

+1 Entering turn based combat when someone attacks: when one of your teammates enter combat I don't think others should enter combat too, but you should enter turn-based mode as by 5e rules, every round is supposed to be 6 seconds in game time, so if not your kinda doing Max Payne's bullet time.

+1 Chequing things not triggering combat properly: There are a bunch, specially when doing range attacks, they feel more like bugs than design choices though.

+1? Involving sound: I don't think this one is that hard to implement, it might be tricky to properly show the player but could be cool, should be balanced with the range attackers because this will affect melee specially. The cool thing is that it might help specially with "invisibility", because now it's super strong.
Some creatures could have better or worse hearing also, as in owls in DnD among many other creatures:
Keen Hearing and Sight. The owl has advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on hearing or sight.
Could also bring into play using Silence spell more, making the choice of changing armor for an encounter, seems fun.


With those changes stealth will still be really powerful, but will feel less as an exploit and there are many more probably.

Thanks!

The most time-consuming part of it would be finding threads where stealth has been discussed before, so folk don’t have to repeat themselves. I can merge threads or (I think) move individual posts from one thread to another, as well as move threads to different forums.

If I have some time tomorrow I’ll take a look, but in the meantime if anyone else can recall or can find specific threads where there was some good discussion, then it would be helpful if you can pop links to them here to get us started.

Some posts went here in case anyone really wants to know.

How to improve?
1. Implement actions closer to 5e
2. Improve AI so they do a thorough search
3. Fix broken code- like attacking an enemy and combat is never started.

There is also a difference between solo/full party stealth and typical party play.
After watching too much TY DnD (lol): have the rogue attack and try to hide.. and the enemies mostly ignore the rogue to focus on the Barb and Paladin in front of them is fine.

But-
Rogue attacks then hides, then the AI stands there saying "ill get you, you cant get away" and does nothing, then the rogue attacks and hide.rinse and repeat is not a fun game imo. Hence i save sneaking for out of combat

What a very good way of putting it and just how I felt.

I can sneek up, shoot something and go back to sneeking and the target if still alive does not even take any action. Rince and repete, no targets move even if things are dying right in frount of them. So it concerns me because its lazy programing or its so broken it can't be fixed and be reasonable at the same time.


I brought this up because I belive that sneeking is a very core function that needs to work correctly and should be high on the list of stuff that get fixed BEFORE release.

Otherwise it going to be left to the modders to fix just like several other things that I will not bring up at thie time.

I actually agree with this. Only the Rogue should have Bonus action Hide. By giving everyone Bonus Action Hide it reduces the power of the rogue.


Also a big yes on this. However, only if the characters are on the same map or within a reasonable distance - if you are off doing your own thign and are not getting involved there is no reason to be put into turn based mode.


Sound is already accounted for. If you are wearing armor that doesn't cause disadvantage on stealth checks then stealth assumes you are being quiet and your stealth check partially involves your success there.

I think the main change to make it more in line with 5e rules is to set the vision areas properly based on the capacities of the NPC/Monster. Vision is 360 in a combat situation but NOT in a non-combat situation. A guard could be distracted, staring ahead and not looking around, but once combat starts you are always looking around.

This is a harder change to make as you have to account for every single creatures actual vision capacity and range and then make it 360 degrees. Darkvision has to be accounted for and also Blindsight. This is a much larger project than it may seem.

However, the other two changes would make a huge difference in regards to Stealth not being abused by non-rogues.

I honestly feel like stealthing in the game is pretty broken. However, I'm a big fan of self policing in D&D. When it comes to doing broken things in single player video games, I personally don't see a need for the game developers to step in on every one of them. I don't see things like this as a high or even mid priority for a game developer to address.

My reasons for thinking that way are this:
1) Again, self policing. If it's something you feel breaks the game, just don't do it. Or do it in a way that makes sense to you. Such as *I will attack, then quickly take off around to the side, stealth and have one of my teammates distract themwhile I slip away*. A bit of a cheesy example, but I think it makes sense.

2) Some people like to break the game or feel godly. I used to give an old friend grief about how he used cheats in GTA. But eventually, as I got older, I realized that he works between 40-50 hours a week at a job he doesn't want to do, amoung other RL duties that need to be done. Why not let him have fun however he wants to have fun. It's a single player / noncompetitive game.

So even though, I do feel like the stealth is broken. It wouldn't bother me either way if it was changed or not tbh.

Yeah 100%, as you said, same map or within a reasonable distance.


Disclaimer: I don't think is that important and might be a bit convoluted but just to be clear on what I meant:

In this short video I sneak up on an enemy with armor that gives disadvantage as I show, with it I can still sneak around him, even jump next to him.



When sneaking the stealth roll is only rolled if you fall into the cone of vision of the enemy.

I've made this quick image on a method that might be useful, adding a hearing circle and a noise produced ONLY when sneaking.



If the two circle touch/merge, a stealth roll is made.

If you aren't using armor that gives disadvantage you don't "produce" noise. One could make a system where your dexterity modifier makes your circle smaller, but the general idea is, if you want to go past a enemy, remove your armor and if you want to gank on him with an attack, you at least give up some AC unless you invest some hefty points in dexterity.

I think two circles in an overdesign. I think you either want to have your pc "ping" characters within the vacinity (think: Mark of the Ninja - I think it would be good, if for example different actions were to produce different amount of noise: so smaller ping when walking, larger one when making a jump, perhaps even bigger is casting a spell/attacking.

I think it is too much granuality, and simple enemy hearing range would suffice - if character enters it, they make stealth check - with disadvantage if they are wearing armor. hearing range is shorten then vision cone and isn't hampered by light. That would be distinction enough.

Edit. I would even go so far, as to question what value does vision cone bring to the game. I get what Larian is going for, trying to make stealth more interactible than its heavily abstracted table-top version, but I don't think it's working particularly well. I don't think act of navigating past vision cones is enjoyable - real-time is unresponsive and pathfinding unreliable, in turn based there isn't quite enough reactivity to make it proper stealth turn based experience, and turn-based and real time at the same time completely breaks it, not to mention how unpleasantly messy it is.

If everyone got smaller "detection" circle range would anything of substance was lost? Or perhaps make it like PoE2 where stealthing from the front is just harder (perhaps use lighting system, and just make it part of the circle). I feel like based on what we have seen Larian didn't manage to capitilise on the way they implemented stealth so far, and a simpler, easier to figure out, interact with, and harder to exploit system would be a better fit.

They might look a bit too much but have in mind that:
• that horrific image I did is like an example to explain the functionality, not the look and feel of what could come out. It could be way more easy on the eyes (I like the Mark of the Ninja call too)
• the character circle only applies for characters when the character has armor with disadvantage in stealth checks. If you have many you probably aren't sneaking around in encounters (and shouldn't), and if you have just a few, it would be useful to have a clear indication of where you can go.

On the different noises:
• Using spells breaks the stealth, so you are getting caught from way farther.
• Attacking breaks stealth also, unless missing the attack (I think) which is really weird and should be changed.
• And finally jumping, it would make sense to have it make more noise (so widenning the cuircle let's say) but I think is clearer if you just can't go there.

So, there aren't really many things to do while sneaking, most of them would break stealth, and some I wouldn't make the produce more sound because they are probably just annoyances with out purpose (like making noise from coating a weapon with poison).


The application I have in mind is somewhat of a deterrent, if you have those type of armors just don't try it, and the solution seems simple to understand from the user standpoint, and to make (I think) from the devs standpoint.

Many good ideas here. However, I would have liked to see an even playing field for better gameplay. I'd like a gatekeeper mechanic for all potential Stealth situations where a hidden Stealth (lowest nearby party member) contested by NPC perception (highest nearby NPCs) check is required for any stealthing. Implement realistic modifiers like using light-sources in darkness leading to a penalty. Such a mechanic would make the Pass Without Trace Ranger-spell (+10 party wide Stealth) very viable.

1. Very much for a passive hearing radius triggering hidden Stealth checks. Makes the Silence spell more viable as it allows for creative use in such situations.
2. Starting turn-based phase for the entire party when combat is initiated is a necessity. Perfect surprise turns should be the exception, not the rule.
3. Wider, longer and hidden NPC vision cones. NPCs should be less predictable, glance around more.
4. AI refinements. Like a small party of goblins being more defensive, perhaps retreating to alert their allies. Reacting in a believable manner to player actions. An intelligent creature would for instance be on alert (hidden Perception check?) after first having been tricked by Minor Illusion and definitely react to taking damage by alerting allies.



Don't give Larian an excuse. Exploits could be considered as core mechanic in their games so far lol. Player agency and cheap laughs is a priority - while balancing and immersion/realism seems to be considered a resource intensive chore. Another word for "self-policing" is "self-nerfing", and the problem with that should be obvious: If you happen to like stealth and smart plays you're just sh!t out of luck, cause the system is so dumb you feel cheap for engaging with it. Now you can't play a certain way in order not to trivialize challenge. However, long before most players realize the system is basically a broken exploit, the lack of balance will have heavily incentivized players to engage in repetitive tactics that makes for a more predictable and boring gameplay than would be possible in a properly balanced system. Besides, optimization is a fundamental aspect of RPG gameplay. You try to find character build synergies and tactics that plays to the strengths of party. Self-policing/nerfing is the antithesis to that.

Fortunately Larian stated in the very early stages of EA that they were aware of the pitfall of making some combat tactics too strong: That it would incentivize repetitive and more boring gameplay. Larian said they therefore wanted to make more varied tactics viable. I really hope they remember those words...especially considering it kind of goes against their core game design philosophy.

I for one like the idea ...

But i think it would need same mechanic as sight have ... you know, Light > Partial Shadow > Deep Shadow
So ... from the far one HUGE ring where we would make easy stealth checks ... at mid range one conciderably smaller ring, where we would make conciderably harder stealth checks ... and on personal distance VERY hard stealth checks.

Yes.

If you check the screenshot, there is no way you can stealth around Crusher without stealth check ... and that is the point here, isnt it?

---

I would say if the question is, how often would it make sense in general ...
I mean, there is a waterfall on that screenshot ... have you ever ben this close to waterfall? Do you really think you would hear someone walking?

I’ll just reiterate support for points already made.

- Only rogues get hide as a bonus action at level 2, as per TT rules.
- No hiding in plain sight during combat, replace sight cones with 360 degree sight up to vision-blocking objects, again as per TT rules.
- Sniping automatically reveals location unless you have sniper feat, as per TT rules… seeing pattern here.
- (Overland encounters at range, like Githyanki patrol, heavily favor party with longer range. Give such foes a response to close distance and/or call in dragon strike.)
- Acute hearing, enhanced smell, tremorsense (bulette!), life sense and dragon senses are all-directional, expand sight cones to 360 degrees for such creatures.
- Companions nearby not in combat switch to turn mode and get inserted into initiative order.

Stealth in TT has similar problems as BG3, so I’m understanding towards Larian for having to implement tricky rules.

May I ask you to read my full “edit”? I was hypothetically asking potential impact of removing vision cones and using smaller detection rage (smaller than current vision cones, not smaller than hearing circles on the screen shot) - aka. PoE1&2, Solasta, Wasteland3.


I am not clear what is the point you are trying to make. The game doesn’t have a system that would account for ambient noise. As such what is in the environment doesn’t matter, and stealth will work the same way in rowdy goblin camp, as it will in a quiet tomb.

Depending how “hearing” checks would be calculated there could be ambient noise mechanic, similar to how light works for vision cones. We are talking about adding properties to objects in the environment, and honestly that’s something that could only be added on top of basic functioning stealth system. I think the only thing we can afford to dream of right now, is ways to make current stealth system better, rather than adding stuff on top of the system that doesn’t work to begin with.

Why use smaller detection range if you remove cones? They should see & hear out to the same distance.

The game already checks for vision collision, i.e. whether something blocks line-of-sight. Just do this in 360 degrees.

Regarding heavier armour and ambient noise, it's assumed that its bulk makes it both harder to hide and harder to sneak quietly.

I find the idea compelling but one thing that I can't wrap my head around is how the rolls are triggered. Let's say I want to shank someone, so I approach him with stealth. As I close down I will be triggering stealth checks making 3 in total.
How are this checks made? Am I rolling or using a passive stealth check?
Let's say this are the difficulties:
• Far range: Enemy passive perception -5
• Mid Range: Normal passive perception
• Kiss on the neck™ range: Passive perception +5

- If my stealth rolls are separate it's a huge disadvantage because the probability of getting a bad roll increases.
- If you make a unique roll and use it for all the different ranges two possibilities appear:
1) You get the number on your log, you con exploit this system by examining your enemy and checking if your roll works for all the ranges, if not, you go back and try again until you get a desired roll (or use resources to have a better stealth check), as the first ring is the easiest one, it's simple to accomplish so it gives you the chance try and see your rolls before hand.
2) If the roll is hidden is a bit more fun, if the result is bad you can always reload and try again. But I would say that it works properly as a deterrent though and has a gamble component like, how confident are you on that hidden roll?
- If we use passive stealth, it's similar to things said before, you can examine the enemy and make assumptions on that. This number can only be changed with resources, so "Blessing of the Trickster" as it gives advantage would be +5, Pass without Trace it's a +10, so you use them up and it's just maths there, no randomness.

Now, on those basis I think the most compelling one is the "Hidden roll one" because it's the one with the least exploits, but I feel that is a bit convoluted and it's pretty much the same as having the one circle.

I think in that regard we enter in a bracket of Realism vs Gameplay
Usually when playing a stealth based game you start with a simple mechanic and the game adds complexity in steps like, for example, "Styx" game:
-You first learn about the difference in sound between run and sneaky walk.
-Then you learn about hiding under a table, in wardrobe, behind a wall, etc.
-Then how to approach and remove light sources.
-Then kills.
-Then muffled kills.
-Distrations thowing breakable objects.
-Difference in noise produced between walking in soft surfaces, hard ones, and others with debris and stuff.

And so on, and so on.
They build on top of the system and instruct the user as he plays. But that's their gimmick, their whole thing. In BG3 stealth is more like a side option to approach combat, so adding too much complexity probably lacks purpose.


I'm more in line with making decisions based on gameplay purposes than realism.

So, why would I make an armored character have trouble shanking an enemy in melee range?

In DnD melee characters are the ones with the most options to enhance their attacks, example:
-A lvl 8 character, 3 lvls in rogue Assassin + 5 in Paladin could (and I quote a reddit post):
"Any hit on a surprised creature is a crit (because Assassin subclass). So using second level divine smite, on a single round (with advantage) against a surprised enemy, I could be doing 2d8+mods (from the crit on the rapier attack), plus 6d8 (second level divine smite on the crit) plus 4d6 (from critting on sneak attack) and then another 2d8+mods from the second rapier attack crit (and maybe even another 6d8 if I expend another second level divine smite for my second attack in the round)."
On top of that in BG3 you can coat your weapon with poison so the one shot potential is crazy.

Now, it's a Rogue too, and I think he should be able to sneak up on people, but let's make him spent some resources:
-Paladin's heavy amor? Gone. He should continue the fight with less AC at least (though with high dex he could just be using light armor).
-Getting to a main baddie in this approach should be almost impossible unless you have a crazy amount of resources spent on it (Blessing of the Trickster, Pass without Trace, Invisibility), on top of using the smites and poisons.
It should be hard to get him because there should be guards making sure no-one gets inside, standing guard, patrolling; so multiple rolls required.
-He gets separated from the rest of the party. You've might have killed the BBEG guy but now you are far from your party surrounded by enemies and you might not have the AC nor hp to survive.

This is all based on that you gank the most important NPC, if you just do it on a lowly guard, combat triggers and that's it, you don't earn a lot of advantage.

A problem is that this doesn't affect range character:
For them the solution is as real life, have walls protecting important people. I feel like in chapter 1 we had a lot of advantages because many enemies can be neutral or friendly towards us, like Nere or the Goblins at some points. So we got to walk wherever we wanted. This might change in the following chapters. Also, we've had a lot of open spaces to exploit.


On top off all that, I think a good design logic is repetition, the player learns mechanics by applying them over and over again, if stealth is an alternative approach it shouldn't have too much variation, nor complexity as the game progresses. It might sound boring but BG3 have many other things that consume our attention like character/party builds, story paths, RP choices, inventory management, etc.

Personally, I don't enjoy the length of vision cones. Too often character whose vision I am trying to avoid isn't even on screen, which I find unenjoyable. Yes, giving characters that wide of a detection range as you suggest, would probably be "realistic" but I don't think it would make for a good gameplay. At this moment Larian has two extremes. A very long and difficult to avoid detection in vision cones and complete lack of it when flanking the character. All I am suggesting is to even it out - give them "medium" detection range surrounding them.

As I see it, what is vision cones function in Baldur's Gate3 as a game?

1) blocking paths/access to items/chests
2) making ambushes trickier?
3) making pickpocketing trickier.

A medium sized detection circle (when I say smaller, I think smaller than vision cone, but larger than what was in the mockup screenshot above - perhaps 1,5-2x larger - something to be of decent size, but still leave enough free space on screen to manouver around). I think that would fulfill the game's need

OBJECTION!
As I continue thinking of it vision cone's range comes useful to counteract BG3 broken in-combat stealth. With smaller detection range only it would only make it even easier to disappear and sneak attack in combat.

Ok, let's keep vision cone as unwieldy as it is, and just add smaller hearing range radious. And make hide full action.

Some excellent ideas in this thread.

FYI, 5e actually has official rules for audible detection distances. The caveat is that they're only present on the Dungeon Master Screen.
These values could be used to inform detection circles' distances.

Typical stealth activities like hiding, sneaking, pickpocketing = you have to make a stealth roll if you come within 35 ft. Farther than that, you're fine.

Spellcasting (with verbal components) rules as intended seems to disallow whispering ("particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion"; the existence of Subtle Spell Metamagic), so you have to make a stealth check if you're between 35-70 feet, and you're automatically noticed if within 35 feet. I wouldn't recommend having two visible circles below each NPC representing 35 and 70 ft; the 70-ft circle could be invisible and a nice surprise if players attempt to cast a (non-offensive & invisible) spell while hidden!


More generally, I'm a fan of a combined sight cone plus a (smaller) audible circle.

I see some good idea's and all but what I really want to see changed is the way the NPC react to being attacked by someone that shoots them and then hides again. I don't see a problem with shooting and hiding, its the reactions by the targets that lack any thought what so ever.

Right now they all stand their like nothing happend even if one of them dies. Thats garbage and needs to be fixed. At least combat should be started and they should actively move around in an attempt to find out what is killing them and attack if possible.

Need dumb AI/npcs upgraded to be able to deal with stealthers and I belive this needs to be added to mega threads because its that broken and needs to be looked at and not just scrolled past. I have noticed this since the start of the game but had hopes it would be managed but now fear its going to be this way in final release.

I agree but I feel that "make AI" respond is a much harder thing to pull of that modify ruleset to reign things in to begin with.

How would AI respond? Would they figure out where the shot came from and go investigate? Or should they follow procedurally generated search paths? Getting spotted in stealth is disasterous at the moment, and puts player on great disadvantage, especially if only one of their companions gets spotted. Ineffective AI search would be still useless, and and effective AI search might make attacks from stealth absurdly backfire.

Real time is very quickpaced and clunky, so if there was life reaction I think we should switch to turn based on attack, so we can reposition and than let AI do it's thing. We would be in combat (ideally whole party), so getting spotted would make us a target, but combat would already be in the process so there wouldn't be the issue of one character at a time being dragged into combat que and loosing their actions. But in essence now I am talking about turn-basef pre-combat stealth phase, and I feel it would be a big new gameplay feature, rather than a fix to what we already have.

Yes
/thread

If I'm understanding OP correctly, they're talking about the scenario of shooting from stealth and then hiding at the end of your turn, so that the AI doesn't know where you are and just stands there. Not real-time stealthing before a battle, in order to try to get Surprise.

In 5e, when you attack, you reveal your position. Even if you hide again, the enemies were still alerted to your previous position. Now, if you attack -> hide -> move, you might be safe. But at the very least the enemies should go to your last known location to search you. Alternatively/in addition, the enemies could take the Hide/Dodge actions (if ever implemented) in response to damage.

One thing with having monsters search for a hidden sniper is that you'll more easily be able to pull mobs to each other, like Githyanki patrol towards the Flaming Fist at Waukeen's Rest.

(I've heard of solo players doing just this, but as it is currently, it's tedious.)

I'm not sure if this would feel cheesy or smart tactical play? I suppose it'd be like barrels, up to us players to choose to use or not.

I see, so there is no "stealth roll" to remain hidden after attack from stealth in original rules? If so,than yes, I think it would be fair to give enemies "ping" to investigate even if character remained in stealth. Of course, if character hides when combat is in process 1) it should take full turn, so one cannot attack and hide on the same turn, 2) enemies should remember last seen location and investigate.

Nope, there isn't! This is said directly in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" rules (PHB p 194-195), and also by implication in the Skulker feat: "When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn't reveal your position" --> you ARE revealed if you don't have the Skulker feat, even if you miss.

As for hiding during your same turn, I disagree. Per 5e RAW, only rogues can Hide as a Bonus Action. For everybody else, it costs an action. If e.g., a rogue attacks from stealth -> breaks line of sight -> hides again, they should be able to. This is intended, and is ~required for rogues to remain competitive dpr-wise. If a Fighter wants to Action Surge to attack -> break line of sight -> hide again, they should be able to.

Of course, in BG3, everyone can hide as a bonus action, which is too much imo. Under this implementation, I wouldn't care if Hide was restricted like that, but now we're fixing homebrew with more homebrew.

Totally!

I think that if solutions from this thread are to be used, changing the basic Hide to be used as an action is given.

So, building on top of that with the example given previously:

Rogue attacks -> moves away from enemies cone of vision (and maybe hearing circle) to become unseen and unheard -> uses Cunning action: Hide

After this it might be a mediocre solution but I'll say:
if an enemy wanted to hit the Rogue (based on the criteria that the game currently posses to choose target) then it makes a Wisdom (Perception) check contested by a Dexterity (stealth) check by the player.
• If it suceeds it knows the player's position and can act accordingly.
• If it fails and has other enemies to attend, he possibly attacks them or whatever.
• If he hasn't other enemies to attack he could take a defensive position, where, It could take a Dodge Action (so yeah, I'm asking Dodge Actions to be added too =P ).
The dodge action is actually quite good against Rogues specially because it gives Disadvantage, what could cancel sneak attack, BUT it has a problem in this case, because the attacker should be seen for the dodge to be performed. Maybe if the rogue has to enter in the cone of vision that will allow the dodge and basically put in check the hiding tactic for cheesing.


One problem would be that, let's say you hide and then you do a movement that the enemy shouldn't be able to predict, like, a Rogue + Sorcerer multiclass hides, then use subtle spell to cast misty step to the other side behind a wall, an the enemy just wins the contested check and goes exactly to your position. That would be weird but I think it's pretty fair.
(also subtle spell doesn't work like that in BG3 so kind of a bad example by my part).

Every one of these bullet points above is ABSOLUTELY needed in the game. There are reasons why there are certain feats in the game to allow for various special actions. Certain spells/abilities can just add a background stat/buff that turns the current cone vision into 360 vision (as explained, many, many different effects can cause this).

And the easiest way to solve the crazy interaction of stealth in this game is if you are anywhere near combat, no matter your condition/position/status/ect, you enter turn combat.

This issue is just as important as the previous issues of using food as potions, short rest vs long rest, Advantage/Disadvantage from Height, and Reactions. Treat this issue as such, Larian.

I'll just pop in to add in my general agreement for the points made here.

Yeah, there is zero question that Stealth MUST be changed so that if initiative gets rolled, it gets rolled for all characters nearby - whether they've been detected or not. If there's a character hiding when a combat starts, great, they can act on their turn. But as soon as initiative gets rolled, they're in turn-based mode even if they remain undetected.

If a character elsewhere approaches, then once they get close enough (no closer than 60 feet from a combatant) then they automatically roll initiative and need to wait on their turn to move, even if they approach while sneaking.

Unless your character has the Skulker feat, attacking from stealth should break stealth, period. You cannot attempt to hide again until no enemies have line of sight onto you.

Running away from a combat and stealthing is a problem. Wounded characters could snap-regen to full if the combat stops due to enemies losing track of the player, but that won't help if an enemy gets killed.

I agree that only Rogues of level 2+ should have bonus action Hide. That's basically their thing.

I also agree that in combat, full 360 degree sight, which is blocked by vision-blocking objects makes sense. If a fight has broken out, characters are obviously aware and on the lookout for danger.

People asking for complete gameplay overhauls when release is August? I mean, I get wanting changes, but let's be realistic here, almost everything we've seen gameplay wise is set in stone, it's not changing.

Than year from now "the game is actually ready to be played now" edition.

System supports multiple party members entering combat already, so unless there is something fundamental in how the game is build that prevents it from happening when character is stealthed, I don't think it is an impossible change. Tweaking rules is realistic, building new systems is not.

Allegiedly some games play around with rather big rules - I remember Jake Solomon talking about him going back and forth on some pretty fundamental decisions weeks before release of XCOM1.

I am not expecting for that to happen, not because release is in August but because it would be a third Larian RPG with poor stealth system in a row. Unless they do mock reviews, and get panned for stealth, but I doubt they will change anything.

I wouldn't call the changes discussed here "complete overhauls" most of them are really simple like changing the normal "Hide" to cost an action, and furthermore, they can be applied independently from each other, no need to do all of them.

Anyway, while I asked for many changes I don't think they are essential for the game full release and I dont think that is the true deadline. Larian has been working on this genre for a while and reused the system from Divinity here, asking for changes in the systems is not only for BG3, but for future games/patches as well.

Also we don't know what is in the actual final game. The EA framework is very different from the Full game framework. Nobody but the QA folks and Devs/execs have seen that.

At this point I am really holding off on saying anything until that full game gets released. Larian is unlikely to comment about the current state of the game until after August 31st. They are in Optimization and get all the things done mode.

OK so just accept this jank even though its seriouly terrible programming..

???

Just about none of this should be news to Larian. The game has been in Early Access for two years already, and a lot of these issues are ones which people have been bringing up since the beginning of EA.

Additionally, a lot of this is tweaks, not requiring a tear-down-and-revamp.

And they haven't made the changes you want in all that time.

Yeah, stealth being broken is absolutely intentional. Larian desperately wants to give the player advantage on every attack, not only because it largely trivializes connecting with a target but also because it effectively removes the vast majority of debuffs in the game, which impose disadvantage on the player. But, it doesn't stop there! In this game, stealth is the ultimate offensive and defensive strategy. It provides invulnerability at the cost of a bonus action. To the enemy AI, the player ceases to exist when hidden.

Swen said in a presentation that they take great pride in 'broken' mechanics like this, as it makes the player feel 'clever' when they discover them, though I can't imagine why.

Did he really say that? Do you have the link for that? That doesn't sound like Swen, but who knows.

You know there is also the hope/possibility that we will have a "core rules" option for Bg3, just like Bg1 and 2 had.

It was during the Q&A after his GDC talk: at about 57:35 (The Making of Divinity: Original Sin 2). The person asking the question called it a 'back door', which I translate to 'exploit', just as Swen translated it to an exploit in his answer. Basically, they leave these in intentionally, because some players like to 'glitch' the game. Leaving in exploits is "Literally by design" in his own words.

Exact quotes aside, he's expressed this sentiment repeatedly during the various panels from hell, and it does indeed match his stated outlook. He absolutely likes to cheat and exploit, considers it fun and funny, can't seem (in my opinion of his commentary) to imagine that anyone else wouldn't, and fights to keep as much and as many of these utterly broken elements in the game as he can. He's spoken at various instances during the panels about battling with the design crew to keep various 'features' that either get tuned back or fixed.

Thank you for that. That’s unfortunate. I think the first thing we will do on the server is require a “no exploits” mod for any serious runs. None of my core players like that crap.

Whenever we have a new person in one of our groups that starts using the exploits - thinking they are being clever - you can feel everyone in the channel rolling their eyes and then we explain that “we know we just don’t do that because it’s cheap”

Oh well.

They also knew about Wizards being able to cast from scrolls containing spells not on their spell list since the start of EA too, but they eventually, eventually fixed that (I think).

What's your point? How would remaining silent about this help? Is there any good reason to not bring this issue up?

Larian were still looking for playtesters just 2 weeks ago : https://twitter.com/larianstudios/status/1635672244159389700

I do think gameplay isn't set in stone since player feedback is still actively wanted.

Eh, they have had plenty of opportunity to test stealth in EA. They are more likely to be interested in content that players in EA didn't get to try.

At this point, which criteria Larian choose to tweak something is a complete mystery to me. They have already adressed some popular criticism during the entierty the EA period while leaving others without a word for 3 years. So I choose to believe nothing is set in stone until I see the final product.

Well, maybe Larian has responded, in a way. Then again, it is April the first.

But, the best that those who are unhappy with the system can probably hope for is removal of 'auto-stealth' when attacking a creature outside their radius of response. This 'auto-stealth' is a QOL feature I could do without. It kind of forces one to barge into encounters, to avoid interacting with the stealth system.

Yeah, I made a similar point barely a couple of weeks ago (or at least that was the LAST time I made it) even referring to the same exact quote as an example, but the thread was left to die immediately after.

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=847872#Post847872

On a side note...

I don't want to be overly dramatic about it, but this reads almost as a middle finger to people unhappy about the exploits.
"We like our cheese and you better learn to deal with it".

It’s just an April Fools’ joke.

Yeah, I kinda got that angle at my first attempt.
The point is how the joke is framed and the specific topic they focused it on.

Well, at least they hear us, even if they decide not to listen.

Au contraire, this is exactly what I want.

I just wrapped Wasteland3, and it seemed to adopt some of Larian’s issues - the movement works the same (one character under controlled and other are chained stepping and tripping into every hazard along the way and stepping into enemy detection circles), and turn based combat is instanced - so you can have battle and see enemies walking in real time at the edge of your screen. It doesn’t happen much in base game, but it is very noticeable in 2nd DLC.

Of course, entire team enters combat when engaging the enemy, as doing otherwise would be down right silly, but as Wasteland3 attempted 2 player coop play I suspect those two are connected? In case of Wasteland3 it’s more of visual jank - I didn’t stumble into any way to abuse system. Still, interesting and worrying to see another company emulate Larian’s problems - I can’t recal it being a thing ever before.

I suspect that given the timing involved, the problem is less a matter of one influencing the other - wasteland 3 has been out for a while now after all - and more likely one of parallel evolution, two companies trying to make turn based coop work and running into the same problem. Hopefully whoever makes Wasteland will actually consider the issue something qorth trying to fix moving forward, because I doubt Larian will.

So gameplay videos of upcoming Lamplighters League from Paradox/Harebrained Schemes emerged: Checkout the enemy's turn at 36:53




What's this, unalerted enemies neatly joining the turn based system? What kind of groundbreaking technology is this?!

Not necessarily as such, but does it overwhelm the game since there's just no reason not to use it every time and that feels repetitive.

I returned to BG3 recently after a cca 2-year hiatus to see the state of the game before release. I rolled a run-of-the-mill wood elf Ranger archer and began playing through the tutorial area. As I reach the first combat encounter I tell myself I might as well try sneaking ahead since I'm a ranger. I crouch down and approach the three imps. I kill the first one with a single shot and to my surprise the others do not react to it at all. I shoot the second one, roll too low for a kill and instinctively press C. I'm not really expecting the game to let me hide since initiative already started, but to my bafflement, it does. The imps don't even attempt to look for me and only stand frozen. I finish the second one off and 'hide' for free again. I watch the third imp stand idly by on its turn before I kill it too.

I was determined to repeat this strategy, if only to see how much the game would let me get away with. I wish I hadn't.

Using this very same shoot-crouch-shoot loop I defeated the other imps on the ship, the intellect devourers at the crash site and every single bandit at the abandoned temple. The intellect devourers didn't even roll initiative as I mowed them down one by one. At one point I was standing literally 1m away from a bandit (but outside any cone of vision), shooting them in the back and crouching repeatedly while they just stood there helplessly. At no point in any of this was any actual stealth check rolled. All I was left thinking was, is this a joke? Can I seriously continue to solo the game this way with no repercussions? Why even interact with the combat system at all?

The implementation of DnD5e stealth mechanics in this game is a broken atrocity that puts Skyrim stealth archery to shame. Within only 2 hours of gameplay it managed to dispel all my enthusiasm to play the game and instead left me disillusioned and wondering how many other equally broken systems and poorly implemented 5e mechanics I'm about to encounter if I pour any more time into it. This level of brokenness is unacceptable for a released game and I really hope this has already been addressed internally and what we're seeing in EA now is miles away from what we'll see on release. But to end on a more positive note I'd like to offer some actionable feedback.

• Hiding in 5e is an action. No one should be doing it for free, not to mention it invalidates Rogue's cunning action. Even DOS2 Lone Wolf Chameleon Cloak abuse was at least limited by a cooldown.
• Enemies should actively seek the player, especially when that player is the only target left.
• Sneaking should NOT be an automatic success when keeping outside cones of vision.
• Finding a player hiding in plain sight without even having moved behind cover should be trivial for enemies.
• Any hostile action against a valid target should always start initiative and reveal your position. Surprise rounds are advantage enough.

Yep, stealth has been problematic from the start and if anything enemies got worse at spotting us and starting combat in patch 9 which came out in December. (The imps in the prologue seem particularly bad, but that’s not to say it’s good elsewhere as you’ve seen.)

It’s probably top of my personal wish list for improvement come full release in August, as currently I simply avoid using ambush tactics given how broken they are, despite generally loving stealthy sniper play in games. There’s been plenty of feedback about it here and elsewhere over the course of early access, and the suggestions in your post are ones other folk have made too, so Larian certainly know what we think.

What, if anything, they have decided to do about it we’ll have to wait and see.

Heya Llengrath, thanks for voicing your thoughts ^.^

Unfortunately, this is an issue, pretty much as you report (stealth is completely broken and abusable with zero repercussions or limitations, and functionally prevents you from *using* stealth legitimately in the game at all because of how simply broken and cheaty it is), and has been so from the beginning - and despite many, many threads about it, Larian have shown no indication of any intention to change this, even though they've updated and changed many other things that were recognised issues.

Normally, I'd recommend you to submit your feedback to Larian directly (Here for general feedback and Here for bug reporting), and I do want to say that it's worth making sure they hear as man individual voices who reached the same conclusion on the matter as possible... and I'd still recommend you do this if you can spare the time and effort! Sadly, though, the reality we're facing is that the game releases in a month or two, and it's looking increasingly likely that the game will hard launch with stealth in its current ridiculous implementation.

Larian should be well aware of the feedback by now.
Hopefully they'll change it!

If not then modders to the rescue.
In dos2 I chose to not use cheese tactics...

If only one change could be made regarding stealth, I think this one might be the easiest and the most satisfying

My thoughts and prayers are with the stealth system, and I hope it will get better for the August release 😊

The first character I rolled in bg3 was a rogue, and I have been avoiding stealth ever since, with only occasional tests to see if any progress was made.

At this moment stealth and combat engagement from stealth remains my top concern as far as Bg3 mechanics go.

It is concerning how the stealth system has been broken for 2 years. Probably devs consider it functional and fun. After all they did override the 5e rules with their own vision cone mechanic. Narrow vision cones in a turn based game is an absurd concept. It's a real time action system, and still the cones are far too short and narrow because peripheral vision is a thing. So is hearing, which is completely ignored here.

Stealth feels so bad and cheaty to use, I just can't do it. If enemies start using Stealth, playing a high Perception character will feel even worse. Any 0 Stealth Heavy Armor Disadvantage enemy can stay out of your vision cone and surprise you. And don't forget to teach the enemy AI to circle behind you at the end of every turn and "hide". This so stupid. I feel stupid writing about it. /end

So say we all! Amen ^^

It’s breathtaking how illusion-breaking stealth is. If Larian put all that effort in making the city of Baldur’s Gate seamless, it would make sense they tried to patch up a system full of seams (seamful?). If that’s the case, though, it’s a pity they didn’t try anything publicly. Stealth is not a few tweaks away from great; it’s an overhaul away from passable.

It occurs to me that all 5 of OP’s proposed changes taken in conjunction would make stealthing very difficult. Not that that’s a bad thing, but the impact on gameplay deserves examination. What better way than by playtesting?

There’s a universe where that’s exactly what Larian were doing by recruiting local gamers in Belgium, Spain and elsewhere for in-house testing. I don’t believe we live in that universe, but time will tell soon enough.

Thanks to everyone for the friendly responses. Now that you've pointed out to me that this has been an ongoing discussion for years I feel like maybe I was a little too rash to make this redundant post Either way, the disappointment is there and I think it's important to voice it. Hopefully it'll let Larian know people are still having this experience and that it's a problem.

@Niara I wasn't aware of these feedback forms, thanks for that. I'd like to think Larian do read their forums and that my complaint, as well as all the others, are seen. I don't want to pointlessly clog their inbox with the same feedback they've been hearing a lot over the past 3 years, but maybe you're right and the more voices speak to them about the broken stealth system, the more likely they are to take notice and address it.

No worries, I think we're all happy to have another opportunity to vent our frustration at the stealth system! More voices complaining about it also can't hurt, though as folks have said at this point with the game releasing in less than three months, I can't imagine Larian have not already decided what they're doing for good or ill.

Unlike some, the fact we didn't see improvements in EA hasn't (yet) dented my optimism that we might see something better at release. Stealth was so broken in a way that seemed to require a significant overhaul of a number of ways the game works that, even if Larian did want to change it, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a long time to get working well enough for them to want to show anyone and wasn't ready for release at the time of the last patch in December last year. But they've had six months since then, plus whatever they were already working on before the patch but decided not to include in it. I'm still braced for disappointment (and inability to satisfyingly play a stealth character), but don't think there's yet reason for total despair!

Either way, not all that long to wait now until we know for certain.

I'm stealing this sentence and putting it on a plaque somewhere.

I proposed changes that I thought would bring BG3's stealth mechanics in line with DnD 5e. Not that 5e is some holy grail of good rpg design (far from it), but I believe its stealth system works reasonably well and would be a safe baseline for Larian to implement. In the years I've DM'd 5e my experience is that it's easy for a specialized character (e.g Rogue or Ranger with Expertise) to achieve a +10 Stealth bonus by level 5, which is absolutely enough to consistently avoid notice as most published creatures have a Passive Perception around 13, often less. And that's not accounting for the Skulker feat, spells like Pass without trace, magic items like the cloak and boots of elvenkind and other stealth-improving options that can turn even a fighter with moderate Dexterity into a decent sneak. TL;DR I think RAW 5e stealth would work fine with little playtesting needed and leave Stealth and ambushes as a rewarding option for characters who choose to specialize in it.

I just read the recent post about Shove apparently still being a bonus action 20-foot push. It's quite worrisome and it implies to me that Larian don't care strongly about mechanical balance and fairness, which doesn't bode well for the stealth system also. I'm ready to be surprised, but I won't hold my breath.

I don't know. I think not holding your breath is a good idea, but I'm still determined to look on the bright side until forced by the reality of the actual game to come down to earth with a bump . I can fairly easily imagine Larian reading the feedback about eg, hide and shove as bonus actions and shove distance and taking it on board but not being wholly convinced that their original approach wouldn't work better for the longer term once we had the rest of the game and abilities. If they changed them once then decided they were right the first time, it would be really hard to change them back again, or at least it would cause no end of ruckus. Whereas by leaving as is, they've kept their options open to try out different approaches in house and make their decision about exactly how it will work later in the development process.

Which isn't to say I'd not have preferred Larian to make the changes in EA and let us play around with them, I really would have. Only that I could understand why they wouldn't even if they were seriously considering doing so for the full release!

I truly hope you're right. I saw someone express the opinion that this lack of balance is intentional on Larian's part because it lets streamers attract a wider audience with cheap laughs. I don't know if that's true, but it doesn't sound implausible given how Divinity felt to play. If so, I think they're building the systems of their game on a rather fragile foundation and I'd hate to see BG3 become my favourite genre's court jester.

I think it's undeniably true that Larian have a preference for what they see as fun and streamworthy gameplay and moments. I also think this is entirely compatible with mechanics that you can find clever (or dumb) ways to exploit for giggles but which don't impinge on the play of folk who prefer to avoid cheese or cartoonishness (must be a real word for that!). In fact, I think it's funnier when something that works well when played perfectly straight can, when combined with other features or in certain situations, suddenly become ridiculous or OP in some way, though of course humour and fun are subjective. But while, from what I hear, the D:OS games didn't strike the balance I'd prefer (though I played both at least a bit, I honestly don't remember them well enough to judge for myself), BG3 has a wider audience including folk who love D&D but not D:OS and it feels possible, if far from certain, that Larian will modify their approach or reset their priorities at least somewhat as a result of this and the feedback they've got.

Of course, I'm trying to convince myself as much as anyone else here, so I'll stop banging on now .

I would like to bring brilliant Invisible Inc. as a counter example.

If they want to stick with their cone vision concept, they should probably at least adjust it to mimic hearing and periferal vision as well, as 1varangian justly mentioned. I see it as a 3m red circle in addition to the cone, centred around the character. Entering it would force a stealth check with high difficulty or a low difficulty and a disadvantage to remain hidden while staying that close to an enemy.

I have no objection to the rules you put forth, or 5e raw rules. Still, I think any stealth ruleset would require a non trivial amount of design work.

Consider the fact that Bg3 doesn’t do group stealth checks. If the party tries to sneak around some guards, because sneaking outside cone of vision isn’t an auto success, every one rolls for stealth individually. That includes the plate-wearing, disadvantage-rolling paladin. The party’s stealth effectively becomes the stealth of the least dextrous, which doesn’t feel great.

So then maybe Larian adds group stealth checks? But how does the game know what a group is? Do we have to fiddle with the portraits? In any case, these questions and more would need answering.

If a single roll fails, then one could just keep their heavily armored 8-dex paladin ~30 feet behind, outside of the 360 degree enemy perception range. This is how it's often done in tabletop; the stealthy characters stealth a bit ahead (30-60 ft are the "standard" distances imo, but it'd be reasonable to shorten that to 20-30 ft for BG3 maps). This would work with enemies having either a single perception ring, or a smaller perception ring and a farther "sight" cone. Essentially you'd risk being detected with your tank a turn away for the chance of getting a surprise round.

IIRC they haven't changed the stealth system at all during EA. They reworked light a bit but that's it.
Personnaly not playing much with stealth in games but the system as is is very uninterresting gameplay-wise and only serves cheesing. I really think they will improve it.

A better vision cone, a hearing radius (which is basicaly a second "vision cone") and ennemies a bit more active to search the players would probably solve most issues.

I hear you. On the other hand, the party's quiet tiptoeing behind a guard's back coming to a sudden halt as the clanking of the clunky paladin's armour alerts everyone within a mile is very much a DnD moment. Not being able to sneak your entire party anywhere you want is the price you pay for having a heavily armoured front line, and having no sturdy front line is the price you pay for the ability to consistently open fights with a surprise round. I believe that's fair.


A perception ring to represent hearing/smell combined with a longer sight cone is a great suggestion. There's no need to know who belongs to what group; anyone who enters a perception ring rolls stealth. If they move into the vision cone or the cone moves over them, they roll again. Light level and obscurity are already implemented, they just need to be meaningfully used.

Ideally there would be some increments based on proximity as well, e.g. a creature gains a bonus to Perception DC against creatures sneaking very close to them and a penalty against distant ones. Vision cones could then be made much larger, as they should be. This would put a stop to the githyanki patrol being completely oblivious to you climbing down a ladder right behind their backs and other immersion breaking absurdities that now occur at every step of the game if you use stealth at all. Sadly that would be far less trivial to implement and properly test, especially this late in development.

Ok if you’re using stealth to trigger a surprise round. I was thinking more of using stealth to sneak past an encounter alltogether. In that case, there’s no getting around the fact the paladin can’t stealth well.

Part of the reason stealth is hard to get right is that it has to work in and out of combat. For example, it would seem like making Hide a full action wouldn’t matter oustide of combat. However, it matters in turn-based mode. If the party goes turn-based then group hides, no-one save for the rogue has an action left that turn. You’re stuck with passing the turn and hoping you don’t get found. Wouldn’t it be awkward if Turn Based Mode then Group Hide were significantly different from Group Hide then Turn Based Mode?

This has reminded me that I've been intending to create a megathread for stealth, as I while I know that it's been discussed lots of times before I always struggle to find and refer people back to previous chat when it's raised again. Which was part of the problem with creating the megathread too, as lots of discussion about stealth that I can find is dotted into threads on wider topics about dodgy mechanics and so difficult to separate out.

However, I thought it better to at least make a start so have moved another fairly recent thread on this topic to the megathreads section and am just about to merge this one with it. If you're aware of any other posts and threads that it would be useful to add to it then please PM me.

I'm not necessarily looking for every mention of stealth to be all in one place (that would get unreadably repetitive) but any good discussions of suggestions about it that might be useful for posterity.

On that, we agree. I’ve spent the last few posts pointing out potential issues with stealth rules, but my point isn’t that these rules are bad (they’re not!). My point is Larian don’t have the best track record of fixing their own design.

To me, the best case scenario for stealth is analoguous to the reaction system: the “fixed” version we got in Patch 9 is quite incomplete. So if Larian unveil a new stealth system for launch, I expect it to be promising and flawed. I wouldn’t hold my breath for statisfying stealth until BG3’s enhanced edition.

In that case the Paladin can take off or swap their armor to one doesn't provide Disadvantage on stealth checks. Risk of getting caught with worse armor for the benefit of skipping the encounter. Idk, I think it's perfectly fine that noisy heavily-armored characters are bad at stealth and can get the whole party noticed. This is a also case where you can make use of consumables/party abilities---Invisibility, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, etc---to buff the Paladin's stealth and improving your chances; something that should be encouraged in a party-based game.

Why not hide first and then enter turn based mode? If you're already in stealth, then you should still have actions available to you, no? Or does BG3 still consider you to have used your action if you enter TB mode within 6 seconds of clicking "hide"?

I agree that ideally stealth should work for both real-time and TB modes. Though, if I had to choose, I'd prefer it works for TB mode and the game defaults to forcing you into TB mode whenever you're noticed from stealth. I also agree that I don't trust Larian to fix the mechanics without introducing other significant issues..

I admit my reason is subjective: I don't enjoy exploring while stealthing. There are a few spots in EA where Tav has an opportunity to spot an ambush just before it happens; if the party is moving forward as I realize there are enemies about, my reflex is to hit spacebar in order to stop moving. (It's the only way I know of to get the party to stand completely still under BG3's movement scheme...) Once in turn based mode, I start thinking about how to ambush the ambushers, which is when I hit group hide.

That's the rationale I had in mind, though in that case ending the turn poses no threat because the ambushers aren't looking for you, they're just waiting.

I don't know, but am curious to find out! Can anyone test this?

Haven't tested it but hiding does use a resource which reloads each turn. Once you enter turn based mode your resource should be returned to the character at the start of your turn. Purely theoretical..

Interesting. Did seom testing. Hide then immediately go into TBM the character still has a BA.
If i used firebolt and entered TMB before the bolt hit i entered TMB without my action.

Thanks for testing! The results are indeed interesting. It feels like an extension of the system whereby characters entering combat after it starts don't get to act until the following round.

Larian have put some thought, then, in the way the action economy interacts with the real-time/turn based barrier. I guess all we can do at this point is wait and see how it all shakes out in v1.0.

I think vision cones should not be visible? You should need to look at the facing of a character and decide if you'll risk moving to a particular spot. Pixel perfect vision cones are really metagamey. That and sound/hearing checks (out of enemy turn order - so player can react and trigger combat). I recall sneaking my entire armour clad party past goblins because I could see their vision cones and they are frozen in time during my turn with no means to react. Or is this no longer possible? I haven't played in 6 months or so.