The Ninja Warlock

[Cadfan]

Lets see. Dex isn't a warlock stat. Stealth isn't a warlock class skill. The class feature specifically requires you to move more than 2 squares forcing a -5 penalty. Warlocks get powers related to Stealth. I'd say this application of stealth is intended. It seems they went out of their way to make it slightly harder to do successfully.

You might be right, but I have a hard time not comparing this ability to Child of Shadows, which is a very precisely analogous 3e ability that does not permit you to hide.

 

[Graf]

Saying "this shouldn't work like invisibility" or "I wouldn't allow that" is...fine.
Saying "Oh I want this warlock concealment to not be like normal concealment but to be some sort of special type-of-concealment that I'm specifically making up to prevent people from doing this" is also... fine.

But do any of y'all have an actual per RAW way to exclude this?
As mentioned above this is a per-RAW conversation not a "I'm cool old skool DM. I drop ban-hammer" type discussion.

Cause the parts I was citing specifically refer to BOTH invisibility and stealth.

The point about being concealed at the beginning of the movement, vs 3 squares in, is interesting, but a warlock can easily just move back and forth a bit in a couple of squares to muddy things up. There's no extra penalty between moving 3 and 6 squares.
In other words, it'd work on a lazy warlock once if the DM wanted to stop them. After that they'd just say they move three more squares.

 

[Plane Sailing]

A attacks, and moves 3 squares. He's concealed till his next turn. Since no rule mentions that he loses the concealment he can do whatever he likes (play the bongos, stand on his hands) and still be concealed.

You see, this is why attempting to frame a question as "RAW only" is a pointless waste of time in most circumstances, and why we discourage it in the rules forum.

It makes people free to make utterly illogical statements and say "but the rules don't prohibit it".

This is why we play a game with a DM mate. It is because judgement calls need to be made.

Now, we can discuss the best way of making the judgement calls within the framework of the rules (and that is what the Rules Forum is best for) - but even that is going to be more successful when, you know, the rules are actually available to buy

Regards

 

[Benly]

You see, this is why attempting to frame a question as "RAW only" is a pointless waste of time in most circumstances, and why we discourage it in the rules forum.

It makes people free to make utterly illogical statements and say "but the rules don't prohibit it".

This is a fair objection. Nonetheless, I think it's reasonable to ask that a conversation about how a given set of rules work be more than "I would houserule it away". Honestly, I'm not even sure this is unbalanced enough to need houseruling away; the warlock's gimmick as a striker is "less damage output traded for useful combat miscellanea", and being able to spend several feats and have a neat combo like this seems well within that spirit.

 

[Aristeas]

By my reading, you were unable to hide as part of Shadow Walk action, as you don't have concealment till it is over.

It would take two rounds for this to kick in. And, after that, you can in fact render yourself effectively untargettable, with the right checks.

Except for a fey-pact warlord? Then you can kill something and use your pact boon to activate Shadow Walk, while still having a move action left in the round. Then shift stealthily, and voila.

 

[Duelpersonality]

Saying "this shouldn't work like invisibility" or "I wouldn't allow that" is...fine.
Saying "Oh I want this warlock concealment to not be like normal concealment but to be some sort of special type-of-concealment that I'm specifically making up to prevent people from doing this" is also... fine.

But do any of y'all have an actual per RAW way to exclude this?
As mentioned above this is a per-RAW conversation not a "I'm cool old skool DM. I drop ban-hammer" type discussion.

Cause the parts I was citing specifically refer to BOTH invisibility and stealth.

The point about being concealed at the beginning of the movement, vs 3 squares in, is interesting, but a warlock can easily just move back and forth a bit in a couple of squares to muddy things up. There's no extra penalty between moving 3 and 6 squares.
In other words, it'd work on a lazy warlock once if the DM wanted to stop them. After that they'd just say they move three more squares.

Actually, you quoted the rule about "beating the Stealth check by 10," which is specifically part of the Total Concealment and Superior Cover part of the Stealth skill description. A similar rule shows up in the "Targeting What You Can't See" sidebar on page 281, but that specifically calls out the circumstances it applies to: "if you’re fighting a creature you can’t see—when a creature
is invisible, you’re blinded, or you’re fighting in darkness you
can’t see through." Just haveing concealment and making a Stealth roll does not make the creature invisible, so "Targeting What You Can't See" doesn't come into play. An enemy only has to beat the character's Stealth check with either active or passive Perception, something that shouldn't be too hard unless the character has specifically trained to take advantage of Shadow Walk.

If you're having trouble with Shadow Walking warlocks, have enemies grab in the first round. I haven't had a chance to look through KotS, so I don't know what kind of enemies or abilities are in play, but I think there are plenty of ways around a basic warlock using Shadow Walk for anything more than an effective +2 to defenses.

 

[Arbitrary]

Using stealth in combat just doesn't seem like it really is going to do all that much. Your stealth versus your opponent's perception is an opposed check.

pg 178

When you use Stealth, for example, you're testing your ability to hide against someone else's ability to spot hidden things (the Perception skill). These skill contests are called opposed check. When you make an opposed check both characters roll, and the higher check result wins.

If you actually succeed than you fall under the heading of being an Invisible Creature Using Stealth (pg 281). At the end of a concealed creature's turn it makes a stealth check opposed by the passive Perception check of everyone around. If they beat it than it reveals a creature is present, 10 or more for exact location.

So every round you blow your sneaking with an attack you have to reroll an opposed check against the entire battlefield, every round you don't do anything else you still have to beat everyone's passive perception, and if you do, your opponents can use a minor action to try and track you down (281). Beating your last stealth roll reveals your general direction, ten or more and your exact location is known.

As soon as someone knows your exact location you aren't going to benefit from the -5 from total concealment because you aren't actually invisible. You are down to the normal -2.

Teleporting around, appearing and disappearing all over the place, and dropping ranged damage is an excellent way to build aggro and, ironically, draw extra attention to yourself.

 

[WOLead]

Actually, you quoted the rule about "beating the Stealth check by 10," which is specifically part of the Total Concealment and Superior Cover part of the Stealth skill description. A similar rule shows up in the "Targeting What You Can't See" sidebar on page 281, but that specifically calls out the circumstances it applies to: "if you’re fighting a creature you can’t see—when a creature
is invisible, you’re blinded, or you’re fighting in darkness you
can’t see through." Just haveing concealment and making a Stealth roll does not make the creature invisible, so "Targeting What You Can't See" doesn't come into play. An enemy only has to beat the character's Stealth check with either active or passive Perception, something that shouldn't be too hard unless the character has specifically trained to take advantage of Shadow Walk.

If you're having trouble with Shadow Walking warlocks, have enemies grab in the first round. I haven't had a chance to look through KotS, so I don't know what kind of enemies or abilities are in play, but I think there are plenty of ways around a basic warlock using Shadow Walk for anything more than an effective +2 to defenses.

A Ranger with training in perception could simply beat the stealth check and attack the Warlock if needed, or with a level 2 utility help someone else beat the perception check. Either that or a Cleric or Wizard with Wisdom also decides to train in Perception to locate all those annoying Stealth enjoying targets. Clerics could grab a bonus through their Holy Lantern, while Wizards just lob area attacks in the general direction and not even worry about the concealment defense.

If not, then players/NPCs could set a delayed action on their turn so that they attack when a Warlock using this trick attacks, they in turn attack the Warlock's square back before he can move or redo a stealth check against everyone. Warriors could attempt to charge, Wizards could lob a Fireball, Rangers launch an arrow, and ect. whenever a Warlock takes a chance to launch an attack of his own and before he can retreat back into the shadows. Or better yet, release an attack that will immobilize the Warlock, making him or her a sitting duck. A Warlock not thinking clearly would use Shadow Walk purely for defense and attack every turn, which may work when in a mess of fighting and enemies would rather target the easier to spot enemies, then take a chance of loosing their action because the Warlock doesn't attack. Another Warlock could attempt to position himself to prevent an attack when he attacks so he can go back into hiding safely, similar to how a Ranger or a ranged Rogue would attack stealthly.

Though I can almost imagine a Warlock screaming in outrage or fear when a wizard delays his action so that when the Warlock temporarily drops stealth and attacks again, he uses Bigby's Icy Grasp or Bigby's Grasping Hands to capture the Warlock and Sustain Minor it until the Warlock gets extremely lucky in its attempt to escape its grasp. Assuming the Warlock doesn't simply die when its dragged out of the shadows and everyone else wants a piece of him.

 

[Duelpersonality]

Ah, I see where a lot of confusion on this is coming from. The sidebar on page 281 has a lot of contradictions to the rules stated elsewhere. This is the point of exception based design, I suppose, but the question is, "Which rule is the exception?"

Part of the sidebar states, "Invisible Creature Uses Stealth: At the end of a concealed creature’s turn..." Now, does that mean this applies only to invisible creatures, or to any creature with concealment, effectively granting the concealed creature invisibility?

Also, the sidebar says, "Make a Perception Check: On your turn, you can make an active Perception check as a minor action..." When does this apply? The Perception skill description says that active Perception checks are a standard action. Is the sidebar referring only to creatures that are invisible, creatures that you can't see (which would seem to make the statement in the Perception skill description pointless), or is one of them correct and the other from an earlier draft of the rules that didn't get updated?

Reading the sidebar one way would seem to indicate that it's rules only apply to attacking a creature that cannot be seen by normal means(the creature is invisible, in a totally obscured square, you're blinded). Reading it another way would seem to indicate that it applies any time a creature has concealment and makes a Stealth check that beats the enemy's passive Perception. Hrm...

 

[Benly]

As I've said, I never claimed this was some kind of absolute flawless defense. Grabs and delayed actions (or, for that matter, delayed-action grabs) are perfectly legitimate responses to it. Nonetheless, the fact that it requires such responses does indicate how useful a survival tool it can be.

The particular character build I'm thinking of has a +16 stealth check at level 8; at a quick (and certainly not comprehensive) glance it seems like most high-perception creatures at level 8 are in the 9-11 range and things like brutes tend to be much lower than that. (There are exceptions, such as the galeb duhr with high Perception and tremorsense, which renders stealth moot.) The enemy beatsticks are simply unlikely to be able to target you without very specific direction from spotters, and you will have a good chance of them missing even then.

Regarding grabs and immobilization, I will note that it is probably wise for a Fey-pact warlock to keep a Rod of Harvest loaded with a Misty Step so that he can get out of such circumstances. This is generally a good idea anyway, I would say.

Now, I will concede that the build I am considering uses most of the character's heroic feats and his armor slot to power this trick. On the one hand, this is a fairly significant cost for a fairly significant benefit; on the other hand, what else are you using a warlock's heroic feats for? Improved Misty Step is of course on the list, but other than that there aren't many worthwhile options. Likewise, the list of heroic-tier armor options better than sylvan for the warlock is fairly limited, although Bloodcut certainly makes a strong case.