Warlock + Shadow Walk + Stealth...

I'm sure this has been asked before, and I checked several pages back in the forums (there's so many!) and I couldn't find anything, so I'm going to ask it. Sorry.

How have people handled Shadow Walk + Stealth for the warlock? I took skill training in stealth and figured any time I moved more than 3 sqares from where I started, I gained concealment. Therefore, I can make a stealth check to become hidden. Seems simple. But what is hidden? Can I be targeted? Can I be seen?

This came up in an encounter that was in the wide open plains. Granted, this even stretched it for me. I walk in the middle of a field and vanish from sight, assuming I make my skill check? Are my "shadows" visible so I can be targeted, but gain total concealment? Is there ever a time I would become invisible due to my successful stealth check?

Any help is appreciated, even if you point me to another thread this is covered in. I did see the Stealth in Combat thread, but it didn't specifically deal with Shadow Walk and Stealth.

It depends on your interpretation of Stealth.

Does Stealth allow you to hide after being noticed without blocking all LoS to the viewer?

If yes: You need to "move" stealthily (move action) to move without the target seeing it, and you have to have cover/concealment first. So you have to move, gain shadow walk concealment, then move some MORE "stealthily" to hide.

In no: You need to make the target lose sight of you in order to use stealth to move (Stealth success AVOIDS notice, doesn't remove it) without detection, so that's Bluff, Total Concealment, or Superior Cover.

The first version is closest to what the CSRs claim is "rules as intended", but they have contradicted each other and the books. Either way, you need to START the action in cover/concealment to do an action stealthily (hiding would be moving without detection, in my opinion, a move action).

Anyway, that's the two real camps on Stealth. Pick the one that works for you.

There is no fluff for the Shadow Walk ability, so whether you gather shadows or partially walk into the Shadowfell is not described. You could be disappearing.

Here is a post that asks your question to Wizard customer service.

WOLead said:

1)Does Shadow Walk's Concealment allow you to make a Stealth Check?
[sblock]Response (Support Agent) 06/13/2008 03:35 PM
Greetings,

1. Yes, you can make a stealth check after using Shadow Walk.[/sblock]

2)If 1) is true, then if a Warlock has successfully hidden himself in his concealment, can he attack then move 6 to reroll the Stealth check to hide again? Its assumed he would take the -5 penalty for moving more then 2 squares without the Secret Stride feat.
[sblock]2. Yes, he can attack and then move, making another stealth check in the process.[/sblock]

Click to expand...

The poster Innuit at the WoTC forum's summed it up very briefly:

Innuit said:

Character is stealthed.

If in cover/concealment 2 things can occur.
1. Stealth > Perception = Cannot be targeted
2. Stealth < Perception = Can be targeted, target receives -2 cover because of the cover.

If in total cover/total concealment 3 things can occur.
1. Stealth > Perception = Cannot be targeted
2. Stealth < Perception but not over 10 = You do not know the exact location, you can pick a squre and suffer a -5 to hit.
3. Stealth < Perception over by 10 = You know their exact location, but still suffer a -5 because of the cover.

Click to expand...

My addition:
Stealth is not invisibility. Without total concealment, if your perception beats the stealther (not by 10, just beats it), you are revealed. With invisibilty (or total concealment) perception over 10 only gives you the square.

If you keep hitting monsters from stealth, pretty quickly they will either use minor actions for active perception rolls or even ready an attack to use a ranged attack or charge you when you reveal yourself for an attack.

Xorn said:

It depends on your interpretation of Stealth.

Does Stealth allow you to hide after being noticed without blocking all LoS to the viewer?

If yes: You need to "move" stealthily (move action) to move without the target seeing it, and you have to have cover/concealment first. So you have to move, gain shadow walk concealment, then move some MORE "stealthily" to hide.

In no: You need to make the target lose sight of you in order to use stealth to move (Stealth success AVOIDS notice, doesn't remove it) without detection, so that's Bluff, Total Concealment, or Superior Cover..

Click to expand...

Stealth is not just avoids notice. You keep selectively quoting the PHB.

Page 188

Success: You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from
view.

Click to expand...

Which is a lot more than simply "avoid notice." Your selective quoting relegates stealth to being like using bluff for a distraction.

Stealth is (to quote Monty Python) the art of not being seen.

Xorn said:

The first version is closest to what the CSRs claim is "rules as intended", but they have contradicted each other and the books. Either way, you need to START the action in cover/concealment to do an action stealthily (hiding would be moving without detection, in my opinion, a move action).

Click to expand...

The actual rule is (page 188)
Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to
perform stealthily.

Since you need cover or concealment, it typically is a move action. But not always. If you were behind cover and were attempting to disarm a trap, you could use stealth to remain hidden from view while disarming the trap.

CSRs are not perfect. But their reputation of contradiction is exaggerated - how many contradictions have you actually found?

Nice to see you're fighting the good fight the_redbeard! I thought it was supposed to be better over here....

Portion of post removed. Unsurprisingly, insulting people actually makes things worse. Gosh, who knew? ~ Piratecat

the_redbeard said:

CSRs are not perfect. But their reputation of contradiction is exaggerated - how many contradictions have you actually found?

Click to expand...

Personally, I've found several. But most of them were years ago, because I stopped using them after a few particularly egregious incidents.

Since 4e has come out, I've been giving them another chance. Hopefully they have been prepped a bit better this time. They do seem to be doing better, in general.

Innuit said:

Nice to see you're fighting the good fight the_redbeard! I thought it was supposed to be better over here....

Anyway, good luck helping people learn to read!

Click to expand...

This doesn't really seem helpful in any way. If you think it should better over here, help make it better. Don't be part of the problem.

Eh? What problem...the reading the PHB one? I was just commenting on how the_redbeard tore apart Xorn because Xorn did not read the PHB. How is that my fault?

Matter of fact...why are you making insults? Is that helping? Hmmmm.....

Innuit said:

Eh? What problem...the reading the PHB one? I was just commenting on how the_redbeard tore apart Xorn because Xorn did not read the PHB. How is that my fault?

Matter of fact...why are you making insults? Is that helping? Hmmmm.....

Click to expand...

"I thought it was supposed to be better over here." - Condescending and generally not helpful to to anyone.

"Good luck teaching people to read" - This is insulting. No way around it. Also not true.

Redbeard didn't "tear Xorn apart" - he made a strong arguement against Xorn's point of view. Xorn obviously HAS read the PHB or he wouldn't have been able to support his own arguements as well as he did. He may or may not be correct, but two people should be able disagree on something without being petty about it.

We do try to be better over here. Posting just to make a little dig at someone isn't part of it. It's too easy to take a disagreement personally as it is.

I'm sorry if you feel insulted by this, that is not my intent.

Thanks everyone for the fast replies. I didn't even think to check the "Official Unofficial 4e FAQ."

Ummmmm....yes he did tear Xorn apart. How is it that they are "looking" at the same book and one got it right and one didn't. It's like an open book test, reading every 3rd word and hoping you get it right.

I'm not insulted at all. My comments were sarcastic. It is actually better over at ENworld. I just happened upon the one topic I hate having to listen to on repeat. I literally just joined up like 30 minutes ago, so it was more irony than anything.

Where Xorn made a mistake was reading the parts he wanted to read, not what was actually written. It happens, just seems like it happens to a lot of people.

Gentlemen - that's enough with the bickering.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)