Warlock + Shadow Walk + Stealth...

[Stalker0]

Just as a reminder, that stealth check is going to be at a -5 because the warlock is moving to get shadow walk, and moving more than 2 squares produces the -5.

So with training a warlock likely has only his dex to help him...which likely isn't his best stat.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Irregardless, you fail to stealth so you're not hidden. But .. free concealment = free AC.
Also, some builds (Tiefling feylock, for instance) abuse Mire the Mind (Warlock 7) as an encounter opener.

 

[clearstream]

Vonklaude, your analysis is thorough and well-written. However, I would suggest that the fluff is not entirely irrelevant.

You correctly point out that in this case, the DM must make the decision about whether to grant a skill check, but the fluff - or rather, the explanation for how Shadow Walk works - is an important part of that decision.

How can the DM know whether a player should, or should not, be able to make a stealth skill following a use of Shadow Walk, without taking into account exactly what happens when that power is used? Does the player blend into her surroundings? Does a large area of shadow spill out around her, making it difficult to know exactly where she is?

This is what I'd like to know; what does Shadow Walk look like? What visual effect accompanies use of the power? Because knowing that, it would be much easier to determine whether a stealth check should follow.

For the most part I agree with you, but I would not be too quick to discount the value of that fluff text for helping to make a rational and fair decision.

Thank you The sense of what you are saying is fair enough in my view. However, I would personally draw a distinction between 'fluff' and 'situation'.

Were I to deny a Warlock a stealth check off her Shadow Walk, I would not do so because of any reservations about the inherent effect of Shadow Walk. It grants her concealment: that's really all I need to know.

However, were she to stride boldly into a well-lit room defended by alert guards, move 3 squares to the middle of that room, apply Shadow Walk and try to hunker down stealthily using a minor action, I wouldn't grant her request. The guards saw her come into the room. They saw her stride to the center, and they saw shadows (or whatever) well up around her.

What I would do, is I would certainly penalise any attack the guards made against her by the modifier for normal concealment.

I hope my distinction between 'fluff' and 'situation' makes sense, using that example?

-vk

 

[Scribe Ineti]

Just as a reminder, that stealth check is going to be at a -5 because the warlock is moving to get shadow walk, and moving more than 2 squares produces the -5.

As I read the rules, I don't agree with this, if the warlock is in combat. If, for his first action, he moves at least 3 squares, he Shadow Walks and is concealed.

Then, for his standard action, he rolls Stealth. That way he doesn't have the -5 penalty.

That's how I interpret the rules anyhow. If that interpretation is just flat out wrong, please let me know.

 

[Zimri]

am I doing this right ? (interperting the situation not am I min maxing correctly)

so as an infernal pact warlock
round 1 minor action curse a target
standard action eldricht blast a target (could be target 1 or not)
move action move at least 3 squares, invoke shadow walk

Given what I read that grants me concealment so until my next turn attacks against me are at -2

Concealment (–2 Penalty to Attack Rolls): The
target is in a lightly obscured square or in a heavily
obscured square but adjacent to you.

I do not however have combat advantage (solely from the actions described I could have it for other reasons but that's irrelevant) because only Total concealment and above give CA

Total Concealment (–5 Penalty to Attack Rolls):
You can’t see the target. The target is invisible, in
a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured
square and not adjacent to you.

INVISIBLE
✦ You can’t be seen by normal forms of vision.
✦ You have combat advantage against any enemy that
can’t see you.
✦ You don’t provoke opportunity attacks from enemies
that can’t see you.

Am I understanding the synergies properly ?

 

[Scribe Ineti]

Yes, as I understand the rules you have it right. Shadow Walk provides opponents with a -2 penalty to hit you because you have concealment, but simply shadow walking does not grant you CA.

You would need to use the Stealth skill to attempt to get CA.

 

[Zimri]

Yes, as I understand the rules you have it right. Shadow Walk provides opponents with a -2 penalty to hit you because you have concealment, but simply shadow walking does not grant you CA.

You would need to use the Stealth skill to attempt to get CA.

Thanks. Could I hide in the infinite oregano to gain total concealment and thus CA 8) ?

 

[wedgeski]

Anyway, good luck helping people learn to read!

'Over here' you're going to quickly get warned by a mod for this kind of language and tone. I'd advise you to keep it respectful.

 

[Scribe Ineti]

Thanks. Could I hide in the infinite oregano to gain total concealment and thus CA 8) ?

No, if only because total concealment doesn't grant CA. Hiding in infinite oregano, or indeed, infinite anything, can provide total concealment, which gives your opponents a -5 penalty to hit you.

DMs can rule otherwise, of course. Hope this helps!

 

[clearstream]

As I read the rules, I don't agree with this, if the warlock is in combat. If, for his first action, he moves at least 3 squares, he Shadow Walks and is concealed.

Then, for his standard action, he rolls Stealth. That way he doesn't have the -5 penalty.

That's how I interpret the rules anyhow. If that interpretation is just flat out wrong, please let me know.

You could do your stealth action as your standard, but I believe the penalty would reasonably apply until the end of the turn in which you moved more than 2 squares.

That is my interpretation. Currently I can't find RAW on that.

-vk