Warlock, Shadow Walk and Stealth

[the_redbeard]

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).

There are two different places where active perception is specified.
Once is in the perception skill, as a standard action, on page 186.
The other is in the Targeting What You Can't See rules, on page 281.

186:
If you want to use the skill actively, you need to take a standard action or
spend 1 minute listening or searching, depending on the task.
281:
Make a Perception Check: On your turn, you can make
an active Perception check as a minor action, comparing
the result to the concealed creature’s last Stealth check.

From those two apparently conflicting rules, I would say that the standard action is for a general search to reveal such things as traps and secret doors. The rule on 281 is more specific and calls out exactly finding a stealthed target.
So I would rule a minor action for an active perception check to perceive a stealthed target... Specific over-rules general. YTMV (Your Table May Vary.)
Hopefully, we'll see this clarified in the scheduled errata in September.

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.

Does the minor action perception check solve your problem?


As for Shadow Walk, page 131:
Shadow Walk
On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from
where you started your turn, you gain concealment
until the end of your next turn.

Note: there is no flavor text. We don't know if shadows appear, or if the warlock walks into the plane of shadows. All we know is that they gain concealment, one of the requisites for stealth.

Timing:
The only requirement is having moved at least 3 squares from your start. It is my opinion that anyone ruling it doesn't occur immediately on having moved 3 squares is inserting their own house rule to gimp the ability that they are afraid of.

Why Be Afraid of Shadow Walk?
Concealment is a -2 to attacks, and the ability is conditional on a distance of 3 squares from origin (not just moving back and forth, but moving 3 squares from starting square.) This is conditional and in many tight locations will not be possible, and often optimal positioning for the warlock. It is NOT a free ride.

Response: But Concealment is requisite for Stealth, this is Hide in Plain Sight
It takes a feat and investment in an otherwise dump stat for stealth to be an effective strategy for a warlock.
What can you get with one feat and some stat investment?
You could go from your basic leather proficiency to Chain mail. That's a +4 armor class difference that is not at all conditional.
So, one feat (stealth training) gains a very conditional +5 to defenses (and +2 to hit), while the other feat (chain) gains an always on +4 to defenses.
Why do people think this is so overpowered?
Don't be afraid.
This is a very flavorful ability that makes the warlock a unique striker, not just another ranged attack. Give the warlock a break, go by the RAW and deal with it.

 

[buzz]

Timing:
The only requirement is having moved at least 3 squares from your start. It is my opinion that anyone ruling it doesn't occur immediately on having moved 3 squares is inserting their own house rule to gimp the ability that they are afraid of.

I think that's unfair. In the other instances of "if-then" abilities in the books, it's clear that the trigger (the "if") part is something that has to happen, in whole, before the "then" effect takes place. The text doesn't say "once you move"; it says "if you move". The most plain reading of the phrasing is that Shadow Walk is an effect that takes place in response to taking a move, as long as that move is at least three squares in speed.

I think the interpretation that the effect essentially happens mid-move (as if the PC was walking into an area with Concealment) is a far more tenuous interpretation.

 

[clearstream]

As for Shadow Walk, page 131:
Shadow Walk
On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from
where you started your turn, you gain concealment
until the end of your next turn.

Note: there is no flavor text. We don't know if shadows appear, or if the warlock walks into the plane of shadows. All we know is that they gain concealment, one of the requisites for stealth.

Timing:
The only requirement is having moved at least 3 squares from your start. It is my opinion that anyone ruling it doesn't occur immediately on having moved 3 squares is inserting their own house rule to gimp the ability that they are afraid of.

I believe this isn't a condition triggered by moving 3 squares, but by being 3 squares away from your start square, however many it takes to move there. That is, you could move 6 squares and still not have Shadow Walk, if you circled no further than 2 from your start square.

So far as the if argument goes, Buzz argues with some justice. Were it to be intended to implement at once, when would have been more appropriate: you see when used elsewhere in the rules for that very reason.

Even so, let's say you rule it's when not if, that still leaves the question of whether you should be allowed to hide as part of an action in the expectation that cover will eventuate. I'm going to have to work up some cases for that, but until I do the safest answer would be 'no'. There are bound to be cases that have issues any other way.

So without being 100% certain, my sense is that the cover has to pre-exist the action that intends to use it.

Given that there are then a couple of unresolved doubts with using stealth as part of a move action relying on cover to eventuate from Shadow Walk, a safe ruling would be to hide with a minor after moving. Your Warlock trades a curse for CA and excellent defences this turn, receiving honest value for their investment in Stealth.

-vk

 

[buzz]

So far as the if argument goes, Buzz argues with some justice. Were it to be intended to implement at once, when would have been more appropriate: you see when used elsewhere in the rules for that very reason.

That's a very good way to put it.

So without being 100% certain, my sense is that the cover has to pre-exist the action that intends to use it.

I agree. Stealth is part of the action it's being used to hide. If that action, in whole, does not happen under conditions that allow the use of Stealth, then you can't use the skill. This seems in keeping with most of the rule set, where actions seem to happen either in sequence or in tandem, but not in the middle. Even immediate actions either happen before or after their triggers, not during.

 

[cdrcjsn]

There are two different places where active perception is specified.
Once is in the perception skill, as a standard action, on page 186.
The other is in the Targeting What You Can't See rules, on page 281.

Actually, there is a third. It is in the stealth skill, but most people don't realize it because the skill uses a game term rather than spell it outright.

First bullet point of Stealth is that it's an Opposed Roll.
Opposed Roll is a specific game term regarding skills and is defined in the starting section of the skill chapter.

Anytime you make a Stealth check, the opponent makes an active Perception roll.

 

[buzz]

First bullet point of Stealth is that it's an Opposed Roll.
Opposed Roll is a specific game term regarding skills and is defined in the starting section of the skill chapter.

Anytime you make a Stealth check, the opponent makes an active Perception roll.

This is how we were playing it, but it's a good point that the definition of Opposed Checks on p. 178 specifically states that both sides roll, which would imply that you don't use passive Perception vs. Stealth.

Unfortunately, p. 179's example of of Passive Checks specifically uses passive Perception vs. Stealth. It also flat out says "you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill."

I think that "roll" is a term unconnected to "active" or "passive." It might be better to see "roll" as synonymous with "check," which can be either. Ergo, an Opposed Check doesn't mean a passive score can't be used.

That said, since Passive Checks are based on Take 10, and you can't Take 10 in combat, I feel like my decision to not use passive Perception during combat in our game last weekend was the right call. As pointed out above, I think this also makes the active-as-Minor-in-combat Perception rule more effective, since it better allows for the possibility of beating the Stealth roll by 10 or more.

 

[cdrcjsn]

This is how we were playing it, but it's a good point that the definition of Opposed Checks on p. 178 specifically states that both sides roll, which would imply that you don't use passive Perception vs. Stealth.

Unfortunately, p. 179's example of of Passive Checks specifically uses passive Perception vs. Stealth. It also flat out says "you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill."

I think that "roll" is a term unconnected to "active" or "passive." It might be better to see "roll" as synonymous with "check," which can be either. Ergo, an Opposed Check doesn't mean a passive score can't be used.

That said, since Passive Checks are based on Take 10, and you can't Take 10 in combat, I feel like my decision to not use passive Perception during combat in our game last weekend was the right call. As pointed out above, I think this also makes the active-as-Minor-in-combat Perception rule more effective, since it better allows for the possibility of beating the Stealth roll by 10 or more.

That is an example of someone that is not expecting combat, just walking through an area so passive is okay.

The Stealth skill also states that all opponents are actively looking for danger in all directions during combat.

Subtle difference, but it's there. Basically anytime you're not in "active combat" Perception/Stealth changes slightly. You don't necessarily need cover or concealment to maintain stealth for example.

 

[spanglemaker]

I agree with the RAW about Warlocks and Shadow Walk. The flavoursome ability is that a Warlock only has to move 3 squares away from their start square- they could walk blatently towards the enemy target and become harder to hit. As they have gained concealment- the warlock has lost it's damage reduction from 3.5, but this is is thematically sound- the power of a Warlocks Patron provides some protection. Still ultimately it is down to the Dungeon Master and their players.

 

[the_redbeard]

Actually, there is a third. It is in the stealth skill, but most people don't realize it because the skill uses a game term rather than spell it outright.

First bullet point of Stealth is that it's an Opposed Roll.
Opposed Roll is a specific game term regarding skills and is defined in the starting section of the skill chapter.

Anytime you make a Stealth check, the opponent makes an active Perception roll.

You are applying the general opposed roll rule over the specific rule for the perception skill. But specific overrules general. An active perception check takes an action.
You're also taking extra time making extra rolls. Bad!

As for 3 squares, when concealment occurs, etc.:
There is no past tense in shadow walk. If you move 3 squares away.
Not: If you have moved. It says only "If you move".
Strictly RAW: if you move 3 squares you are concealed. That is for the 4th square moved or if you stopped.

Shadow Walk
On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from
where you started your turn, you gain concealment
until the end of your next turn.

As pointed out above, I think this also makes the active-as-Minor-in-combat Perception rule more effective, since it better allows for the possibility of beating the Stealth roll by 10 or more.

The Targeting What You Can't See rules apply to a number of situations where the target can't be seen. However, if perception is greater than stealth, the hidden condition is removed (specific rule for stealth) and the stealther is again only in cover/concealment (unlike nonconditional total cover/concealment and invisibility). You don't need to beat stealth by 10 if the target is only in cover/concealment and not invisible.

 

[buzz]

As for 3 squares, when concealment occurs, etc.:
There is no past tense in shadow walk. If you move 3 squares away.
Not: If you have moved. It says only "If you move".
Strictly RAW: if you move 3 squares you are concealed. That is for the 4th square moved or if you stopped.

Shadow Walk
On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from
where you started your turn, you gain concealment
until the end of your next turn.

As I point out above, I don't agree with this reading. The move is the prereq; the Shadow Walk doesn't pop into existence mid-move.

You don't need to beat stealth by 10 if the target is only in cover/concealment and not invisible.

p. 188 specifically talks about the "beat by 10" rule w/r/t to Superior Cover and Total Concealment, not invisibility. Invisibility is related, but distinct.