# Warlock, Shadow Walk and Stealth



## Silverwave (Jul 23, 2008)

I feel like this combo is a bit overpowered (but I may be wrong, that's why I'm asking).

The warlock in my group is using that all rounds. He attacks, move at least 3 squares, gain concealment so he can make a stealth check (which he made at +9 at 1st lvl).

Basically, unless he make a bad check (or against a very perceptive creature), he cannot be targeted. Even so, if he fails, ennemies still get -2 to attacks from the concealment.

Am I missing something?


----------



## Tale (Jul 23, 2008)

You're missing that even if he loses against 1 enemy's perception, that enemy can point him out to others.

Is this annoying you?  Because, you can always get the biggest guy in your group to "ask" him to stop making so many unnecessary rolls every single turn.


----------



## Silverwave (Jul 23, 2008)

Tale said:


> You're missing that even if he loses against 1 enemy's perception, that enemy can point him out to others.
> 
> Is this annoying you?  Because, you can always get the biggest guy in your group to "ask" him to stop making so many unnecessary rolls every single turn.




lol, then that fortunatly would be me 

But, what about "pointing him out". Never read a rule that state pointing someone out gives any bonuses to perception check.


----------



## Tale (Jul 23, 2008)

If enemies are capable of communicating with each other, they can point out the locations of any enemies they know.


----------



## Klaumbaz (Jul 23, 2008)

don't forget his -5 to check penalties for moving more than 2 (since it takes 3 to trigger his concealment). that's a big one most are overlooking when complaining about stealthing warlocks.


----------



## ac_noj (Jul 23, 2008)

Silverwave said:


> The warlock in my group is using that all rounds. He attacks, move at least 3 squares, gain concealment so he can make a stealth check (which he made at +9 at 1st lvl).




Moving more than 2 squares gives a -5 to stealth checks, I suggest you read the skill in the PHB.
Also, unless he was stealthed during the move monsters will know which square he is in and can attack it without penalty using burst, blast, and area attacks.
Finally, Steath is an opposed roll so you can give every monster a seperate check to spot him if you want. A single monster that spots him can alert the others as to what square he's in.


----------



## Tale (Jul 23, 2008)

ac_noj said:


> Moving more than 2 squares gives a -5 to stealth checks, I suggest you read the skill in the PHB.
> Also, unless he was stealthed during the move monsters will know which square he is in and can attack it without penalty using burst, blast, and area attacks.




Succeeding at a stealth check implies that whatever you did to hide, you did it in such a way that they lost track of where you were and no longer know where you are.  If you know the specific square a creature is in, he is not hidden.  To know would violate the meaning of him being hidden.

You also can target any square, whether you know a creature is there or not, with any attack you can make.  Not just burst, blast, or area.


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 23, 2008)

If the warlock is at +9 to stealth (at first level?) he has put resources into this option.
He's invested a feat - stealth is not on the warlock skill list.
He's put points into Dex - dex is otherwise a dump stat for warlocks.
He's likely chosen a race that gives bonuses to stealth.

That's a lot of character resources you'd be stepping on if you denied the player this tactic.

As pointed out, the character needs to move every round to achieve this.
Any other ranged striker (as this character could as well) could simply use cover (a pillar, a corner, a region of dim light versus normal vision creatures) could use this tactic.  Rangers and Rogues both have stealth on their skill lists.  The warlock doesn't but can gain concealment with shadow walk.  

I think (and I infer support from posts made by Mearls) that it was intended for strikers to use movement, positioning, etc., for stealth to gain combat advantage.

Also: it isn't that many rolls.  Per your scenario, once per round, the player makes a stealth check.  On the stat block of every creature is their perception score - right at the top.
If the creatures are intelligent or communicate, it is a free action to exchange information.  So just know the top perception score at each encounter.  That's the target number that the character has to beat.  
Yes, it would be fair to tell the player which attacker is pointing out their position to the other attackers, and if the players disable the top perceiver, you should pick the next best.  
But it should only be one more roll per turn.  As I showed above, I think the player expended a good deal of resources to get this.  If you disallow it, you should at least let them change. (But you'd be going against the rules as written and as intended, at least acknowledge it as a house rule.)

Also: the monsters aren't helpless.
They can get active perception rolls with a minor action.
They can ready an attack (even a charge) against the warlock when the character attacks.
They could use a power (like light, the cleric lantern spell, etc.) against the warlock.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 23, 2008)

Tale said:


> Succeeding at a stealth check implies that whatever you did to hide, you did it in such a way that they lost track of where you were and no longer know where you are. If you know the specific square a creature is in, he is not hidden. To know would violate the meaning of him being hidden.




Well the thing with the warlock is that you can only hide when you have concealment and in some cases the warlock will only have concealment at the end of his move. This makes it pretty obvious what space he's in . It's kind of like when the rogue hides behind the only tree in a wide open field.


----------



## Bunnicula (Jul 24, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> If the warlock is at +9 to stealth (at first level?) he has put resources into this option.
> He's invested a feat - stealth is not on the warlock skill list.
> He's put points into Dex - dex is otherwise a dump stat for warlocks.
> He's likely chosen a race that gives bonuses to stealth.
> ...




What he said.  That's a LOT of resources and some significant sacrifice to get such a huge bonus.  To compensate, I suggest you (or the GM if it's not you) beef up the monsters' perception scores.  The warlock won't roll high all the time, so if your monsters are trained in perception they ought to be able to see him at least some of the time.

What would you have done in 3.5 if a player cast Invisibility on himself?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 24, 2008)

Personally, I treat shadow walk as just giving concealment (-2 to hit). I don't allow that as significant enough for someone to use a stealth check.

If I *did* allow a stealth check to be made as part of the movement, I certainly wouldn't treat them as invisible, but I'd give them superior concealment (-5 to hit), but they know exactly what square they are in.

Any warlock who wants to become 'guess my square' invisible should by using Eyebite IMO


----------



## clearstream (Jul 24, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> If the warlock is at +9 to stealth (at first level?) he has put resources into this option.
> He's invested a feat - stealth is not on the warlock skill list.
> He's put points into Dex - dex is otherwise a dump stat for warlocks.
> He's likely chosen a race that gives bonuses to stealth.




It's a fair point. He may have used multiclass cheese, which my feeling is one of the best L1 picks, but nevertheless +9 at first indicates a committment. You want him to have some fun with this skill.



the_redbeard said:


> As pointed out, the character needs to move every round to achieve this.
> Any other ranged striker (as this character could as well) could simply use cover (a pillar, a corner, a region of dim light versus normal vision creatures) could use this tactic. Rangers and Rogues both have stealth on their skill lists. The warlock doesn't but can gain concealment with shadow walk.




You're also entitled to say a given situation isn't approprite, like if he tries it in the middle of a well lit room in front of guards who saw him enter. Or whatever situation you and your group feel doesn't fit your idea of what's right.



the_redbeard said:


> I think (and I infer support from posts made by Mearls) that it was intended for strikers to use movement, positioning, etc., for stealth to gain combat advantage.




Mearls does emphasise CA from Stealth. There are lots of other ways to get CA, especially using TP, of course. The thing is not to make it take up too much time at the table.



the_redbeard said:


> If the creatures are intelligent or communicate, it is a free action to exchange information. So just know the top perception score at each encounter. That's the target number that the character has to beat.
> Yes, it would be fair to tell the player which attacker is pointing out their position to the other attackers, and if the players disable the top perceiver, you should pick the next best.
> 
> But it should only be one more roll per turn. As I showed above, I think the player expended a good deal of resources to get this. If you disallow it, you should at least let them change. (But you'd be going against the rules as written and as intended, at least acknowledge it as a house rule.)




I generally agree with this. It can get to be more rolls if the bad-guys all start throwing in active Perception checks on their turn, so the best thing to do is even though it's only a minor for them to do that, think about which ones really are interested in spotting the Warlock.



the_redbeard said:


> Also: the monsters aren't helpless.
> They can get active perception rolls with a minor action.
> They can ready an attack (even a charge) against the warlock when the character attacks.
> They could use a power (like light, the cleric lantern spell, etc.) against the warlock.




It may also be that the Warlock's first chance to hide will be in their next turn, since their feature produces the concealment as a result of moving, and therefore they may not have concealment while they have actions remaining to use it.

I've put some rules in a thread in this forum called Stealth - Streamlined. If you use them you should be warned not all agree about the 'minor actions' ruling. Some also like to allow move actions, and others like to allow trained Stealth users to throw in a check on a minor action used for some other purpose.

-vk


----------



## Cascade (Jul 24, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Personally, I treat shadow walk as just giving concealment (-2 to hit). I don't allow that as significant enough for someone to use a stealth check....




I agree. Under the stealth rules, to make a check you have to have cover or concealment..if the player doesn't have it prior/during the 3+ square moves, he doesn't gain concealment until the end of his move from the Warlock feat. Therefore, I feel, he couldn't stealth during that move. If he wished to move again, he would be concealed and could make a hide check with the appropriate modifiers. By this method, he could get combat opportunity every other round but not every round and would be visible half the time.

This seemed easiest to work thru...


----------



## Silverwave (Jul 24, 2008)

Thanks to all for your comments! They really help me out. I were forgetting about some rules (like the -5 if you move more than 2 squares).

My goal here really isn't to denied this tactic, you're right about the player investing ressources to be able to do this, but I want to know the limits of this tactic.

In all cases, stealth or not, we can assume than a warlock that move at least 3 squares gets bassically +2 to defenses (well, ennemies get -2 to attacks, but that's the same). It's already a great feature in itself.

Then, for the stealth here's some clarification that I read inspired by some of your posts.

Even if you're in light, by RAW, you only can't hide if you are *carrying *a light source (p.188) (but I really have the feeling I've read somewhere else that if you're standing in a light source, you can't hide... can't find where though).

You gain the concealment as soon as you moved 3 squares (the rule state : *on your turn*, if you moved at least 3 squares, you gain concealment; would have been stated : at the end of your turn if if was intended otherwise), so you could effectively : attack (standard action), move at least 3 squares, hide in plain sight since you have concealment (at -5 because you moved  more than 2 squares). Forget about ennemies knowing which square you're in. The warlock hides after 3 squares (hiding is "as part of the move action" so it don't use an action on itself), but he still can move up to his move, so there's as much chance that he's in the 3rd square of his move than in the 4th, 5th or 6th (well, in my case, the warlock in the group is a halfling, so 4 square max... but still).

Ennemies aren't making perception check. They use their passive perception score. They have to use a *standard* (not a minor, as been said) action to make an active perception check (p.186).

So this is really becoming a problem. 
Warlock attacks, move at least 3 squares, make stealth check.
Monsters turn : those who want to attack the warlock have to succed an active perception check if passive wasn't enought... but it takes a standard action, so if your passive perception score isn't enought, you just CAN'T attack the warlock.


----------



## Silverwave (Jul 24, 2008)

Cascade said:


> I agree. Under the stealth rules, to make a check you have to have cover or concealment..if the player doesn't have it prior/during the 3+ square moves, he doesn't gain concealment until the end of his move from the Warlock feat. Therefore, I feel, he couldn't stealth during that move. If he wished to move again, he would be concealed and could make a hide check with the appropriate modifiers. By this method, he could get combat opportunity every other round but not every round and would be visible half the time.
> 
> This seemed easiest to work thru...




Damn... now I'm unsure. Both interpretation seems good.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 24, 2008)

Silverwave said:


> Monsters turn : those who want to attack the warlock have to succed an active perception check if passive wasn't enought... but it takes a standard action, so if your passive perception score isn't enought, you just CAN'T attack the warlock.



it attacks the square containing the shadows obscuring the warlock.


----------



## Cascade (Jul 24, 2008)

Silverwave said:


> Damn... now I'm unsure. Both interpretation seems good.





Another way that I looked at it is...
As a judge, I wouldn't allow mixed move actions...i.e. you conduct part of your move normal (walking) and then the rest is stealthily. I believe you do one or the other (not both in the same action).

Under the stealth rules, when you make a stealth check as part of your move (it doesn't specify when in the move, I make the assumption it is across the whole action) if the target has a line of site to you and you do not have cover or concealment, it automatically sees you. 
So, if the players makes a move (walk with a stealth check w/o concealment or cover) the stealth check essentially fails.

I believe as I judge, I am within the rules with this opinion until some alternate ruling explicitly defines skill dependant actions. Its kinda like charging 1 square...


----------



## Silverwave (Jul 24, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> it attacks the square containing the shadows obscuring the warlock.




Your statement is based on fluff. The rules don't specify any visual effects such as the ones you mention. It's a good fluff though, but bet than my player won't easily eat this one if not supported by strong rule argument.

Anyway, did you ever tried to spot your shadow while standing in darkness? (well, it could work if the warlock was standing in the illumination of a light source, but it's not always the case)


----------



## Silverwave (Jul 24, 2008)

Cascade said:


> Another way that I looked at it is...
> As a judge, I wouldn't allow mixed move actions...i.e. you conduct part of your move normal (walking) and then the rest is stealthily. I believe you do one or the other (not both in the same action).
> 
> Under the stealth rules, when you make a stealth check as part of your move (it doesn't specify when in the move, I make the assumption it is across the whole action) if the target has a line of site to you and you do not have cover or concealment, it automatically sees you.
> ...




Good point. Still, I'm not convinced, as both interpretation seems right.
I'll ask The Sage... not sure i'll get an answer though...
You still have 2 open business days to convince me completly lol.

Still... it doesn't fix the biggest problem : active perception check in combat takes a standard action, so with the shadow walk ability, a creature cannot spot the stealth warlock and attack it on the same round, and since he's making a new stealth check each round, it's virtually useless to make a perception check against it; you won't ever be able to attack it unless you succeed at a passive perception check.


----------



## Tale (Jul 24, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> it attacks the square containing the shadows obscuring the warlock.



 Wrong shadow.  You just attacked your own.  Now it's mad, good job.


----------



## Cascade (Jul 24, 2008)

Silverwave said:


> Still... it doesn't fix the biggest problem : active perception check in combat takes a standard action, .




but the warlock can't do anything either or he becomes un-stealthed.

ex.
rd 1. Warlock curses target (minor) moves 3 spaces (gains shadow walk and is concealed) - again my rules interpretation is he couldn't do a stealth check on his move as he wasn't concealed/covered at the start of the move (unless he was out of line of sight). He can then attack the target from concealment (no bonus to hit but -2 on his AC).

rd 2. Warlock makes a stealth check as part of a concealed move (he moves 3 to maintain the shadow walk). He is now hidden barring a poor stealth roll with a -5 vs passive percep. He can attack with CA. He is no longer hidden and out of moves but still has concealment and can be targeted.

this way he can choose to be targetable and get CA or not be targetable but no CA unless he skips turns.

it seems to work in my mind and within the rules and balances it without a lot of perception rolls.


----------



## buzz (Jul 24, 2008)

My gut reaction is this. The move has to happen *first* in order for the _Shadow Walk_ to take effect. Remember, it's not that the _Shadow Walk_ takes effect *once* the PC moves three squares. The ability happens "*if* you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn" (p.131). Emphasis on the "*if*." Ergo, the move itself is *not* made with any concealment from the _Shadow Walk_, ergo there's no Stealth check that can be made as part of that action. _Shadow Walk_ is the *result* of the 3+ square move; it does not happen *during*.

So, the attack-move-Stealth combo can't work. However, the warlock could move and then try an attack with a Stealth check, since the move triggers the _Shadow Walk_ before the attack is attempted. Granted, even with a successful Stealth check, the attack would mean the warlock is no longer hidden, but at least they'd get Combat Advantage for that attack.


----------



## Siran Dunmorgan (Jul 24, 2008)

Cascade said:


> but the warlock can't do anything either or he becomes un-stealthed.
> 
> ex.
> rd 1. Warlock curses target (minor) moves 3 spaces (gains shadow walk and is concealed) - again my rules interpretation is he couldn't do a stealth check on his move as he wasn't concealed/covered at the start of the move (unless he was out of line of sight). He can then attack the target from concealment (no bonus to hit but -2 on his AC).
> ...




On the other hand, the warlock who wishes to remain unseen doesn't have to do things in the order you specify: characters receive a move, a standard action, and a minor action on their turns, yes, but may take them in any order. Thus:

At the start of round 1, let us say, the warlock has neither concealment nor stealth.  She then takes her standard action, and attacks.  After attacking, she takes her move action, and moves at least three spaces.  This grants her concealment.  Her first turn ends.

At the beginning of her second turn, the warlock has concealment.  She takes her standard action, and attacks.  Then, she moves stealthily, another three or four spaces.  Note that her entire move is in concealment: even under your interpretation of the rules, this allows her to apply stealth.  When her turn ends, she is still in concealment _and in stealth_.

Subsequent rounds are similar to the second round: as long as she is moving at least three spaces in her move action, she remains concealed, and, as long as she attacks and _then_ moves, she remains stealthed.

—Siran Dunmorgan


----------



## Zzyzxz (Jul 24, 2008)

Silverwave said:


> Ennemies aren't making perception check. They use their passive perception score. They have to use a standard (not a minor, as been said) action to make an active perception check (p.186).
> 
> So this is really becoming a problem.
> Warlock attacks, move at least 3 squares, make stealth check.
> Monsters turn : those who want to attack the warlock have to succed an active perception check if passive wasn't enought... but it takes a standard action, so if your passive perception score isn't enought, you just CAN'T attack the warlock.




This is not quite correct.  When you are trying to target a creature that you can't see you only need a minor action to make an active Perception check, but you have to beat the stealth roll by at least 10 to pinpoint your foe when making this quick check.  See p. 281: "_On your turn, you can make an active Perception check as a minor action, comparing the result to the concealed creature’s last Stealth check. If you win, you know the direction to the creature’s location, or its exact location if you beat it by 10 or more._"

The problem here is that if your passive perception (your skill modifier +10) doesn't beat their stealth, then you won't be able to beat their stealth by 10 no matter what you roll (because even if you roll a 20, once you subtract 10 it is equal to your passive score).  The upside is that the minor action can still give you enough hints to make an educated guess as to what square  your target is in.  If you guess correctly, it is only at -5 to hit (for total concealment).

If you took a standard action instead of a minor action the "beat by 10" requirement wouldn't apply, allowing you to pinpoint the square by simply beating the stealth check (an allowing you to tell your allies which square to attack).


----------



## Tsuul (Jul 24, 2008)

Cascade said:


> ..if the player doesn't have it prior/during the 3+ square moves, he doesn't gain concealment until the end of his move from the Warlock feat. Therefore, I feel, he couldn't stealth during that move. ...



What are the limits? Can a rogue move 1 step toward cover/concealment and hide? 2 steps?
What if the warlock has 7(elf) movement and decides on square 3 to hide (he has 4 left to go). What about a hypothetical 100 movement speed?

Standard action attack + move action movement(gain Shadow Walk) + minor action hide sounds viable as long as there is no cursing to be done.


----------



## Silverwave (Jul 24, 2008)

You could, as mentioned, take your actions in any orders.
But it's even better than what mentioned.

You could : attack, then move at lest 3 squares, then hide with a minor action (if we interprete (is that even a word?) the Cascade's way, which I now support completly, or as part of the move action if we support the other way of interpretting the rules.

Either way, that mean you can, each turn, attack, move and hide (stealth).

EDIT :
Zzyzxz.

It's not exactly that way. On the creature's end of turn, the creature make a stealth against your passive perception. If your passive perception beats the stealth check, you know the direction of the creature. If your passive perception beats the stealth by 10 or more, you know exactly wich square he's in.

On your turn, you could make an active perception against it's stealth with the same thing, you beat it, know the direction, beat 10 or more, know wich square. Still, if you can't beat it by 10 or more with your passive skill, you just can't do it with an active one. 

But what makes me dizzy is that on this side bar, they say the active perception check is a minor action, and on p.188 under stealth, it says it needs a standard action... great...


----------



## buzz (Jul 24, 2008)

Stealth is used as part of another action. I don't know if a PC can actually "hide as a minor action." "Hiding" in itself is not an action. Stealth assumes you are trying to hide _something you are doing_.

Granted, it would seem reasonable to want to use Stealth while you stay put and do nothing...


----------



## firesnakearies (Jul 24, 2008)

The enemies who want to attack this warlock just need to ready an action to shoot/charge him whenever he pops out of Stealth.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 24, 2008)

firesnakearies said:


> The enemies who want to attack this warlock just need to ready an action to shoot/charge him whenever he pops out of Stealth.




Readied actions occur as an immediate reaction: meaning you get in your whole action first. They're very easily thwarted.

Well, depending on how you run Stealth, that is.

-vk


----------



## clearstream (Jul 24, 2008)

buzz said:


> Stealth is used as part of another action. I don't know if a PC can actually "hide as a minor action." "Hiding" in itself is not an action. Stealth assumes you are trying to hide _something you are doing_.
> 
> Granted, it would seem reasonable to want to use Stealth while you stay put and do nothing...




You want brinksmanship, try hiding off blowing your nose ten times a turn, _and not in your turn_.

Can I roll a high number with that many rolls? Why, I believe I can.

-vk


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 24, 2008)

Silverwave said:


> Ennemies aren't making perception check. They use their passive perception score. They have to use a *standard* (not a minor, as been said) action to make an active perception check (p.186).




There are two different places where active perception is specified.  
Once is in the perception skill, as a standard action, on page 186.
The other is in the Targeting What You Can't See rules, on page 281.

186:
If you want to use the skill actively, you need to take a standard action or
spend 1 minute listening or searching, depending on the task.
281:
Make a Perception Check: On your turn, you can make
an active Perception check as a minor action, comparing
the result to the concealed creature’s last Stealth check.

From those two apparently conflicting rules, I would say that the standard action is for a general search to reveal such things as traps and secret doors.  The rule on 281 is more specific and calls out exactly finding a stealthed target.
So I would rule a minor action for an active perception check to perceive a stealthed target... Specific over-rules general. YTMV (Your Table May Vary.)
Hopefully, we'll see this clarified in the scheduled errata in September.



> So this is really becoming a problem.
> Warlock attacks, move at least 3 squares, make stealth check.
> Monsters turn : those who want to attack the warlock have to succed an active perception check if passive wasn't enought... but it takes a standard action, so if your passive perception score isn't enought, you just CAN'T attack the warlock.




Does the minor action perception check solve your problem?


As for Shadow Walk, page 131:
Shadow Walk
On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from
where you started your turn, you gain concealment
until the end of your next turn.

Note: there is no flavor text.  We don't know if shadows appear, or if the warlock walks into the plane of shadows.  All we know is that they gain concealment, one of the requisites for stealth.

Timing:
The only requirement is having moved at least 3 squares from your start.  It is my opinion that anyone ruling it doesn't occur immediately on having moved 3 squares is inserting their own house rule to gimp the ability that they are afraid of.

Why Be Afraid of Shadow Walk?
Concealment is a -2 to attacks, and the ability is conditional on a distance of 3 squares from origin (not just moving back and forth, but moving 3 squares from starting square.)  This is conditional and in many tight locations will not be possible, and often optimal positioning for the warlock.  It is NOT a free ride.

Response: But Concealment is requisite for Stealth, this is Hide in Plain Sight
It takes a feat and investment in an otherwise dump stat for stealth to be an effective strategy for a warlock.
What can you get with one feat and some stat investment?
You could go from your basic leather proficiency to Chain mail.  That's a +4 armor class difference that is not at all conditional.
So, one feat (stealth training) gains a very conditional +5 to defenses (and +2 to hit), while the other feat (chain) gains an always on +4 to defenses.
Why do people think this is so overpowered?
Don't be afraid.
This is a very flavorful ability that makes the warlock a unique striker, not just another ranged attack.  Give the warlock a break, go by the RAW and deal with it.


----------



## buzz (Jul 25, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> Timing:
> The only requirement is having moved at least 3 squares from your start.  It is my opinion that anyone ruling it doesn't occur immediately on having moved 3 squares is inserting their own house rule to gimp the ability that they are afraid of.



I think that's unfair. In the other instances of "if-then" abilities in the books, it's clear that the trigger (the "if") part is something that has to happen, in whole, before the "then" effect takes place. The text doesn't say "once you move"; it says "if you move". The most plain reading of the phrasing is that Shadow Walk is an effect that takes place in response to taking a move, as long as that move is at least three squares in speed.

I think the interpretation that the effect essentially happens mid-move (as if the PC was walking into an area with Concealment) is a far more tenuous interpretation.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 25, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> As for Shadow Walk, page 131:
> Shadow Walk
> On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from
> where you started your turn, you gain concealment
> ...




I believe this isn't a condition triggered by moving 3 squares, but by being 3 squares away from your start square, however many it takes to move there. That is, you could move 6 squares and still not have Shadow Walk, if you circled no further than 2 from your start square.

So far as the *if* argument goes, *Buzz* argues with some justice. Were it to be intended to implement at once, *when* would have been more appropriate: you see when used elsewhere in the rules for that very reason.

Even so, let's say you rule it's *when* not *if*, that still leaves the question of whether you should be allowed to hide as part of an action in the expectation that cover will eventuate. I'm going to have to work up some cases for that, but until I do the safest answer would be 'no'. There are bound to be cases that have issues any other way.

So without being 100% certain, my sense is that the cover has to pre-exist the action that intends to use it.

Given that there are then a couple of unresolved doubts with using stealth as part of a move action relying on cover to eventuate from Shadow Walk, a safe ruling would be to hide with a minor after moving. Your Warlock trades a curse for CA and excellent defences this turn, receiving honest value for their investment in Stealth.

-vk


----------



## buzz (Jul 25, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> So far as the *if* argument goes, *Buzz* argues with some justice. Were it to be intended to implement at once, *when* would have been more appropriate: you see when used elsewhere in the rules for that very reason.



That's a very good way to put it.



vonklaude said:


> So without being 100% certain, my sense is that the cover has to pre-exist the action that intends to use it.



I agree. Stealth is part of the action it's being used to hide. If that action, in whole, does not happen under conditions that allow the use of Stealth, then you can't use the skill. This seems in keeping with most of the rule set, where actions seem to happen either in sequence or in tandem, but not in the middle. Even immediate actions either happen before or after their triggers, not during.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Jul 25, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> There are two different places where active perception is specified.
> Once is in the perception skill, as a standard action, on page 186.
> The other is in the Targeting What You Can't See rules, on page 281.





Actually, there is a third.  It is in the stealth skill, but most people don't realize it because the skill uses a game term rather than spell it outright.

First bullet point of Stealth is that it's an Opposed Roll.
Opposed Roll is a specific game term regarding skills and is defined in the starting section of the skill chapter.

Anytime you make a Stealth check, the opponent makes an active Perception roll.


----------



## buzz (Jul 25, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:


> First bullet point of Stealth is that it's an Opposed Roll.
> Opposed Roll is a specific game term regarding skills and is defined in the starting section of the skill chapter.
> 
> Anytime you make a Stealth check, the opponent makes an active Perception roll.



This is how we were playing it, but it's a good point that the definition of Opposed Checks on p. 178 specifically states that both sides roll, which would imply that you don't use passive Perception vs. Stealth.

Unfortunately, p. 179's example of of Passive Checks specifically uses passive Perception vs. Stealth. It also flat out says "you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill."

I think that "roll" is a term unconnected to "active" or "passive." It might be better to see "roll" as synonymous with "check," which can be either. Ergo, an Opposed Check doesn't mean a passive score can't be used.

That said, since Passive Checks are based on Take 10, and you can't Take 10 in combat, I feel like my decision to not use passive Perception during combat in our game last weekend was the right call. As pointed out above, I think this also makes the active-as-Minor-in-combat Perception rule more effective, since it better allows for the possibility of beating the Stealth roll by 10 or more.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Jul 26, 2008)

buzz said:


> This is how we were playing it, but it's a good point that the definition of Opposed Checks on p. 178 specifically states that both sides roll, which would imply that you don't use passive Perception vs. Stealth.
> 
> Unfortunately, p. 179's example of of Passive Checks specifically uses passive Perception vs. Stealth. It also flat out says "you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill."
> 
> ...




That is an example of someone that is not expecting combat, just walking through an area so passive is okay.

The Stealth skill also states that all opponents are actively looking for danger in all directions during combat.

Subtle difference, but it's there.  Basically anytime you're not in "active combat" Perception/Stealth changes slightly.  You don't necessarily need cover or concealment to maintain stealth for example.


----------



## spanglemaker (Jul 26, 2008)

I agree with the RAW about Warlocks and Shadow Walk.  The flavoursome ability is that a Warlock only has to move 3 squares away from their start square- they could walk blatently towards the enemy target and become harder to hit.  As they have gained concealment- the warlock has lost it's damage reduction from 3.5, but this is is thematically sound- the power of a Warlocks Patron provides some protection.  Still ultimately it is down to the Dungeon Master and their players.


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 26, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:


> Actually, there is a third.  It is in the stealth skill, but most people don't realize it because the skill uses a game term rather than spell it outright.
> 
> First bullet point of Stealth is that it's an Opposed Roll.
> Opposed Roll is a specific game term regarding skills and is defined in the starting section of the skill chapter.
> ...




You are applying the general opposed roll rule over the specific rule for the perception skill.  But specific overrules general.  An active perception check takes an action.
You're also taking extra time making extra rolls.  Bad!

As for 3 squares, when concealment occurs, etc.:
There is no past tense in shadow walk.  If you *move* 3 squares away.
Not: If you have moved.  It says only "If you move".
Strictly RAW:  if you move 3 squares you are concealed.  That is for the 4th square moved or if you stopped.

Shadow Walk
On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from
where you started your turn, you gain concealment
until the end of your next turn.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> As pointed out above, I think this also makes the active-as-Minor-in-combat Perception rule more effective, since it better allows for the possibility of beating the Stealth roll by 10 or more.




The Targeting What You Can't See rules apply to a number of situations where the target can't be seen.  However, if perception is greater than stealth, the hidden condition is removed (specific rule for stealth) and the stealther is again only in cover/concealment (unlike nonconditional total cover/concealment and invisibility).  You don't need to beat stealth by 10 if the target is only in cover/concealment and not invisible.


----------



## buzz (Jul 26, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> As for 3 squares, when concealment occurs, etc.:
> There is no past tense in shadow walk.  If you *move* 3 squares away.
> Not: If you have moved.  It says only "If you move".
> Strictly RAW:  if you move 3 squares you are concealed.  That is for the 4th square moved or if you stopped.
> ...



As I point out above, I don't agree with this reading. The move is the prereq; the Shadow Walk doesn't pop into existence mid-move.



the_redbeard said:


> You don't need to beat stealth by 10 if the target is only in cover/concealment and not invisible.



p. 188 specifically talks about the "beat by 10" rule w/r/t to Superior Cover and Total Concealment, not invisibility. Invisibility is related, but distinct.


----------



## Benly (Jul 26, 2008)

Of course, the question of when the warlock gains concealment is moot unless he's been prevented from making his movements for a round or unless the combat starts with him having been sitting in place when he's attacked - if he walks into a room when the fight starts, he likely moved at least three squares in the previous round and therefore has concealment until the end of his next (first) turn.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 26, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> You are applying the general opposed roll rule over the specific rule for the perception skill. But specific overrules general. An active perception check takes an action.




PHB178 Opposed Checks. Both characters roll. Stealth is given as the example. There is no wording in RAW that says you need to use an action to make an opposing check. For example, Bluff is opposed by Insight. The Insight user doesn't spend an action to make their opposing check.

-vk


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 26, 2008)

I don't see what the problem people have with Warlocks trying to use their sup-par stealth.  (Yes, their stealth is subpar.  Even -with- the skill they just break even at best, unless they multi into rogue to take specific utility powers.)

After all, this IS a class that can get 'turn invisible to one monster' as an -at-will- attack.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jul 27, 2008)

I don't like the notion of having to begin a turn concealed in order to hide.  Seems to me if there are bushes 2 squares away and you move 6 squares, diving into the bushes and hiding is appropriate, realistic and not broken (with -5 for moving too quickly (over 2 squares) to be very quiet).  I will allow a stealth roll as long as your move takes you into a hideable spot; you don't need to start in one.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jul 27, 2008)

buzz said:


> As I point out above, I don't agree with this reading. The move is the prereq; the Shadow Walk doesn't pop into existence mid-move.




Actually I think it does.



> Shadow Walk
> *On your turn*, if you move at least 3 squares away from
> where you started your turn, you gain concealment
> *until the end of your next turn*.




The turn on which you gain concealment is the turn in which you move three squares.  There is no room in the definition for a 1-turn delay between the moving and the concealment.  And since the concealment cannot occur until you have created it by moving 3 squares, it must happen either at the 3rd square of movement (in mid-move), or at the end of the move action in which you moved 3 or more squares.  In either case, a stealth check at the end (as part of the move action) would seem to be in perfect order.


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 27, 2008)

On Puget Sound said:


> Actually I think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> The turn on which you gain concealment is the turn in which you move three squares.  There is no room in the definition for a 1-turn delay between the moving and the concealment.  And since the concealment cannot occur until you have created it by moving 3 squares, it must happen either at the 3rd square of movement (in mid-move), or at the end of the move action in which you moved 3 or more squares.  In either case, a stealth check at the end (as part of the move action) would seem to be in perfect order.




Seattle person here agreeing with you - mostly.  

I think there are instances when a stealth check during movement should be allowed.  VK (or someone else) posed the example of a stealther not beginning in concealment, moving through concealment and ending out of concealment.
So - possible to stealth while moving through the concealment squares?  If stealth is part of an action, then yes.

RAW, it seems to me that Shadow Walk's concealment occurs as soon as the 3rd square is entered.
The timing is important because it will determine if the warlock can stealth as part of her movment (after the 3rd square) or whether she will need to take another action to use stealth to hide.
I think she can use any movement after the 3rd square to hide, but I don't expect that to be the universal interpretation.

If I was only worried about the table I run, I wouldn't have to split hairs with everyone here   But if I want to play Living Forgotten Realms, I'm gonna have to care what the consensus opinion is - or at least what the RPGA opinion will be.


That reading of the ability leaves open the possibility of moving 3 squares, gaining concealment, and moving back.


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 27, 2008)

Whoops - double posting to overcome board slowness makes me look silly.  Where's the delete button?


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 27, 2008)

A Warlock can have concealment any time upon getting that third square of distance (regardless of whether it's movement or teleportation).  Stealthing is not an action, it's a -part- of other actions, so as soon as you establish you're three or more away, you can start with the opposed rolls for stealthiness.  That said, once they do it -once-, so long as they do so every round, they'll never leave concealment.

Something to remember tho, lots of monsters have bonuses to perception that are not tiny in comparison to the Warlock.  Secondly, even if the Warlock is trained (+5 to the roll) their movement will negate that (-5 to stealth when moving more than 2 squares), almost as if they set the Shadow Walk/movement penalty threshholds in consideration of each other.  In essence, if you're spending the feat to use this effectively, you're just rolling straight Dex rolls against their possibly trained perception rolls, which gives you on average a 50/50 chance none of them have to make a roll at all.

It's effective, just not super-effective.


----------



## buzz (Jul 27, 2008)

On Puget Sound said:


> The turn on which you gain concealment is the turn in which you move three squares.  There is no room in the definition for a 1-turn delay between the moving and the concealment.  And since the concealment cannot occur until you have created it by moving 3 squares, it must happen either at the 3rd square of movement (in mid-move), or at the end of the move action in which you moved 3 or more squares.  In either case, a stealth check at the end (as part of the move action) would seem to be in perfect order.



As was written above, I think the wording would have been different if the effect sprang up mid-move. As written, it's formatted like any other if...then ability, i.e., the prereq has to happen first, in entirety, for the effect to happen.

Honestly, though, I think it's kinda moot if we focus on how it might happen in an actual game. Since combat actions happen sequentially, and not in parallel, nothing else is happening when the warlock is making their 3+ square move. Whether the concealment happens mid-move or afterwards really only make s a difference in corner-cases like the OP.

I mean, since Stealth is part of an action, whether the warlock uses Stealth as part of the move or as part of whatever they do after the move is going to be largely irrelevant in play. E.g., in OP, the example warlock still has a Minor action left over. SO whether you rule mid-move or not, that warlock is likely going to get to make a Stealth check before his turn is over.

And, as DracoSuave hints at, this whole combo, not to mention normal Stealth, isn't even really that powerful.


----------



## buzz (Jul 28, 2008)

FYI, I posed some of these questions to WotC, and posted their responses.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 28, 2008)

buzz said:


> And, as DracoSuave hints at, this whole combo, not to mention normal Stealth, isn't even really that powerful.




Hi Buzz. How powerful stealth is depends a lot on how you rule it, and there are conflicting rulings.

Some take the FAQ to mean Stealth = Invisibility. That makes it somewhere near a level 6 daily, only at-will. That seems over the top to me. At the polar extreme, others see it as good for one or no more than two CA opportunities in combat. For both, even for Warlocks, with the investment of 1-2 feats most monsters have little chance of beating stealth.

I have to guess you're running it closer to the latter end, and I certainly agree that many lose sight of the fact it doesn't matter too much what happens inside an action in the vast majority of cases.

-vk


----------



## robsenworldaccount (Jul 28, 2008)

This entire post is null!

Stealth: "you must have cover against or concealment from the creature to make a Stealth check" phb pg 188

Shadow walk: "On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn" phb pg 131

Since the stealth check requires you to have concealment *before *attempting the check, you would to move first, but a stealth check is part of an action, not an action itself. 

 So to stealth, he must follower the  rules eveyone else does he must hide, cannot break cover for 15ft and can the move stealthed to X location.


----------



## Kordeth (Jul 28, 2008)

robsenworldaccount said:


> This entire post is null!
> 
> Stealth: "you must have cover against or concealment from the creature to make a Stealth check" phb pg 188
> 
> ...




Actually, there are a few ways the warlock can pull this trick:

- He can move three squares with a move action, gain concealment, and then use his standard action to move stealthily. Then on his next turn he can attack, then move and hide (remember, you gain concealment till the end of your *next* turn). Attacking breaks his Stealth, but he still has concealment.

- If he's fey pact, he can kill a cursed enemy and teleport three squares, then move stealthily.

- He can attack, move three squares, then spend an action point to move stealthily.

- He can take advantage of an ally's power that grants a move action.


----------



## buzz (Jul 28, 2008)

The CS reply I linked to above states explicitly that the warlock does not gain the effect of Shadow Walk mid-move. He gains it after the move has been completed. There is no Stealth check that can be made mid-move, as the Concealment from Shadow Walk does not exist yet.

Since this agrees with what I think is the most obvious reading of the ability, I'm happy to go with CS on this one.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 28, 2008)

buzz said:


> The CS reply I linked to above states explicitly that the warlock does not gain the effect of Shadow Walk mid-move. He gains it after the move has been completed. There is no Stealth check that can be made mid-move, as the Concealment from Shadow Walk does not exist yet.
> 
> Since this agrees with what I think is the most obvious reading of the ability, I'm happy to go with CS on this one.




So if the Warlock charges - moves 4 squares and then makes a basic melee attack - does he have concealment when the move is finished, but before the charge action is finished?  That is, does he have concealment while he is making his attack?

-Hyp.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 28, 2008)

Well, the whole stealth thing is going to be a hotbed till mike or someone issues a step-by-step.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 28, 2008)

buzz said:


> The CS reply I linked to above states explicitly that the warlock does not gain the effect of Shadow Walk mid-move. He gains it after the move has been completed. There is no Stealth check that can be made mid-move, as the Concealment from Shadow Walk does not exist yet.
> 
> Since this agrees with what I think is the most obvious reading of the ability, I'm happy to go with CS on this one.




Buzz, you posted

*CS: As part of your move action into another area that offers cover/concealment, you can make a stealth check.*


and

*CS: You would gain concealment after moving.*

 I'm not sure this produces a definitive ruling. After moving 3-squares is still after moving. Can you post back and ask if they meant 'after completion of the move action'?


-vk


----------



## Giryan (Jul 28, 2008)

I think that coming into effect mid move is a completely reasonable reading of the rules. 
It is the same way that the dragonshield's shift works, mid-move there is a condition that occurs, when that condition occurs the effect takes place, the move can continue afterwards.


----------



## buzz (Jul 28, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> I'm not sure this produces a definitive ruling. After moving 3-squares is still after moving. Can you post back and ask if they meant 'after completion of the move action'?



Based on the phrasing of my question, the answer says that the action needs to be completed first. The Shadow Walk does not happen mid-movement.


----------



## buzz (Jul 28, 2008)

Giryan said:


> It is the same way that the dragonshield's shift works, mid-move there is a condition that occurs, when that condition occurs the effect takes place, the move can continue afterwards.



Dragonshoeld Tactics is specifically called out as an Immediate Reaction, and the rules for Reactions on p.268 specifically call out that movement is the only kind of action that does not have to be completed before the Interrupt occurs. And this is all in reaction to _another_ creature's action.

I don't see any parallel between this and Shadow Walk. Shadow Walk reads the same as any other ability or feat that assumes the "trigger" happens before the beneficial effect. I.e., what precedent exists in the rest of the ruleset absolutely supports CS's response.


----------



## buzz (Jul 28, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> So if the Warlock charges - moves 4 squares and then makes a basic melee attack - does he have concealment when the move is finished, but before the charge action is finished?  That is, does he have concealment while he is making his attack?



If the only movement the warlock makes on their turn is the movement that's a free part of the charge, I'd say no. Since the Shadow Walk doesn't happen mid-move, the warlock does not have the Concealment when they make their charge attack.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 28, 2008)

buzz said:


> Since the Shadow Walk doesn't happen mid-move, the warlock does not have the Concealment when they make their charge attack.




It isn't happening mid-move.  The movement is finished before the attack occurs.

-Hyp.


----------



## buzz (Jul 28, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> It isn't happening mid-move.  The movement is finished before the attack occurs.



It's a single action that combines movement with a melee basic attack (or bull rush). Based on my reading and what CS said, I'd treat it the same; the action needs to be completed first.

Granted, it's _maybe_ enough of a corner-case (and not really overpowered enough) to allow the Shadow Walk to happen just before the attack, but that strikes me as bogus.

Not to mention, why is a warlock charging into melee?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 28, 2008)

buzz said:


> It's a single action that combines movement with a melee basic attack (or bull rush). Based on my reading and what CS said, I'd treat it the same; the action needs to be completed first.




Based on what CS said?

CS said "You would gain concealment after moving".  The attack occurs "after moving".

-Hyp.


----------



## Giryan (Jul 29, 2008)

buzz said:


> Dragonshoeld Tactics is specifically called out as an Immediate Reaction, and the rules for Reactions on p.268 specifically call out that movement is the only kind of action that does not have to be completed before the Interrupt occurs. And this is all in reaction to _another_ creature's action.
> 
> I don't see any parallel between this and Shadow Walk. Shadow Walk reads the same as any other ability or feat that assumes the "trigger" happens before the beneficial effect. I.e., what precedent exists in the rest of the ruleset absolutely supports CS's response.





I probably should have been clearer, I was referring to Dragonshield tactics working as it does because movement is considered a series of single square steps, rather than one whole step(as explained by Mike Mearls somewhere or another); which enables a character to move up to the kobold, have it shift away, and then recommence movement to move up to the kobold again, or move away or anything really.
Thus making clear that things do happen in the middle of movement. There's nothing in RAW that says that the concealment doesn't come into effect when its condition is true. That's just that individual CSR's interpretation.

This can't work using the same trigger mechanic as the Dragonshield tactics because it's occurring in the player's turn, but if that specific issue is ignored then it would occur as I suggested.


----------



## buzz (Jul 29, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Based on what CS said?
> 
> CS said "You would gain concealment after moving".  The attack occurs "after moving".



Like I said, _I_ find it bogus, but it's a corner case that could have merit. I'd want to ask CS about this specifically.


----------



## buzz (Jul 29, 2008)

Giryan said:


> I probably should have been clearer, I was referring to Dragonshield tactics working as it does because movement is considered a series of single square steps, rather than one whole step(as explained by Mike Mearls somewhere or another); which enables a character to move up to the kobold, have it shift away, and then recommence movement to move up to the kobold again, or move away or anything really.
> Thus making clear that things do happen in the middle of movement. There's nothing in RAW that says that the concealment doesn't come into effect when its condition is true. That's just that individual CSR's interpretation.



Well, since CS confirmed what was already my reading, I'm in agreement with their take. I don't think your comparison is apt. C'est la vie.


----------



## jdpacheco (Jul 29, 2008)

My take (after much consideration):

Stealth is something that you perform an action doing, not a condition
So: If you want to attack from stealth, check to see if you meet the conditions, make the check, then attack.  If you want to move while "stealthed", check to see if you meet the conditions, make the check, then attack.

The concealment from Shadow Walk happens after the move that puts you at least three squares from your starting position.  Using that concealment, you can then make an attack using Stealth, or you can move again if you don't want people to know where you are.

Why the attack itself is "stealthed": You have concealment, so your opponent cannot clearly see what you're doing.  It's like keeping a gun hidden under your coat.  Also think of the "Stealth using distraction" as the old "look over there", or when you psyche someone out by pretending you're going to throw the ball at the someone else.  It's only granting combat advantage, which basically means that they're not reacting correctly because they can't fully judge your intent.  The attack itself blows any Stealth you have.

You still keep all the advantages of having concealment, and can even use "Stealth" as normal on the next round (Or even: Stealth Attack, then Stealth Move at least 3 squares to keep it going).

Everything I've said should be well within RAW, and seems to be RAI, and doesn't "nerf" any ability (and doesn't get anything out of hand, either).


----------

