When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll, you can take a Reaction to reduce the damage dealt to the target by 1d10 plus your Proficiency Bonus. You must be holding a Shield or a Simple or Martial weapon to use this Reaction.
The way it was worded, I initially thought it was only to be used to intercept an attack aimed at someone else, but the player is also another creature, and they're also located within 5ft of themselves... So, RAW, they should be able to intercept an attack aimed at them, right?
In the context of yourself, you are not another creature 😄 You are you and another creature is another creature.
There is nothing to indicate this description is made in the "context of yourself". Quite the contrary.
I'm another creature in the context of the creature I can see. I'm not the subject of the sentence, "a creature I can see" is the subject, so the "another" is in regards to them, not me.
If I say "my neighbor attacked another person", I'm not necessarily implying it's not me who was attacked, just because he's "my" neighbor. In the eyes of my neighbor, I'm very much another person.
IF "another creature" was meant as "another creature than the attacker", then you could use interception except when a creature attacked themselves.
If both "another creature than the attacker" and "another creature than you" are possible readings, use the one that's not silly
Anyway, both "you" and "a creature you can see" are in scope, and there's nothing stopping it from referring to another creature than either one of them.
(I also don't think "another creature than the attacker" is a possible reading, because context matters when parsing out English.)
There is nothing to indicate this description is made in the "context of yourself".
If you are the one who has the fighting style, then another creature means not you. I really don't have anything else to add beyond that, so I'll let you make your case to everyone else. Good luck. 🍀
Given that the Protection fighting style clearly specifies "When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you", there's a case to be made that Interception is allowed to cover the user since we already saw them use more precise language in an earlier option. This is present in both the 2014 and 2024 version, which adds weight to the idea the distinction is deliberate and not a wording oversight when they added Interception in Tasha's.
There is nothing to indicate this description is made in the "context of yourself".
If you are the one who has the fighting style, then another creature means not you. I really don't have anything else to add beyond that, so I'll let you make your case to everyone else. Good luck. 🍀
Let me try to make it clearer. The feat has 2 clauses. The first clause indicates the triggering condition for the action described in the other clause. These clauses are clearly separated with a comma to indicate the change. So the clause, "When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll," (notice the included comma for grammatical clarity), is meant to describe the triggering condition. In this clause a creature you can see is clearly the subject (it's the one doing the acting) and when it hits another creature (a creature other than the subject) within a specified range (within 5ft. of you) the prerequisite for the following clause is met. You are another creature in this context because the subject of the first clause is the creature that you can see. The feat then lists the action you can take after the triggering condition. This would be the RAW interpretation of the feat. We can deduce that this is also RAI because, as the Ace of Rogues stated, when a fighting style feat has a similar function, they specifically mention that it doesn't include yourself implying that it would without that exception.
Given that the Protection fighting style clearly specifies "When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you", there's a case to be made that Interception is allowed to cover the user since we already saw them use more precise language in an earlier option. This is present in both the 2014 and 2024 version, which adds weight to the idea the distinction is deliberate and not a wording oversight when they added Interception in Tasha's.
Absolutely. When the description of a spell or a feat wants to exclude the player from an effect, it explicitly says so when it's ambiguous. And quite frankly, I even have a hard time seeing how this description is even ambiguous in the first place. Here, it says "when you creature you can see attacks another creature"... and that's it. There's no reason to assume that "another creature" is meant in a different way than "another creature than itself". Let's be honest here, if this wasn't the description of a DnD fighting style, whom "another creature" refers to wouldn't even come into question. "A creature you can see" is the subject of the sentence, so that's clearly the point of reference for "another creature".
There is nothing to indicate this description is made in the "context of yourself". Quite the contrary.
So you're arguing that this fighting style can intercept ANY attack other than the attacker striking him- or herself? I hardly think that situation comes up often enough to warrant actually spelling out in the description. I'm pretty sure they mean: You can only use this ability to intercept an attack directed at an ally. It's the body guard thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
In situations like this it's often helpful to ask oneself: if this interpretation is what the writers intended, is this how they would've written it?
If the intent was for attacks against the user to be eligible, would they have included the word "another" in there instead of just saying "attacks a creature"? Ask yourself, honestly: is that plausible?
In situations like this it's often helpful to ask oneself: if this interpretation is what the writers intended, is this how they would've written it?
If the intent was for attacks against the user to be eligible, would they have included the word "another" in there instead of just saying "attacks a creature"? Ask yourself, honestly: is that plausible?
This.
The reading that it means "a creature other than the attacker" does not fly, because creatures do not attack themselves in D&D. It does not ever happen.
While not official ruling per se, if interested Dev said before that an idiomatic reading for another creature within 5 feet of you means not you - Each person within 5 feet of me gets a cupcake
@JohaaanSwe Hello @JeremyECrawford,regarding UE Arcana, Path of the zealot, does Divine fury "each creature within 5 feet" damage the barbarian aswell?
@JeremyECrawford If I say, "Each person within 5 feet of me gets a cupcake," an idiomatic reading of that English doesn't lead to me getting a cupcake. #DnD
In situations like this it's often helpful to ask oneself: if this interpretation is what the writers intended, is this how they would've written it?
If the intent was for attacks against the user to be eligible, would they have included the word "another" in there instead of just saying "attacks a creature"? Ask yourself, honestly: is that plausible?
This.
The reading that it means "a creature other than the attacker" does not fly, because creatures do not attack themselves in D&D. It does not ever happen.
There is no rule saying creatures cannot attack themselves they just choose not to. Creatures can attack themselves and might if under the effects of the dominate spells.
These 2 fighting style feats in the 2024 ruleset allow a player to take a reaction when certain conditions are met, Protection and Interception. They both have a similar theme and purpose of providing a defensive option on a reaction.
Protection reads "When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can take a reaction to interpose your shield if you’re holding one. You impose disadvantage on the triggering attack roll and all other attack rolls against the target until the start of your next turn if you remain within 5 feet of the target."
Interception reads "When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll, you can take a Reaction to reduce the damage dealt to the target by 1d10 plus your Proficiency Bonus."
As explained before by breaking down the triggering clause underlined in Interception you are another creature in regard to the subject of the clause, a creature you can see. So, a strict reading of the words (RAW) would allow you to use it against an attack directed at you.
I would argue, due to the difference in language between Protection and Interception, that RAI Interception IS meant to include you. If they wanted Interception to work like Protection but just after the hit, they would have said "When a creature you can see hits a creature other than you within 5 feet of you with an attack roll". That isn't the wording of the feat though. Thematically it also makes sense for Interception to work on attacks against you. You are using your weapon or shield to intercept part of the attack and that would be easiest to do when the attack targets you. If there's hesitancy to rule this way for game balance it isn't even broken to allow it since it uses your reaction for a single attack and isn't significantly better than damage reduction abilities other classes get.
In situations like this it's often helpful to ask oneself: if this interpretation is what the writers intended, is this how they would've written it?
If the intent was for attacks against the user to be eligible, would they have included the word "another" in there instead of just saying "attacks a creature"? Ask yourself, honestly: is that plausible?
This.
The reading that it means "a creature other than the attacker" does not fly, because creatures do not attack themselves in D&D. It does not ever happen.
There is no rule saying creatures cannot attack themselves they just choose not to. Creatures can attack themselves and might if under the effects of the dominate spells.
That is arguable, at best, but I'm not going to parse over the rules for attacking and argue which phrasing takes precedence. * It doesn't matter.
Because this is not a credible argument. To make it, you must ignore all context and argue that they chose to explicitly prohibit the ability being used against a creature attacking itself, an activity that I can confidently assert is mentioned nowhere in the 5e rules. Except, you claim, here.
Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana
English** is not a context-free grammar. You are expected to use what is being said to resolve any ambiguities.
In this case you have
another creature (than you)
another creature (than the attacker)
another creature (than you or the attacker)
One of these does not make sense in context. It is therefore not the correct reading.
This isn't RAW vs RAI. It's RAW vs stretching the English language as hard as possible to try to get a slight advantage in a cooperative game.
Or maybe it's just to score points in internet rules discussion.
These 2 fighting style feats in the 2024 ruleset allow a player to take a reaction when certain conditions are met, Protection and Interception. They both have a similar theme and purpose of providing a defensive option on a reaction.
Protection reads "When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can take a reaction to interpose your shield if you’re holding one. You impose disadvantage on the triggering attack roll and all other attack rolls against the target until the start of your next turn if you remain within 5 feet of the target."
Interception reads "When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll, you can take a Reaction to reduce the damage dealt to the target by 1d10 plus your Proficiency Bonus."
No.
This argument assumes all differences in phrasing must create differences in meaning. This is untrue in English.
It is going to be untrue even in a rules system written with rigorous attention to phrasing. And 5e, either version, is not one of those.
(Is it possible it does? Yes. But you cannot say definitively without context.)
* But because I am the sort of rules nerd I am, Confusion is a counterargument. If you don't get it, I will not explain.
** I seriously doubt that any natural language is without ambiguity, and even the constructed ones that try almost certainly fail.
There is nothing to indicate this description is made in the "context of yourself".
If you are the one who has the fighting style, then another creature means not you. I really don't have anything else to add beyond that, so I'll let you make your case to everyone else. Good luck. 🍀
Let me try to make it clearer. The feat has 2 clauses. The first clause indicates the triggering condition for the action described in the other clause. These clauses are clearly separated with a comma to indicate the change. So the clause, "When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll," (notice the included comma for grammatical clarity), is meant to describe the triggering condition. In this clause a creature you can see is clearly the subject (it's the one doing the acting) and when it hits another creature (a creature other than the subject) within a specified range (within 5ft. of you) the prerequisite for the following clause is met. You are another creature in this context because the subject of the first clause is the creature that you can see. The feat then lists the action you can take after the triggering condition. This would be the RAW interpretation of the feat. We can deduce that this is also RAI because, as the Ace of Rogues stated, when a fighting style feat has a similar function, they specifically mention that it doesn't include yourself implying that it would without that exception.
This is just a google definition of another:
used to refer to a different person or thing from one already mentioned or known about.
That is decidedly different than "a creature other than the subject".
1. The arguments about whether a creature can attack itself are irrelevant to the discussion at hand so there's no reason to continue arguing about it.
2. There has yet to be a compelling argument other than something akin to "you're dumb" for reading of Interception any way other than the normal grammatical reading.
Let me break down the clause to explain my argument even clearer.
"When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll"
the subject of the clause is "a creature you can see", the verb is "hits", and the object is "another creature", with a prepositional phrase "within 5 feet of you" to describe where the object, "another creature", is located.
The definition of another according to the oxford dictionary is "different; a different person or thing". When choosing what "another" is in reference to English usually prioritizes the Subject or Object within that clause. Since this is used to describe the Object then the Subject makes the most sense for another to be a reference to and the Subject is "a creature you can see". *Using a noun in the prepositional phrase or adjective clause to be the reference point makes no sense and isn't commonly done in the English language.
3. My argument that there is a difference in language is an argument that there is an intent for a difference in meaning because of the difference in language. Not that a difference in language always causes a difference in meaning but that when the developers were creating these feats they didn't just copy and paste the same language and that implies a difference in the intended function. Besides this is a bad faith argument because differences in language are cited all the time to imply a difference in meaning and to say it doesn't is kind of silly.
There is nothing to indicate this description is made in the "context of yourself".
If you are the one who has the fighting style, then another creature means not you. I really don't have anything else to add beyond that, so I'll let you make your case to everyone else. Good luck. 🍀
Let me try to make it clearer. The feat has 2 clauses. The first clause indicates the triggering condition for the action described in the other clause. These clauses are clearly separated with a comma to indicate the change. So the clause, "When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll," (notice the included comma for grammatical clarity), is meant to describe the triggering condition. In this clause a creature you can see is clearly the subject (it's the one doing the acting) and when it hits another creature (a creature other than the subject) within a specified range (within 5ft. of you) the prerequisite for the following clause is met. You are another creature in this context because the subject of the first clause is the creature that you can see. The feat then lists the action you can take after the triggering condition. This would be the RAW interpretation of the feat. We can deduce that this is also RAI because, as the Ace of Rogues stated, when a fighting style feat has a similar function, they specifically mention that it doesn't include yourself implying that it would without that exception.
This is just a google definition of another:
used to refer to a different person or thing from one already mentioned or known about.
That is decidedly different than "a creature other than the subject".
Up until that point in the clause there has only been one noun outside of an adjective clause used which is the "a creature" with the "you can see" being used as adjective clause to describe the creature. Once again having another be in reference to a noun in a separate subordinate clause is not how English is typically used.
Given that the Protection fighting style clearly specifies "When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you", there's a case to be made that Interception is allowed to cover the user since we already saw them use more precise language in an earlier option. This is present in both the 2014 and 2024 version, which adds weight to the idea the distinction is deliberate and not a wording oversight when they added Interception in Tasha's.
I think it's more likely they decided that language was redundant and removed it, rather than intending the two styles to work differently in that regard -- see plague's post
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Given that the Protection fighting style clearly specifies "When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you", there's a case to be made that Interception is allowed to cover the user since we already saw them use more precise language in an earlier option. This is present in both the 2014 and 2024 version, which adds weight to the idea the distinction is deliberate and not a wording oversight when they added Interception in Tasha's.
I think it's more likely they decided that language was redundant and removed it, rather than intending the two styles to work differently in that regard -- see plague's post
Then why wasn't the language revision carried forward in '24? The case cited also represents a different RAI situation, and the glib roundabout answer really doesn't help parsing for other scenarios.
I think it's more likely they decided that language was redundant and removed it, rather than intending the two styles to work differently in that regard -- see plague's post
If it was redundant, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
I think the problem here is the context, which introduces a bias. Here's another sentence using the same syntax, but in another context:
"I got myself a new smartwatch alarm system. If somebody I can see attacks another person in my vicinity, it immediately calls the police!"
Would you even think of concluding that the alarm doesn't work if the person attacks you? No, because the context doesn't skew your point of view toward that conclusion. Just like for the fighting style, "another person" refers to the "somebody" mentioned before. The "I can see" part is only a complement for "somebody" and not a subject. In fact, if you remove it: "If somebody attacks another person in my vicinity" It becomes even clearer that "another person" includes you.
But when reading RAW, the wording matters more than the context. Especially considering that making extrapolations from the context is subject to interpretation. It's completely subjective.
The way it was worded, I initially thought it was only to be used to intercept an attack aimed at someone else, but the player is also another creature, and they're also located within 5ft of themselves...
So, RAW, they should be able to intercept an attack aimed at them, right?
In the context of yourself, you are not another creature 😄 You are you and another creature is another creature.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There is nothing to indicate this description is made in the "context of yourself". Quite the contrary.
I'm another creature in the context of the creature I can see. I'm not the subject of the sentence, "a creature I can see" is the subject, so the "another" is in regards to them, not me.
If I say "my neighbor attacked another person", I'm not necessarily implying it's not me who was attacked, just because he's "my" neighbor. In the eyes of my neighbor, I'm very much another person.
IF "another creature" was meant as "another creature than the attacker", then you could use interception except when a creature attacked themselves.
If both "another creature than the attacker" and "another creature than you" are possible readings, use the one that's not silly
Anyway, both "you" and "a creature you can see" are in scope, and there's nothing stopping it from referring to another creature than either one of them.
(I also don't think "another creature than the attacker" is a possible reading, because context matters when parsing out English.)
If you are the one who has the fighting style, then another creature means not you. I really don't have anything else to add beyond that, so I'll let you make your case to everyone else. Good luck. 🍀
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Given that the Protection fighting style clearly specifies "When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you", there's a case to be made that Interception is allowed to cover the user since we already saw them use more precise language in an earlier option. This is present in both the 2014 and 2024 version, which adds weight to the idea the distinction is deliberate and not a wording oversight when they added Interception in Tasha's.
Let me try to make it clearer. The feat has 2 clauses. The first clause indicates the triggering condition for the action described in the other clause. These clauses are clearly separated with a comma to indicate the change. So the clause, "When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll," (notice the included comma for grammatical clarity), is meant to describe the triggering condition. In this clause a creature you can see is clearly the subject (it's the one doing the acting) and when it hits another creature (a creature other than the subject) within a specified range (within 5ft. of you) the prerequisite for the following clause is met. You are another creature in this context because the subject of the first clause is the creature that you can see. The feat then lists the action you can take after the triggering condition. This would be the RAW interpretation of the feat. We can deduce that this is also RAI because, as the Ace of Rogues stated, when a fighting style feat has a similar function, they specifically mention that it doesn't include yourself implying that it would without that exception.
Absolutely. When the description of a spell or a feat wants to exclude the player from an effect, it explicitly says so when it's ambiguous.
And quite frankly, I even have a hard time seeing how this description is even ambiguous in the first place.
Here, it says "when you creature you can see attacks another creature"... and that's it.
There's no reason to assume that "another creature" is meant in a different way than "another creature than itself".
Let's be honest here, if this wasn't the description of a DnD fighting style, whom "another creature" refers to wouldn't even come into question.
"A creature you can see" is the subject of the sentence, so that's clearly the point of reference for "another creature".
So you're arguing that this fighting style can intercept ANY attack other than the attacker striking him- or herself? I hardly think that situation comes up often enough to warrant actually spelling out in the description. I'm pretty sure they mean: You can only use this ability to intercept an attack directed at an ally. It's the body guard thing.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
In situations like this it's often helpful to ask oneself: if this interpretation is what the writers intended, is this how they would've written it?
If the intent was for attacks against the user to be eligible, would they have included the word "another" in there instead of just saying "attacks a creature"? Ask yourself, honestly: is that plausible?
pronouns: he/she/they
This.
The reading that it means "a creature other than the attacker" does not fly, because creatures do not attack themselves in D&D. It does not ever happen.
While not official ruling per se, if interested Dev said before that an idiomatic reading for another creature within 5 feet of you means not you - Each person within 5 feet of me gets a cupcake
There is no rule saying creatures cannot attack themselves they just choose not to. Creatures can attack themselves and might if under the effects of the dominate spells.
These 2 fighting style feats in the 2024 ruleset allow a player to take a reaction when certain conditions are met, Protection and Interception. They both have a similar theme and purpose of providing a defensive option on a reaction.
Protection reads "When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can take a reaction to interpose your shield if you’re holding one. You impose disadvantage on the triggering attack roll and all other attack rolls against the target until the start of your next turn if you remain within 5 feet of the target."
Interception reads "When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll, you can take a Reaction to reduce the damage dealt to the target by 1d10 plus your Proficiency Bonus."
As explained before by breaking down the triggering clause underlined in Interception you are another creature in regard to the subject of the clause, a creature you can see. So, a strict reading of the words (RAW) would allow you to use it against an attack directed at you.
I would argue, due to the difference in language between Protection and Interception, that RAI Interception IS meant to include you. If they wanted Interception to work like Protection but just after the hit, they would have said "When a creature you can see hits a creature other than you within 5 feet of you with an attack roll". That isn't the wording of the feat though. Thematically it also makes sense for Interception to work on attacks against you. You are using your weapon or shield to intercept part of the attack and that would be easiest to do when the attack targets you. If there's hesitancy to rule this way for game balance it isn't even broken to allow it since it uses your reaction for a single attack and isn't significantly better than damage reduction abilities other classes get.
Edited for grammar
That is arguable, at best, but I'm not going to parse over the rules for attacking and argue which phrasing takes precedence. * It doesn't matter.
Because this is not a credible argument. To make it, you must ignore all context and argue that they chose to explicitly prohibit the ability being used against a creature attacking itself, an activity that I can confidently assert is mentioned nowhere in the 5e rules. Except, you claim, here.
English** is not a context-free grammar. You are expected to use what is being said to resolve any ambiguities.
In this case you have
One of these does not make sense in context. It is therefore not the correct reading.
This isn't RAW vs RAI. It's RAW vs stretching the English language as hard as possible to try to get a slight advantage in a cooperative game.
Or maybe it's just to score points in internet rules discussion.
No.
This argument assumes all differences in phrasing must create differences in meaning. This is untrue in English.
It is going to be untrue even in a rules system written with rigorous attention to phrasing. And 5e, either version, is not one of those.
(Is it possible it does? Yes. But you cannot say definitively without context.)
* But because I am the sort of rules nerd I am, Confusion is a counterargument. If you don't get it, I will not explain.
** I seriously doubt that any natural language is without ambiguity, and even the constructed ones that try almost certainly fail.
This is just a google definition of another:
That is decidedly different than "a creature other than the subject".
1. The arguments about whether a creature can attack itself are irrelevant to the discussion at hand so there's no reason to continue arguing about it.
2. There has yet to be a compelling argument other than something akin to "you're dumb" for reading of Interception any way other than the normal grammatical reading.
Let me break down the clause to explain my argument even clearer.
"When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll"
the subject of the clause is "a creature you can see", the verb is "hits", and the object is "another creature", with a prepositional phrase "within 5 feet of you" to describe where the object, "another creature", is located.
The definition of another according to the oxford dictionary is "different; a different person or thing". When choosing what "another" is in reference to English usually prioritizes the Subject or Object within that clause. Since this is used to describe the Object then the Subject makes the most sense for another to be a reference to and the Subject is "a creature you can see". *Using a noun in the prepositional phrase or adjective clause to be the reference point makes no sense and isn't commonly done in the English language.
3. My argument that there is a difference in language is an argument that there is an intent for a difference in meaning because of the difference in language. Not that a difference in language always causes a difference in meaning but that when the developers were creating these feats they didn't just copy and paste the same language and that implies a difference in the intended function. Besides this is a bad faith argument because differences in language are cited all the time to imply a difference in meaning and to say it doesn't is kind of silly.
*Edited for clarity
Up until that point in the clause there has only been one noun outside of an adjective clause used which is the "a creature" with the "you can see" being used as adjective clause to describe the creature. Once again having another be in reference to a noun in a separate subordinate clause is not how English is typically used.
I think it's more likely they decided that language was redundant and removed it, rather than intending the two styles to work differently in that regard -- see plague's post
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Then why wasn't the language revision carried forward in '24? The case cited also represents a different RAI situation, and the glib roundabout answer really doesn't help parsing for other scenarios.
If it was redundant, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
I think the problem here is the context, which introduces a bias.
Here's another sentence using the same syntax, but in another context:
"I got myself a new smartwatch alarm system. If somebody I can see attacks another person in my vicinity, it immediately calls the police!"
Would you even think of concluding that the alarm doesn't work if the person attacks you?
No, because the context doesn't skew your point of view toward that conclusion.
Just like for the fighting style, "another person" refers to the "somebody" mentioned before. The "I can see" part is only a complement for "somebody" and not a subject. In fact, if you remove it:
"If somebody attacks another person in my vicinity"
It becomes even clearer that "another person" includes you.
But when reading RAW, the wording matters more than the context.
Especially considering that making extrapolations from the context is subject to interpretation. It's completely subjective.