Warlock + Shadow Walk + Stealth...

[Caliban]

Ummmmm....yes he did tear Xorn apart. How is it that they are "looking" at the same book and one got it right and one didn't. It's like an open book test, reading every 3rd word and hoping you get it right.

You agree with one and not the other. It's just barely possible that both you and redbeard are wrong though.

It is very possible, and very common, for two people to read the same section of text and get two completely different meanings from it. It sucks, and it's frustrating when it seems so clear that it works one way to you, and yet this other person seems so very certain that it works another way. They must be either be stupid or deliberately twisting the rules, right? Sometimes they are, but not as often as you think.

Most of the time there only one way that it is supposed to be read, but it's not always as obvious as you think. (Which causes all the RAW vs. RAI debates.)

Describing someone you disagree with as "being torn apart" or implying that they purposely ignore text won't help them see your point of view. It just makes them dig in their heels because they feel attacked.

I used to get really upset when people disagreed with me, and tended to be really condescending and make all kinds of witty little retorts that weren't quite enough to get me moderated.

I try not to do that anymore.

Anyway, sorry if seems like I'm singling you out. Your post just caught my eye.

 

[Innuit]

Na bro, it's all good. We can agree to disagree on matters of opinion. It irks me when people disagree with fact. How do you dispute facts, because they are infact fact. Catch my drift?

 

[the_redbeard]

Should have been in my first post.

[ame=ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ZnGprplKU]The Importance of Not Being Seen.[/ame]

Which demonstrates the value of cover for stealth.



PS to Innuit. Thanks for having my back.

 

[Caliban]

Na bro, it's all good. We can agree to disagree on matters of opinion. It irks me when people disagree with fact. How do you dispute facts, because they are infact fact. Catch my drift?

First you have to agree on what is a fact, then you have to agree on what the facts mean. What you think is a fact may be different than what another person thinks is a fact. Even if you both agree that a certain statement is a true fact, you may disagree on what that fact means in different contexts.

The 4e rules try to be clear, but people bring a lot of baggage with them when it comes to certain subjects. Stealth is one of them - it's been handled different ways in different editions, and in different RPG's that people have played over the years. So when they read the rules on stealth they tend to read them in the way that matches the way they are used to it working (if they liked the way it worked anyway), because that is what makes the most sense.

There have been several threads on Stealth already, so it seems that the facts of the matter are not completely cut and dried.

I haven't studied the 4e Stealth rules in depth, so I don't feel ready to come down on one side or the other yet. Besides, 4e doesn't feel "real" to me yet, so it's hard to get worked up about it.

 

[Innuit]

the_redbeard I always got your back. You said I win!

Anyway, the facts can be determined when you actually read all relevant material. That means not just stealth skill and the cover/concealment stuff. You have to read perception and like 10 other sections to grasp it. That's why its obvious to me and red_beard here. We've read it all. We know what is fact. Xorn might believe he knows some facts. We know that he doesn't know facts. We are merely pointing it out.

 

[Nikosandros]

the_redbeard I always got your back. You said I win!

Anyway, the facts can be determined when you actually read all relevant material. That means not just stealth skill and the cover/concealment stuff. You have to read perception and like 10 other sections to grasp it. That's why its obvious to me and red_beard here. We've read it all. We know what is fact. Xorn might believe he knows some facts. We know that he doesn't know facts. We are merely pointing it out.

I don't much care for the tone you two guys are using, but, so far, I agree with your reading of the rules.

 

[clearstream]

How have people handled Shadow Walk + Stealth for the warlock? I took skill training in stealth and figured any time I moved more than 3 sqares from where I started, I gained concealment. Therefore, I can make a stealth check to become hidden.

Many players are ignoring the rules on page 178, and assuming that the DM must grant a Stealth check.

It works like this

Cover and Concealment are pre-conditions that must be satisfied in order to qualify for a Stealth check.

Shadow Walk gives you Concealment. Being around a corner gives you Cover, even if that corner is one square away from your enemy. In no case should fluff intervene: we don't care why those things work as they do.

Having Cover or Concealment let's you try to perform an action stealthily. The DM is not required to grant that request. She can deny you a stealth check if she deems the given situation is inappropriate.

That's it. This argument is RAW base, and non-selective: it uses all the RAW, not just the parts that seem to support some views. Note that there are powers that explicitly oblige your DM to either allow a Stealth check or exercise fiat and overrule RAW. Shadow Walk is not one of those powers.

Customer Service response to this question
'Can the DM following the rules as written on PHB178 and PHB188 deny a Stealth check to a player who has Cover or Concealment?' That would be on the grounds that they deem the given situation inappropriate.'

Was

'On page 178 of the Players Handbook, the last paragraph on the left side of the page states "The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstances call for one." On Page 188 under the description of stealth, under the Cover or Concealment section it states "...You must have cover against or concealment from the creature to make a stealth check". These rules do not state that the player must be granted a stealth check. It is to the DM's discretion if they would like to allow a stealth check or not. As per page 188 the DM will also set the DC for the stealth check should one be made. I hope this information is useful.'

-vk

 

[Venthrac]

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.

 

[Scribe Ineti]

^ Right, except...Shadow Walk has no fluff text. P. 131 of the PHB provides a succinct description of how Shadow Walk works. What it looks like is irrelevant to how it works. No matter what it looks like, it's still going to provide the same effect as long as its conditions are met.

If you're able to gain concealment from Shadow Walking, then you go on to the Stealth description and go from there, with the knowledge that you're concealed thanks to Shadow Walk.

That's how I'm seeing it, anyway.

 

[Venthrac]

Or, more accurately, not seeing it!

*rimshot*