Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This also means each enemy would need to do passive perception checks against stealth at the top of their turn, and an action for an active perception check if none of the passives are good enough. To clean this up, for a tactical CRPG, I'd just make passives not work on greater invisibility, requiring enemies to do an action to actively search or cast a spell or throw an AoE substance.
Then if line of sight was broken with all enemies, and the character is still invisible, there would need to be a new search action, spell event, or AoE attack.
There are pages scattered around the Internet of what differences there are between BG3 and 5e. It's only based on 5e.
There's some haste cheese, but I love throwing barrels so LETS GO!
I do agree with OP that the current implementation of Greater Invisibility isn't doing the spell justice in combat, which is where it needs to differentiate itself from level 2 Invisibility.