Warlocks, Shadow Walk and Concealment (not Stealth)

[Starshadow]

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.

Well, I grant you that the definition does not explicitly say that only non-adjacent things in light obscurement are concealed. However since it does say that adjacent targets in heavy obscurement get concealed, that is enough in my book to mean that the other option is only for non-adjacent targets. Otherwise heavy obscuration would not need to be listed at all under concealment definition. The same is true for Total Concealment.

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.

Well, I for one would like to see WotC's answer as well, just that I could say to you all 'I was right! See!'

WotC people, if you happen to read this, please fix the mess with Stealth while you are at it. These things are related after all.

 

[WOLead]

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.

Bwah? Where are you getting those statements from? Obscurement is an outside source that blocks a PC's or NPC's view, such as fog, rain, ect. The only spell I can think of that makes obscurement is Sudden Storm. Obscurement causes Concealment, Concealment does not cause Obscurement.

Concealment = Hard to see: -2 Range and -2 Melee.
Total Concealment = Unable to be seen: -5 Range and -5 Melee.

For Obscurement:
Target is in a lightly obscured square and you are attacking with melee or ranged:
Attacking the target in a non-adjacent square = Target has Concealment
Attacking the target in an adjacent square = Target has Concealment

Target is in a heavily obscured square and you are attacking with melee or ranged:
Attacking the target in a non-adjacent square = Target has Total Concealment
Attacking the target in an adjacent square = Target has Concealment

Target is in a totally obscured square and you are attacking with melee or ranged:
Attacking the target in a non-adjacent square = Target has Total Concealment
Attacking the target in an adjacent square = Target has Total Concealment

If the DM wants to, he add obscurement on the battlefield together for a higher level of obscurement. Say a square has both rain and dim light. Dim Light grants the square lightly obscured status, and rain grants the square lightly obscured status also. Just bump that square up to Heavily Obscured and take it from there. If the square is in Dim Light and Heavy Fog, the DM can bump it up to Total Obscurement if he or she wishes.

For Concealment + Concealment, I would say to take the best concealment and ignore the rest. So a Warlock activates his Shadow Walk, but he is also in a Totally Obscured square, has Total Concealment. A Warlock activates his Shadow Walk, but is also in a Lightly Obscured square, has Concealment because the Concealment from Shadow Walk and the Concealment from being in a Lightly Obscured square would not render the target Totally Concealed.

For Concealment + Cover, I would say to add their penalties together. Cover is a part of Line of Effect, while Concealment deals with Line of Sight. Just remember that being partially/mostly behind a low wall or a corner for Cover, does not grant Concealment. Partially meaning they can still attack a target back without moving.

 

[Insignia]

However since it does say that adjacent targets in heavy obscurement get concealed, that is enough in my book to mean that the other option is only for non-adjacent targets. Heavy obscuration would not need to be listed at all under concealment definition.

Like I said, "heavily obscured + adjacent = concealment" is there to specify that adjacent targets don't get total concealment even if they're heavily obscured. The fact that "lightly obscured = concealment" is stated at least twice with no mention of distance makes it even clearer. They had quite enough opportunity to add "unless the target is adjacent" if they'd wanted to.