Can you move->stealth->attack>

[Contents May Vary]

By "hiding" I meant "Making a stealth check to hide". It seems a bit quicker to say that.

See for example page 183 of PHB: "Create a Diversion to Hide".

 

[Contents May Vary]

So it would be:

Move under cover with a stealth/perception check.
If successful, attack with a stealth/perception check.
If successful, they know where you are, but you had combat advantage.

That's yet another interpretation.

Some people say you can make the attack while hidden (opponent is unaware of you) and gain the benefits of combat advantage without having to make another stealth roll for the attack itself.

This is why it would be good for Wizards to provide some guidance. I'm sure they will one day.

[EDIT] I'm actually pretty sure that if the target is unaware of you, you will gain the benefit of combat advantage without making another stealth check. From the table at the top left of PHB page 280:

"The following situations give an attacker combat advantage against a defender. ... Unaware of you"

 

[Dominion]

That's yet another interpretation.

Some people say you can make the attack while hidden (opponent is unaware of you) and gain the benefits of combat advantage without having to make another stealth roll for the attack itself.

This is why it would be good for Wizards to provide some guidance. I'm sure they will one day.

[EDIT] I'm actually pretty sure that if the target is unaware of you, you will gain the benefit of combat advantage without making another stealth check. From the table at the top left of PHB page 280:

"The following situations give an attacker combat advantage against a defender. ... Unaware of you"

That's correct. If you have cover/concealment and you make a successful Stealth check, then you get combat advantage when you attack. It doesn't matter if they "know where you are". They can't see exactly where the attack is coming from and so they can't defend properly.

 

[erik_the_guy]

You could use stealth as a free action if you are behind cover, but it won't do anything. The enemy saw you walking up to the cover and knows you are there, so you don't gain stealth against him. You can't hide against someone who sees you and you won't gain combat advantage.

 

[jaelis]

That's correct. If you have cover/concealment and you make a successful Stealth check, then you get combat advantage when you attack. It doesn't matter if they "know where you are". They can't see exactly where the attack is coming from and so they can't defend properly.

If you have a way to attack that lets you stay hidden, that makes sense. But certainly for a weapon attack you would have to come out from behind your rock to actually do anything, and at that point the enemy could see you. And if you do have an attack that doesn't require you to expose yourself, then you get the advantage of being unseen without needing to worry about making a stealth check.

The point of stealth is to make it so your enemy doesn't know you're behind the rock. If you pull that off, then you get CA when you jump out and attack, because the enemy wasn't aware of you.

 

[Ziana]

Ok, so the rule is:

"You do not gain Combat Advantage" from stealth unless the target has not seen you in the square from which you are making your attack."

How does that sound?

Also, the RAW says "If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer
hidden" so it seems that you lose CA as soon as you attack...

No. If you have cover, you can make stealth attacks. All that's required is that your target can't see you prior to making your attack, and you beat their perception check.

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4313824&postcount=62
Can ranged attackers, eg. rogues and rangers, use cover (eg, walls, pillars) or concealment (eg. bushes, darkness) to make stealth attacks during combat?
"You can make a stealth attempt with any action that you do. So, if you have cover or concealment, you can attempt to hide yourself as part of your attack. If you are successful, then you are given combat advantage against your opponents who can not see you. " - Evan T. Wizard CSR

Is it part of the design intention of 4E that players are encouraged to make use of tactics that can grant Combat Advantage, and using terrain to make stealth attacks is intended and encouraged by the rules?
"This stealth system was implemented to make cover and concealment useful to players, and make the environment more interactive."

Using cover to hide and pop out and make attacks that the targets are unable to anticipate or adequately defend against is an intended use of the stealth system. Terrain is there to use.

The target may KNOW that there is a nasty rogue or ranger shooting them from behind a barricade or around a corner. But if they cannot see them until they actually make the attack, then they give Combat Advantage. They can choose to remain where they are, or attempt to move to the stealther's position to attack them.

At the START of a fight, it makes sense that a rogue can sneak up behind an unaware/distracted monster, and do a backstab. After that, all creatures are considered to have 360º vision. In melee, there's no stealthing (exceptions might be darkness/invisibility). Ranged attacks from stealth using cover/concealment are valid. Melee rogues can use flanking/bluff/effects that cause blindness/stun/daze to gain CA.

 

[Mistwell]

If you want your move to be stealthy, then you have to be in cover or concealment for the entire move and beat your opponents perception check, or your opponent has to be distracted. You would use this to avoid your opponent knowing you are there, so you can observer their behavior or set up a closer attack or bypass the area or steal an item without them noticing it or something like that.

If you want your attack to be stealthy, then you have to be in cover or concealment for the entire attack, and beat your opponents perception check. You will no longer be stealthy after the attack, but during the attack you are considered stealthed and thus gain combat advantage for the attack.

If a target knows roughly where a stealthy person went before the stealthy person attacks, that does not itself negate the stealth. To negate stealth, the target needs one of two things: 1) unblocked line of sight to the person attempting the stealth check, or 2) beat the stealth check with a perception check.

Now, knowing where a stealthy person went does mean you can attack into the stealthy person's area. And that may often result in, for example, a burst or blast attack being dropped on or near the head of the stealthy person.

 

[jaelis]

OK, so I'm still trying to understand this. Let's say you are hiding behind a rock, trying to attack a monster.

A) The monster does not know you are behind the rock. You can make a stealth check as part of your attack. If you win, you get combat advantage, if not you don't. I guess that makes sense.

B) The monster knows you are behind the rock. Then you can still make a stealth check to get CA? (So basically, any time you are benefiting from cover or concealment, you might as well make a stealth check.) I guess I can live with that, but where do you get that from the rules?

C) The monster knows you are behind the rock, but you have an attack that doesn't require line of sight. For instance, you set off a fireball with an origin beside the rock. Do you get CA for that? Do you need to make a stealth check? I don't see why a stealth check would be relevant here.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Don't forget how potent powers can be that include movement as part of the attack.

We all know that attacking makes you lose CA if you had it. But if you had CA before the attack, the attack benefits from it. So a move like Deft Strike is rather useful because as part of the attack you could move in two squares from behind cover or effective concealment, and strike them.

 

[Mistwell]

OK, so I'm still trying to understand this. Let's say you are hiding behind a rock, trying to attack a monster.

A) The monster does not know you are behind the rock. You can make a stealth check as part of your attack. If you win, you get combat advantage, if not you don't. I guess that makes sense.

Correct.

B) The monster knows you are behind the rock. Then you can still make a stealth check to get CA? (So basically, any time you are benefiting from cover or concealment, you might as well make a stealth check.) I guess I can live with that, but where do you get that from the rules?

The stealth rule in the PHB. I'll walk through it:

1) Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily. In this case, you are attempting to attack stealthily.
2) Check is opposed by target's perception check.
3) Unless target is distracted, you need cover or concealment from the target, and you have to maintain said cover or concealment to keep the stealth in place. If you move in the open, carry a light source, make an attack, or shout, you lose your stealth. In the case of making an attack, you lose the stealth after the attack, not before.
4) If you succeed, you gain combat advantage against the target.

At least, that is my understand of how it works. WOTC says they are going to try and clarify the skill, so we shall see.

So yes, if you are benefiting from cover or concealment while making an attack, it makes sense to try a stealth check. But realistically the only types of characters and creatures that will often do this are the ones trained in stealth, and/or who have powers triggered by combat advantage.

C) The monster knows you are behind the rock, but you have an attack that doesn't require line of sight. For instance, you set off a fireball with an origin beside the rock. Do you get CA for that? Do you need to make a stealth check? I don't see why a stealth check would be relevant here.

If you take an action that you want to be stealthy (in other words, benefit from combat advantage), you need to be in cover/concealment (or have your opponent distracted), make a stealth check, and beat your opponent's perception check.