Warlock, Shadow Walk and Stealth

[Plane Sailing]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

it attacks the square containing the shadows obscuring the warlock.

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