Warlocks, Shadow Walk and Concealment (not Stealth)

[Malk]

Concealment is a clearly defined term in the PHB, and if you want to change what the Warlock gets after moving three squares thats fine. You have a nice house rule, but as written it does not really matter how it is described, the warlock gains concealment.

 

[Starshadow]

Concealment is a status, commonly gained from being in "obscurment". This doesn't mean this is the only was to get this status.

If you can't get a good look at your target, it has concealment from you, which means your attack rolls take a penalty against that target. You might be fighting in an area of dim light, in an area filled with smoke or mist, or among terrain features that get in the way of your vision, such as foliage.

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.

Concealment (-2 Penalty to Attack Rolls): The target is in a lightly obscured square or in a heavily obscured square but adjacent to you.

Light obscurement causes -2 penalty from far range and Heavy obscurement causes -2 penalty from Melee range. Person/Thing cannot be in both kinds of environments at once. Therefore Shadow Walk granting -2 penalty vs both ranged and melee combat via concealment does not make any sense.

Shadow walk tells us that it grants 'concealment' but it doesn't make it clear if it grants status known as 'concealment', or just concealment in more general terms, however GM might interpret it. What I am saying here is that perhaps 'all of you' have misunderstood what the book says. I am right, and _all of you_ are wrong!

 

[Gloombunny]

Starshadow... there are three levels of obscurement, and obscurement can grant concealment or total concealment depending on its level and whether or not you're adjacent to the obscured target. The thing is, Shadow Walk doesn't have anything to do with the obscurement rules. It skips over them and goes straight to concealment without passing "Go". A character in an obscured square may or may not have concealment or total concealment depending on the location of the attacker, but a warlock using Shadow Walk simply has concealment against everyone, because that's what Shadow Walk says it grants.

You really can't say that concealment is always granted by obscurement and obscurement alone, because specific rules trump general rules and the specific rule for Shadow Walk is that the warlock has concealment. So it doesn't matter what the general rules about how to gain concealment are - Shadow Walk trumps them when it's active.

 

[Zurai]

Book does not say that there are any concealments of any other kind but those granted by obscurement.

Sure it does. Shadow Walk.

 

[Insignia]

Light obscurement causes -2 penalty from far range and Heavy obscurement causes -2 penalty from Melee range.

Light obscurement gives -2 to melee AND ranged attacks (concealment). Heavy obscurement gives -2 to melee (concealment) and -5 to ranged attacks (total concealment). It's in the book. It is written so, unambiguously, in the rules for concealment in the Player's Handbook. Therefore, the warlock's concealment, rules-wise, is equivalent to light obscurement (by shadows or blur or whatever you think is appropriate) and gives a -2 penalty all around.

 

[That One Guy]

After busting out my PHB, I think SS's right. I'd say concealment stacks up such that concealment + concealment = Heavily Obscured. Heavily + concealment = Totally Obscured, thus -5 at melee and range, thus effectively invisible.

Soo written out...

Lightly Obscured/Concealment = -2 Range, -0 Melee (An adjacent square does not get obscured by Shadow walk, fog, low-light, etc.)
Heavily Obscured/Total Concealment = -5 Range, -2 Melee
Totally Obscured/Total Concealment or effectively invisible = -5 Range, -5 Melee

I don't think you can get more concealed than invisible.

Other than being on the other side of a wall.

 

[Insignia]

Lightly Obscured/Concealment = -2 Range, -0 Melee (An adjacent square does not get obscured by Shadow walk, fog, low-light, etc.)

You have concealment if you're in a lightly obscured square, regardless of distance, OR if you're heavily obscured and adjacent. You have total concealment if you're heavily obscured AND at a distance. I see no indication in the PHB that the concealment from light obscurity does not apply in melee. Where do you even get that idea?

 

[Starshadow]

You have concealment if you're in a lightly obscured square, regardless of distance, OR if you're heavily obscured and adjacent. You have total concealment if you're heavily obscured AND at a distance. I see no indication in the PHB that the concealment from light obscurity does not apply in melee. Where do you even get that idea?

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.

 

[Insignia]

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.

The emphasised part is to separate concealment from the TOTAL concealment you get from being heavily obscured and non-adjacent. "The target is in a lightly obscured square" says nothing about being adjacent or not, and should therefore apply to everyone. The referenced chapter on vision and light also say that dim light (i.e. light obscurement) gives people in the area concealment. That chapter also doesn't differentiate between adjacent and non-adjacent squares.

 

[That One Guy]

Because of the way heavily obscured and total concealment work. Being adjacent to a heavily obscured creature only gives them concealment. If concealment worked... okay, let me try putting it this way.

If concealment gives -2 at melee and range, then Total concealment (or heavy obscurement) should give a -5 at melee and range. A heavily obscured and adjacent square only offers concealment.

It is possible that the warlock's shadow walk somehow gives it concealment on steroids (that it is a feature that gets in the way of vision regardless of distance), but then why use the key word concealment? Yes, it's an exception based design, but wouldn't a +2 AC bonus make more sense (unless they specifically wanted the warlock hiding can of worms)?

I'd dig it if a WotC person would weigh in on this. Either way it's ruled I'll be happy knowing what is correct.