Warlocks, Shadow Walk and Concealment (not Stealth)

[Starshadow]

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.)

Shadow Walk is defined as: "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." The question is: How much does Shadow Walk conceal the warlock if there are no other vision obscuring factors present?

Concealment is defined as obscured vision; be it due to dim lights, smoke, mist, foliage or other factors. There are two different levels of concealment: "concealment" (We call this level of concealment "partial concealment" in our group, so we won't mix the two "concealments" with each other) and "total concealment". The "partial concealment" is defined as "The target is in a lightly obscured square or in a heavily obscured square but adjacent to you."

There are three levels of obscurement: Light, Heavy and Total. Also there are situations with "no obscurement".

I answered that question this way: Shadow Walk grants you one extra level of obscurement. If there are no other obscuring factors present, it grants you light obscurement worth of concealment; ie: -2 to ranged attacks, -0 to melee attacks.

I have seen people here say (or at least I have understood it that way) that Shadow Walk grants concealment worth -2 penalty to both Ranged and Melee attacks. This doesn't make any sense to me; it would mean that the warlock is in heavier obscurement from melee range and at the same time in lighter obscurement from ranged attacks. What do you think?

ie: imo Shadow Walk should be defined as: "On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain one level of obscurement until the end of your next turn."

 

[VannATLC]

Think of it like a blurred shadowy outline, generated simply by the arcane powers of the warlock themself.

Like the oldschool Blur spell, I guess.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Whahaaar?

Why are you confusing the issue? Obscurement is one way of gaining concealment, shadow walk is another. Just apply the penalty to hit/capacity to hide and stop trying to figure out the exact physics of magic.

 

[Tuft]

I think of it as a SEP field (http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEP_field).

 

[Starshadow]

Think of it like a blurred shadowy outline, generated simply by the arcane powers of the warlock themself.

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.

Why are you confusing the issue? Obscurement is one way of gaining concealment, shadow walk is another. Just apply the penalty to hit/capacity to hide and stop trying to figure out the exact physics of magic.

I am "confusing" the issue because current non-confusing situation does not make sense.

If your target is concealed, it means you cannot see him properly. There aren't any other kinds of concealment, only the kind that makes target harder to see. Therefore Shadow Walk does not grant another way of concealment. It grants the same concealment as other kinds of concealments. If you don't think so, please answer the following questions:

1) If Shadow Walk is ment to grant you a 2 pt penalty to all attacks aimed at you, why doesn't it say so in the power description and why go use the confusing 'concealment' term?

2) What if there is other concealment present? For example the warlock is Shadow Walking in gloomy moonless starlit night, under leaf canopy of trees (read "Heavy Obscurement"), how difficult would it be to hit that warlock in melee? How about from range? How much Concealment is Heavy Obscurement + Shadow Walk "concealment"?

3) What about the warlock Shadow Walking in total darkness (read "Total Obscurement")? How much is Total + Some More? How difficult is it to hit the warlock in melee? And from range?

I think of it as a SEP field

Heh, somebody elses problem field. Haven't seen that one in a while. Unfortunately that is a little too funny for our game. We don't play comedy/parody type of D&D. Also with that explanation it should provide no protection of any kind against mindless things like automatons, golems and other constructs, which normal concealment should provide.

 

[Tuft]

Whahaaar?

Why are you confusing the issue? Obscurement is one way of gaining concealment, shadow walk is another. Just apply the penalty to hit/capacity to hide and stop trying to figure out the exact physics of magic.

Well, according to the PH, the exact manifestation of each power is up to the player, so the obscurement may come from a blur, from being halfway on the way over to the feywild, from being in a deep shadow from an unnatural source, from being in a whirlwind of pink rose petals, from a SEP field, from being wrapped in a unnatural color out of space, from being semi-transparent, from appearing smaller than you really are, from a beauty that makes you hesitate, etc etc, all depending on the player's desire.

 

[webrunner]

It says "you gain concealment" which means "-2 penalty to attack rolls".

There are two kinds of concealment: Concealment, and total concealment. There is no difference between the two in terms of melee/ranged - the melee and ranged distinction is for obscurement and not concealment. Shadow Walk does not grant obscurement of any kind, it grants concealment automatically without dealing with Obscurement.

Remember, specific beats general, it doesn't matter that being obscured grants you concealment normally, Shadow Walk also grants concealment without being obscured.

If you're already concealed, or totally concealed, Shadow Walk has no benefit, since adding concealments has no rule justification.

 

[senorcoo]

Once again, people trying to apply real-world physics to the game. Just apply the penalty and don't try to over-think it.

 

[Wepwawet]

Actually a blur effect makes perfect sense.

When you are blurred, a melee attacker will find you hard to hit. He will have trouble seeing your exact outline, or where you're standing in that moment.
On the other hand, a ranged attacker will see perfectly on which square you are. This blur doesn't expand to an area larger than your square. But still he will have a hard time figuring where in the square you are exactly.

At least that's how I always saw Shadow Walk

 

[small pumpkin man]

Well, according to the PH, the exact manifestation of each power is up to the player, so the obscurement may come from a blur, from being halfway on the way over to the feywild, from being in a deep shadow from an unnatural source, from being in a whirlwind of pink rose petals, etc...

Absoluty, I aggree, but that's the opposite of what Starshadow is doing. That's taking the mechanics and deciding what the fluff is. Starshadow is going "what's really going on here?", to which the answer is "whatever you want".

I am "confusing" the issue because current non-confusing situation does not make sense.

Do I need to quote Hong's second law at you?

If your target is concealed, it means you cannot see him properly. There aren't any other kinds of concealment, only the kind that makes target harder to see. Therefore Shadow Walk does not grant another way of concealment. It grants the same concealment as other kinds of concealments. If you don't think so, please answer the following questions:

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

1) If Shadow Walk is ment to grant you a 2 pt penalty to all attacks aimed at you, why doesn't it say so in the power description and why go use the confusing 'concealment' term?

So that it doesn't stack with natural darkness? So that they can attempt to hide? because it's more flavourful?

2) What if there is other concealment present? For example the warlock is Shadow Walking in gloomy moonless starlit night, under leaf canopy of trees (read "Heavy Obscurement"), how difficult would it be to hit that warlock in melee? How about from range? How much Concealment is Heavy Obscurement + Shadow Walk "concealment"?

It doesn't grant "obscurement" stop thinking about it like that, it grants concealment, if you allready have concealment, or you have full concealment (or whatever it's called) you gain no benefit.

3) What about the warlock Shadow Walking in total darkness (read "Total Obscurement")? How much is Total + Some More? How difficult is it to hit the warlock in melee? And from range?

It's like combat advantage, once someone has it, you can't get it anymore.

Heh, somebody elses problem field. Haven't seen that one in a while. Unfortunately that is a little too funny for our game. We don't play comedy/parody type of D&D. Also with that explanation it should provide no protection of any kind against mindless things like automatons, golems and other constructs, which normal concealment should provide.

Uh, while the actual Hitchhiker's referance is silly, the idea of magic which makes it harder for people to notice you by making you "not important", or simply by making it difficult for people to look at you as opposed to actual invisibility is common, even in relatively gritty fare (It shows up in the Black Company books, and if they're a comedy, it's fairly black). The "mindless" thing also doesn't really work in a game where you can sleep Oozes and skeletons.

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.

It's also needlessly complicated. Not to mention you're being untruthful, the defender is not easier to see at further away, they're merely not harder.

You know what, let me stop beating around the bush.

It works exactly like Blur

Nobody had a problem with Blur, stop having a problem with Shadow Walk. Do you really need a bit in the 4e PHB saying "sometimes spells or effects grant concealment regardless of whether they're is obscured" like there was in the 3.x one? Is it really that difficult to figure out?