The Ninja Warlock

[Ginnel]

surely we introduce common sense to this ploy.

The Warlock has not infact vanished from view he is in granted concealment which in the PHB is given an example as seeing someone in heavy snow or heavy rain, smoke, fog or foliage, which is lightly obscured squares(or if your standing right next to someone, heavy fog, heavy smoke or heavy foliage)

But unlike proper concealment granted by a terrain effect this is granted to the warlock by a power which as far as I can tell only effects the warlocks square not any of the surrounding ones so anyone can tell where about he is just not exactly where he is so it makes striking him a bit harder.

Ok so now we have that explained you expect me to believe in the warlocks personalised square of hmm heavy foiliage or thick black smoke of even heavy snow he can hide? turn himself invisible to avoid notice? when in fact he is right there because of his obvious magical effect, nuh huh not gonna happen the only way this could work is if the warlock in question moved to an area which provided concealment.

I think this works as a nice explanation. In short the warlocks magical concealment absolutely identifies where he is to the enemies (in a designated 5ft square) it just makes pinpointing him for attacks that little bit harder hence the -2 to hit, the only way I can see this argued is that its a dark like effect and it would work at night, but then darkness gives you concealment anyway so it would be fine.

Hope this makes sense

 

[Benly]

I think this works as a nice explanation. In short the warlocks magical concealment absolutely identifies where he is to the enemies (in a designated 5ft square) it just makes pinpointing him for attacks that little bit harder hence the -2 to hit, the only way I can see this argued is that its a dark like effect and it would work at night, but then darkness gives you concealment anyway so it would be fine.

It's a nice house rule but there's no reason it would be the only possibility. Maybe the fey powers he channels cause flickers around the vicinity for those who think they've spotted him, granting him concealment by misdirecting them. Maybe the strange geometries of alien stars cause him to move at impossible angles and cause the enemies to strike where he should be and yet is not.

In either case, they know someone is there and shooting at them, but they don't know where he is - which is the effect he would have if he was invisible.

 

[Ginnel]

It's a nice house rule but there's no reason it would be the only possibility. Maybe the fey powers he channels cause flickers around the vicinity for those who think they've spotted him, granting him concealment by misdirecting them. Maybe the strange geometries of alien stars cause him to move at impossible angles and cause the enemies to strike where he should be and yet is not.

In either case, they know someone is there and shooting at them, but they don't know where he is - which is the effect he would have if he was invisible.

Ok nice descriptions but the -2 modifier this provides is comparitive to the attacker being restrained or prone at range or even cover OR the target being in a heavy snow storm of foliage, or like being right next to someone who is in Heavy foliage or heavy smoke, thats what the PHB states as concealment as and that is what the warlock has.

Since it doesn't state any squares around the warlock are effected/harder to see through we can safely assume (hopefully ) that the lock is in some kind of heavy obscuring terrain that effects only one square.

Now the application of the warlock trying to hide here should not grant full hidden ability from everyone, it would be the same as a thief being in a 5ft by 5ft bush, hiding at the best would grant, if your being generous total concealment (-5 to hit), think of this as solid snake hiding in his cardboard box of a thief running around the battlefield with said tree on his back and in his hand, I just can't see how the lock will go "right i'll stealth in this localised effect in my square so they won't know where I am, I am a genius!"

Example of play

Boris the Warlock

Boris' player: I've moved 3 squares and shadowalked, black shadows envelope my svelt frame and perfectly pointed beard

DM: Ok next action

Boris' player: ah but wait I'm going to stealth during that move action so no one can see me *boris' player strokes an imaginery goatee*

DM: erm you mean in that localised effect centered on you

Boris' player: Well of course, I mean Boris is invincible!!

DM: *sighs*

So what I'm trying to get at is seeing as its only -2 equivelent to the aforementioned combat disadvantages or terrain it should in no way grant the ninja warlock total hidey-ness as an equivelent cardboard box or handy moveable shrub wouldn't unless the opponents are distracted as mentioned in the PHB.

 

[Benly]

Since it doesn't state any squares around the warlock are effected/harder to see through we can safely assume (hopefully ) that the lock is in some kind of heavy obscuring terrain that effects only one square.

This is the fundamental flaw in your assumption: that magical concealment must equate to a cloud of black smoke or a tree to hide behind.

Either of the effects I described would grant a creature concealment without concealing anyone in the area around him. Either of them can be taken advantage of in such a way as to prevent anyone from knowing his location - which is to say, using Stealth.

Your argument amounts to "it doesn't work because it doesn't make story sense". Which, I will note, is an argument I would accept if it were true. However, there is a viable story explanation for the stealth warlock and the rules support it.

 

[Arbitrary]

Where in the rules do you get that being attacked by one creature breaks your hiding? Granted, it will let his buddies know what square I'm in, but they'll still be eating the hefty -5 penalty and it won't do them any good once I move or teleport to another location - they'll have to start the finding game over again.

With a creature attacking you are forced to defend yourself and thus are no longer hidden. Are you not going to defend yourself? Combat Advantage and Opportunity Attacks ahoy!

You are not an invisible creature being attacked that merely is now known to be in a certain square. You are successfully using stealth, a non-magical/non-power based skill and are thus hidden from view. You are identical to the rogue who got attacked while hiding in low light conditions (thus having Concealment).

Is a Rogue in low light who is being attacked after hiding still invisible to everyone except the attacker? You've both still got concealment, but your hide is completely blown.

 

[Xzylvador]

While Shadow Walk/Hideseems good combo, there are some wrong assumptions here.
While, by RAW, you could make a stealth check during the movement, after 3 squares moved because of the concealment granted by Shadow Walk, this does not automaticly mean you remain hidden as long as Shadow Walk's concealment lasts.
Whenever a creature has an unblocked line of sight to you, your hide against that creature is automaticly broken, without even requiring a perception check. (Forgot where that's written, but it's there.) The concealment from Shadow Walk isn't concealment caused by blocking line of sight, it's more that your image becomes slightly blurred (or surrounded by a swirling mist/smoke, whatever fits the fluff of your char). In no way does it block line of sight, so while you could make a (succesful) hide check, a nano-second later, everyone who has line of sight to you automaticly spots you. This is the difference between invisibility and hide.
Normally concealment is granted because of blocking line is sight. This doesn't mean that whenever you're granted concealment, line of sight is blocked.
(If anyone robs a bank, he becomes rich. Anyone who's rich has robbed a bank... Not quite.)
The only way around this (or at least, the one that I can find immediately):
Rogue power at-will: Chameleon. The interrupt triggers the instant after your hide succeeds and then fails. It removes the general rule (you lose hiding whenever a creature has line of sight) by stating "you remain hidden if a creature that has line of sight to you fails to beat your check result with its perception check." It does this "until the end of your next turn".
Without this specific rule to override the general rule that you're instantly spotted because of line of sight, this trick won't work.
Shadow Stride, another rogue utility stealth power, wouldn't do much as it requires cover instead of concealment.
Fleeting Ghost, lower-level rogue utility power, would make the stealth check easier by removing the -5 penalty.
Hide in Plain sight could be used after you've hidden with chameleon, but has little use, as chameleon effectively keeps you hidden without forcing you to stand still, and you need the movement to keep concealment, which is needed to keep chameleon triggering.
So far though, chameleon is the only way to be hiding while in a line of sight as long as you have cover or concealment, which conveniently lasts just as long as the class skill which is granting you concealment.
DAMN IT! Just re-re-read Chameleon: it doesn't trigger when you're spotted, but when you lose cover or concealment, which you don't... So this doesn't work neither... Lemme think.. :bulb:
Walk around an obstacle, duck behind a wall or an ally.
They give you cover.
Then step out of the cover!
You lose cover, trigger chameleon and you're good to go 'til your next round.
-- If you could voluntarily give up the concealment granted by shadow walk, you could move 3, give up concealment to trigger chameleon, move 3 more spaces, regain concealment and with chameleon's effect, remain hidden -in line of sight- until the end of your next turn.

 

[Benly]

With a creature attacking you are forced to defend yourself and thus are no longer hidden. Are you not going to defend yourself? Combat Advantage and Opportunity Attacks ahoy!

"Where in the rules" was not a rhetorical question. I see under Stealth that if you make an attack, your cover is blown, and I've acknowledged this in my descriptions of how the build works. Where does it say that being attacked blows your Stealth, or that you grant combat advantage while using Stealth? I'm willing to believe that it's somewhere in the rules, but I haven't found it yet.

Edit: Regarding the previous post, the wording under Stealth: "You have to retain cover or concealment to remain unnoticed. If a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (that is, you lack any cover or concealment), the creature automatically sees you." It states right there that in this case "unblocked line of sight" explicitly means "lacking any cover or concealment"; since you retain concealment enemies do not have an unblocked line of sight for Stealth purposes.

 

[Xzylvador]

Edit: Regarding the previous post, the wording under Stealth: "You have to retain cover or concealment to remain unnoticed. If a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (that is, you lack any cover or concealment), the creature automatically sees you." It states right there that in this case "unblocked line of sight" explicitly means "lacking any cover or concealment"; since you retain concealment enemies do not have an unblocked line of sight for Stealth purposes.

Right you are... Heh, WotC's just begging for stealth to be broken. If they'd just removed the remark between the brackets, this would've been at least a bit harder (but again, not nearly impossible).
Just read cover though: standing behind a large piece of furniture a low wall (like waist high) or a portculis gives you cover against some attacks... So if we were standing face to face with a portculis between us, I could be hidden from you? More broken than I thought...

 

[Ginnel]

Ok so If I think of it more like a preadator he is actually visible just very well camoflaged and if he stays still/moves stealthily the enemies can't notice him that would work without the warlock actually being invisible I suppose

Heh I like discussions like this, still he would have to suceed immediately versus every enemy within perception range of you who roll their checks (listen and spot take -2 penalty for more than 10 squares away?), question is does the whole stealth fail if one enemy detects or not? text says

"Failure: You can’t try again unless observers become distracted or you manage to obtain cover or concealment."

also don't carry any kind of light source, I assume candle light strength of higher

"Light Source: Observers automatically see you if you’re carrying a light source."

Also on the topic of stealth the cleric power Blazing Beacon.

"You invoke your deity’s name, and holy light envelops your weapon. When you strike your foe, a blazing beacon in the form of a holy rune floats above its head to guide your allies’ ranged attacks as well."

"snip...all ranged attack rolls against the target gain a +4 power bonus until the end of your next turn."

 

[WOLead]

I think this works as a nice explanation. In short the warlocks magical concealment absolutely identifies where he is to the enemies (in a designated 5ft square) it just makes pinpointing him for attacks that little bit harder hence the -2 to hit, the only way I can see this argued is that its a dark like effect and it would work at night, but then darkness gives you concealment anyway so it would be fine.

Hope this makes sense

Thats assuming the effect that grants the Warlock concealment is noticeable, being a literal cloud of smoke surrounding the character and such, which is similar to Solid Snake's method of a Carboard box. My thoughts on the Shadow Walk ability is that it blurs or makes the user's form transparent. You can see the Warlock, but you see only his outline and certain features against the background behind him. And if the Warlock moves to fast or far, unless you are Perceptive enough, you may loose track of those features you can see against the background. Thus granting Concealment due to being harder to see, but without a square of 5x5 fog,smoke, or other highly noticeable effects. Concealment is meant to make you harder to see, not make you more noticable.

If the Shadow Walk was only supposed to give the +2 Defenses against Melee and Ranged, couldn't they have just said that, rather then say Concealment? Meaning we'll have to wait for the erratata for that one.