I made the same ruling even though for a moment I considered allowing Reaving to do it's damage and spread the curse with corruption, but those new curses would not cause damage. Finally I decided "No" - It might make my life as the DM easier in the future.
Once upon a time there was a great, powerful and mightily corrupted Warlock who did great and magnificient deeds. This story however doesn't tell about him. This tells about his little son who has barely reached puberty (and level 1). The father and the son are camping in the Astral Sea and...
Well, I grant you that the definition does not explicitly say that only non-adjacent things in light obscurement are concealed. However since it does say that adjacent targets in heavy obscurement get concealed, that is enough in my book to mean that the other option is only for non-adjacent...
Probably from definition of Concealment. It says "Concealment (-2 Penalty to Attack Rolls): The target is in a lightly obscured square or in a heavily obscured square but adjacent to you." Emphasis is mine.
Adjacent (that is 'melee') targets have to be in heavy obscurement to become harder to hit.
Book does not say that there are any concealments of any other kind but those granted by obscurement. Therefore it isn't just "commonly" caused by obscurement, but 'always' caused by obscurement and nothing else.
Light obscurement causes -2 penalty from far range and Heavy obscurement causes...
How can the blur be that difficult to see from melee range, but suddenly much easier from further away? I know you can explain it with "It's magic man.", but imo granting one level of obscurement is a better way of doing it. Why? Because it makes sense.
I am "confusing" the issue because...
No, this thread isn't about if or not the Warlocks can Stealthily move practically invisible using their Shadow Walk or not. Instead this is about a thing which I and my group find strange about Concealment granted by Shadow Walk. (So please don't turn this into another flamewar about Stealth.)...