Then why wasn't the language revision carried forward in '24?
I stand corrected, I thought they had
Protection '14
When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you
Interception Tasha's
When a creature you can see hits a target, other than you, within 5 feet of you with an attack
Protection '24
When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you
Interception '24
When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
So what I'm gathering from this discussion is that Rules as Written the Interception fighting style feat can be used when attacks are directed at you because you are another creature in reference to the subject of the clause and there is nothing that indicates that you should use a different reference point for another. No one has refuted the grammatical argument that, in a strict reading of English, another creature could be the player in this sentence with anything other than a RAI argument.
The main question then is whether using Interception on attacks that hit you is Rules as Intended. I think there's compelling evidence that it is intended to work on attacks targeting you. As AntonSirius points out only interception has the language change from Tasha's to 2024 when Interception and Protection used the same language in Tasha's. This implies an intentional shift in functionality since they didn't just copy the language like they did with protection.
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.
So you agree it is vague and up to interpretation? (emphasis mine)
What my synopsis said was RAW you can use interception on attacks made against you but that there is dispute about whether that is RAI. No one has argued that the grammatical reading of the feat says otherwise just that it is not the intention. I think there's a strong case for it to be RAI as outline previously and up to this point no one has given an argument to refute the RAI argument.
What my synopsis said was RAW you can use interception on attacks made against you but that there is dispute about whether that is RAI. No one has argued that the grammatical reading of the feat says otherwise just that it is not the intention. I think there's a strong case for it to be RAI as outline previously and up to this point no one has given an argument to refute the RAI argument.
Edited for clarity
There are three perfectly grammatical interpretations of the key sentence, of which your interpretation is only one:
- "When a creature you can see hits another creature" is the main section and 'another' means not the creature doing the hitting.
- "hits another creature within 5 feet of you" is the main section and 'another' means other than you.
- or the 'another' is meant to connect to both clauses and means a creature neither you nor the attacker.
To declare any one of these three equally grammatically valid interpretations to be the universal RAW truth is not possible without further clarifying evidence.
I for one, would consider the third interpretation as the most likely to be intended.
When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you
Interception Tasha's
When a creature you can see hits a target, other than you, within 5 feet of you with an attack
Protection '24
When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you
Interception '24
When a creature you can see hits another creature within 5 feet of you with an attack roll
This should dismiss any misunderstanding regarding the context and intent of this description. They purposefully removed "other than you" in Interception 2024, and not in Protection 2024, making it very clear that the intent was to no longer exclude the player from the effect of this fighting style.
Ignoring this fact is just bad faith at this point.
This should dismiss any misunderstanding regarding the context and intent of this description. They purposefully removed "other than you" in Interception 2024, and not in Protection 2024, making it very clear that the intent was to no longer exclude the player from the effect of this fighting style.
JC's post about cupcakes makes it very clear that RAI, Interception cannot be used on yourself -- regardless of how they chose to phrase it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
Remember that "another" is in context of the attacking creature and you.
That's not true. "Another" is in context of the attacking creature that you can see. And that's a big difference.
Correct. "the attacking creature you can see". Whether or not that is significant is the matter of debate, but "you" is mentioned in the text.
The common practice for English is for another to be in reference to a noun that is used as a subject or object earlier in the current clause or used in a previous clause. Taking a reference point of a prepositional or adjective phrase is the norm for English. So within the context of the sentence and norms of English it makes more sense to use the attacking creature as a reference.
Also within the context of how the feat has changed from Tasha's to 2024 and that protection didn't change, it makes more sense to follow the norms of English and use the attacking creature as a reference.
*If the developers thought that the inclusion of "other than you" was unnecessary and could be replaced with another why didn't they do it to protection too?
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.
They are extremely relevant. Your interpretation of the ability says that the only attack it can't be used against is a creature attacking itself. If that's not a thing, then your interpretation cannot be correct.
And even if it is a permissible thing, the fact that it is not mentioned in the anywhere else in the rules at all makes your reading highly improbable. Why single it out for this one ability?
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.
There are two nouns explicitly in scope here. Either is possible. As is both. Your assertion of how "another" works is hedged with "usually", so isn't even an absolute rule.
More importantly, "you, the person with this ability" is an extremely relevant noun here. It is in scope even if it's not mentioned at all. The sentence is about you and what you do when an opponent makes an attack.
It is trivial to construct ability descriptions on the lines of "when X happens to another creature, do Y" where there is no third creature in scope. It's probably easy to find actual ones. In all those cases, "another" refers to somebody who is not the being with the ability. Adding a third creature does not suddenly rule out that interpretation.
I would even argue that an ability structured like "when another creature takes damage from an opponent, do X" would allow you to do X to a creature that fireballed you and themselves, and nobody else.
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.
They are extremely relevant. Your interpretation of the ability says that the only attack it can't be used against is a creature attacking itself. If that's not a thing, then your interpretation cannot be correct.
And even if it is a permissible thing, the fact that it is not mentioned in the anywhere else in the rules at all makes your reading highly improbable. Why single it out for this one ability?
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.
There are two nouns explicitly in scope here. Either is possible. As is both. Your assertion of how "another" works is hedged with "usually", so isn't even an absolute rule.
More importantly, "you, the person with this ability" is an extremely relevant noun here. It is in scope even if it's not mentioned at all. The sentence is about you and what you do when an opponent makes an attack.
It is trivial to construct ability descriptions on the lines of "when X happens to another creature, do Y" where there is no third creature in scope. It's probably easy to find actual ones. In all those cases, "another" refers to somebody who is not the being with the ability. Adding a third creature does not suddenly rule out that interpretation.
I would even argue that an ability structured like "when another creature takes damage from an opponent, do X" would allow you to do X to a creature that fireballed you and themselves, and nobody else.
First interception cannot be used on any attack. There is a range and reaction limit to it. To try and read more into a feat to impose another limit when the norms of English would not impose said limit is nonsensical.
Also show me where in the attack action or target rules that it says you can't attack yourself. You can attack anything as long as you're in range. It's silly to try to impose a limitation that doesn't exist in the game and claim that since this limitation exist the feat can't be used in a way that follows the norms of English.
The second argument ignores my argument about the norms of English. If you don't agree with my assertion about the norms of English please give me some examples and refute it.
The argument where the wording of the feat was changed in an attempt to generalize it is a straw man. Rewriting the words of the feat to do something different and arguing that, because of this rewrite, the correct reading is X makes no sense.
First interception cannot be used on any attack. There is a range and reaction limit to it. To try and read more into a feat to impose another limit when the norms of English would not impose said limit is nonsensical.
None of those restrictions are relevant to the discussion at hand.
Also show me where in the attack action or target rules that it says you can't attack yourself. You can attack anything as long as you're in range.
Show me where it says you can. Show me where the possibility is mentioned at all in the rules.
Except, according to you, this one fighting style, where they specifically phrased it so that it could be used against any opponent's attack in range, except that opponent attacking itself.
The second argument ignores my argument about the norms of English. If you don't agree with my assertion about the norms of English please give me some examples and refute it.
I mean, I already gave you the counter argument, which is that "you, the person with the ability" is inherently in-scope.
More importantly, the "norms of English", inasmuch as they actually exist, require that one uses the context of a sentence to resolve ambiguities. The relevant context includes:
This is a description of how an ability of a character works
Creatures attacking themselves is, at the minimum, a highly unusual occurrence in D&D
So, when the question arises "does this mean 'another creature than the attacker' or 'another creature than the one with the ability'?" you have additional information beyond the sentence diagram.
Correct. "the attacking creature you can see". Whether or not that is significant is the matter of debate, but "you" is mentioned in the text.
The fact that "you" is mentioned in the text doesn't make it the reference of the context. What if it was "a creature that spent its last weekend at a resort where the barman knew someone who bought a dagger from you 3 weeks ago"? "You" is also mentioned in the text, doesn't make it any relevant to the situation described... The only thing that "you" is used for in this description is to define who the triggering creature can be, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Any other extrapolation is completely unjustified.
I mean, I already gave you the counter argument, which is that "you, the person with the ability" is inherently in-scope.
More importantly, the "norms of English", inasmuch as they actually exist, require that one uses the context of a sentence to resolve ambiguities. The relevant context includes:
This is a description of how an ability of a character works
Creatures attacking themselves is, at the minimum, a highly unusual occurrence in D&D
So, when the question arises "does this mean 'another creature than the attacker' or 'another creature than the one with the ability'?" you have additional information beyond the sentence diagram.
"is inherently in-scope"? Says who? Simply asserting that you are right does not constitute an argument... And while it is true that one should use context to resolve ambiguities, first, there is no ambiguity here as the meaning of the sentence can be extracted from grammatical and syntactic rules alone, and second, there is absolutely nothing that even remotely suggests that "another creature" could possibly be interpreted as "another creature than the one with the ability", because the fighting style is not described from the point of view of "the one with the ability". Maybe you feel that it would make sense that it is, but it's not.
Again, the fact that the word "you" is mentioned somewhere in the text is not nearly enough. The context must also make it the main subject, and it doesn't. You said it yourself: context is important. Well in this one, the description explicitly uses the attacking creature as the subject. That's the context.
First interception cannot be used on any attack. There is a range and reaction limit to it. To try and read more into a feat to impose another limit when the norms of English would not impose said limit is nonsensical.
None of those restrictions are relevant to the discussion at hand.
The point of this argument is that trying to apply a limitation to a feat that doesn't exist in the wording of the feat doesn't make sense. The feat already has these limitations and adding another is unnecessarily nerfing a feat that has pretty severe limitations and isn't commonly used already.
Also show me where in the attack action or target rules that it says you can't attack yourself. You can attack anything as long as you're in range.
Show me where it says you can. Show me where the possibility is mentioned at all in the rules.
Except, according to you, this one fighting style, where they specifically phrased it so that it could be used against any opponent's attack in range, except that opponent attacking itself.
If you want to continue this argument that has little bearing on the discussion, then the attack action says "When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an unarmed strike" it does not specify what you can attack in the rules glossary so we have to go to target to get a better understanding which reads "A target is the creature or object targeted by an attackroll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon." So, unless there is a rule saying that a creature can't target themselves with an attack the character or creature making the attack is a viable target if in range because it is a creature.
*edit* for further clarity, in the combat section of the PHB when it describes making an attack it says "1: Choose a Target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."
The second argument ignores my argument about the norms of English. If you don't agree with my assertion about the norms of English please give me some examples and refute it.
I mean, I already gave you the counter argument, which is that "you, the person with the ability" is inherently in-scope.
More importantly, the "norms of English", inasmuch as they actually exist, require that one uses the context of a sentence to resolve ambiguities. The relevant context includes:
This is a description of how an ability of a character works
Creatures attacking themselves is, at the minimum, a highly unusual occurrence in D&D
So, when the question arises "does this mean 'another creature than the attacker' or 'another creature than the one with the ability'?" you have additional information beyond the sentence diagram.
If we take the assertion that you should use the context to resolve any ambiguity, then this argument doesn't really counter my argument because it selectively ignores some of the context and asserts that context that is less direct is more important than the wording of the feat, common use of English, and the apparent intent of the developers. This is some of the context that is ignored.
When another can refer to a few things it usually references a subject or object over a noun in a subordinate or adjective clause (context of how English is typically used)
Any time another is used in the PHB in an ability it is used in reference to the subject or object, not a noun serving another function in a sentence. All the spellcasting features say something like this "If another Paladin feature gives you spells that you always have prepared,". Is another in reference to Paladin (serving as an adjective to describe the type of feature) or feature (subject)? The reading that it is in reference to paladin is the same grammatical application of "another" that you propose which obviously makes no sense.
The developers deliberately changed the wording of the feat from Tasha's to 2024 to exclude the phrase "other than you" when it was left in a similar feat protection
*edit* for further clarity, in the combat section of the PHB when it describes making an attack it says "1: Choose a Target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."
As a DM, would you have someone roll at disadvantage if they tried to shoot themselves with a bow?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
"another" is found in different features, "you" it's not explicitly stated, and I'd say the intent is to affect other creatures, not you:
Life-Giving Force. At the start of each of your turns while your Rage is active, you can choose another creature within 10 feet of yourself to gain Temporary Hit Points.
Divine Spark. As a Magic action, you point your Holy Symbol at another creature you can see within 30 feet of yourself and focus divine energy at it.
Level 6: Bend Luck: Immediately after another creature you can see rolls the d20 for a D20 Test, you can take a Reaction and spend 1 Sorcery Point to roll 1d4 and apply the number rolled as a bonus or penalty (your choice) to the d20 roll.
"you" or "yourself" is explicitly stated in the text when that's the intent:
Potent Spellcasting. When you cast a Cleric cantrip and deal damage to a creature with it, you can give vitality to yourself or another creature within 60 feet of yourself, granting a number of Temporary Hit Points equal to twice your Wisdom modifier [...]
Chalice. A constellation of a life-giving goblet appears on you. Whenever you cast a spell using a spell slot that restores Hit Points to a creature, you or another creature within 30 feet of you can regain Hit Points equal to 1d8 plus your Wisdom modifier.
Protective Field. When you or another creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage, you can take a Reaction to expend one Psionic Energy Die [...]
Level 15: Glorious Defense: You can turn defense into a sudden strike. When you or another creature you can see within 10 feet of you is hit by an attack roll, you can take a Reaction to grant a bonus to the target’s AC against that attack, potentially causing it to miss.
Level 6: Bastion of Law: [...] As a Magic action, you can expend 1 to 5 Sorcery Points to create a magical ward around yourself or another creature you can see within 30 feet of yourself. [...]
*edit* for further clarity, in the combat section of the PHB when it describes making an attack it says "1: Choose a Target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."
As a DM, would you have someone roll at disadvantage if they tried to shoot themselves with a bow?
If they're within 5 feet of an enemy that can see them and isn't incapacitated.
*edit* for further clarity, in the combat section of the PHB when it describes making an attack it says "1: Choose a Target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."
As a DM, would you have someone roll at disadvantage if they tried to shoot themselves with a bow?
If they're within 5 feet of an enemy that can see them and isn't incapacitated.
If they're shooting themselves, clearly they see themselves as an enemy
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
"another" is found in different features, "you" it's not explicitly stated, and I'd say the intent is to affect other creatures, not you:
Life-Giving Force. At the start of each of your turns while your Rage is active, you can choose another creature within 10 feet of yourself to gain Temporary Hit Points.
Divine Spark. As a Magic action, you point your Holy Symbol at another creature you can see within 30 feet of yourself and focus divine energy at it.
Level 6: Bend Luck: Immediately after another creature you can see rolls the d20 for a D20 Test, you can take a Reaction and spend 1 Sorcery Point to roll 1d4 and apply the number rolled as a bonus or penalty (your choice) to the d20 roll.
"you" or "yourself" is explicitly stated in the text when that's the intent:
Potent Spellcasting. When you cast a Cleric cantrip and deal damage to a creature with it, you can give vitality to yourself or another creature within 60 feet of yourself, granting a number of Temporary Hit Points equal to twice your Wisdom modifier [...]
Chalice. A constellation of a life-giving goblet appears on you. Whenever you cast a spell using a spell slot that restores Hit Points to a creature, you or another creature within 30 feet of you can regain Hit Points equal to 1d8 plus your Wisdom modifier.
Protective Field. When you or another creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage, you can take a Reaction to expend one Psionic Energy Die [...]
Level 15: Glorious Defense: You can turn defense into a sudden strike. When you or another creature you can see within 10 feet of you is hit by an attack roll, you can take a Reaction to grant a bonus to the target’s AC against that attack, potentially causing it to miss.
Level 6: Bastion of Law: [...] As a Magic action, you can expend 1 to 5 Sorcery Points to create a magical ward around yourself or another creature you can see within 30 feet of yourself. [...]
I'd like to push back on this a bit. In the examples that you listed where another is used and excludes the character there is no ambiguity in whether another creature includes you or not because you are the subject of the clause or previous sentence and the only viable reference for another creature, which by the definition of another excludes you. As far as I can tell this feat is one of if not the only feature that uses another creature where "you" is not the subject of the clause or previous sentence and "a creature" is instead. This leads to "another", with common English usage, prioritizing "a creature" as the subject over "you" as a noun in the adjective phrase "you can see" or the prepositional phrase "within 5 feet of you".
RAI there is some ambiguity introduced due to the change in verbiage from Tasha's to 2024 and a feat that performs a similar function and had the same Tasha's verbiage retaining the verbiage. The saying goes "If it ain't broke don't fix it" so why did they change it when they didn't change a similar feat if the intent was to leave it the same.
RAW it can be used for an attack targeting you. No argument so far has refuted the argument that another creature can refer to you just that it isn't intended to refer to you.
*edit* for further clarity, in the combat section of the PHB when it describes making an attack it says "1: Choose a Target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."
As a DM, would you have someone roll at disadvantage if they tried to shoot themselves with a bow?
If they're within 5 feet of an enemy that can see them and isn't incapacitated.
If they're shooting themselves, clearly they see themselves as an enemy
Can you be your own enemy in D&D? Also how does this have any relevance to the wording of Interception?
I stand corrected, I thought they had
Protection '14
Interception Tasha's
Protection '24
Interception '24
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)
So what I'm gathering from this discussion is that Rules as Written the Interception fighting style feat can be used when attacks are directed at you because you are another creature in reference to the subject of the clause and there is nothing that indicates that you should use a different reference point for another. No one has refuted the grammatical argument that, in a strict reading of English, another creature could be the player in this sentence with anything other than a RAI argument.
The main question then is whether using Interception on attacks that hit you is Rules as Intended. I think there's compelling evidence that it is intended to work on attacks targeting you. As AntonSirius points out only interception has the language change from Tasha's to 2024 when Interception and Protection used the same language in Tasha's. This implies an intentional shift in functionality since they didn't just copy the language like they did with protection.
So you agree it is vague and up to interpretation? (emphasis mine)
What my synopsis said was RAW you can use interception on attacks made against you but that there is dispute about whether that is RAI. No one has argued that the grammatical reading of the feat says otherwise just that it is not the intention. I think there's a strong case for it to be RAI as outline previously and up to this point no one has given an argument to refute the RAI argument.
Edited for clarity
There are three perfectly grammatical interpretations of the key sentence, of which your interpretation is only one:
- "When a creature you can see hits another creature" is the main section and 'another' means not the creature doing the hitting.
- "hits another creature within 5 feet of you" is the main section and 'another' means other than you.
- or the 'another' is meant to connect to both clauses and means a creature neither you nor the attacker.
To declare any one of these three equally grammatically valid interpretations to be the universal RAW truth is not possible without further clarifying evidence.
I for one, would consider the third interpretation as the most likely to be intended.
This should dismiss any misunderstanding regarding the context and intent of this description. They purposefully removed "other than you" in Interception 2024, and not in Protection 2024, making it very clear that the intent was to no longer exclude the player from the effect of this fighting style.
Ignoring this fact is just bad faith at this point.
That's not true. "Another" is in context of the attacking creature that you can see. And that's a big difference.
JC's post about cupcakes makes it very clear that RAI, Interception cannot be used on yourself -- regardless of how they chose to phrase it
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)
Correct. "the attacking creature you can see". Whether or not that is significant is the matter of debate, but "you" is mentioned in the text.
The common practice for English is for another to be in reference to a noun that is used as a subject or object earlier in the current clause or used in a previous clause. Taking a reference point of a prepositional or adjective phrase is the norm for English. So within the context of the sentence and norms of English it makes more sense to use the attacking creature as a reference.
Also within the context of how the feat has changed from Tasha's to 2024 and that protection didn't change, it makes more sense to follow the norms of English and use the attacking creature as a reference.
*If the developers thought that the inclusion of "other than you" was unnecessary and could be replaced with another why didn't they do it to protection too?
They are extremely relevant. Your interpretation of the ability says that the only attack it can't be used against is a creature attacking itself. If that's not a thing, then your interpretation cannot be correct.
And even if it is a permissible thing, the fact that it is not mentioned in the anywhere else in the rules at all makes your reading highly improbable. Why single it out for this one ability?
There are two nouns explicitly in scope here. Either is possible. As is both. Your assertion of how "another" works is hedged with "usually", so isn't even an absolute rule.
More importantly, "you, the person with this ability" is an extremely relevant noun here. It is in scope even if it's not mentioned at all. The sentence is about you and what you do when an opponent makes an attack.
It is trivial to construct ability descriptions on the lines of "when X happens to another creature, do Y" where there is no third creature in scope. It's probably easy to find actual ones. In all those cases, "another" refers to somebody who is not the being with the ability. Adding a third creature does not suddenly rule out that interpretation.
I would even argue that an ability structured like "when another creature takes damage from an opponent, do X" would allow you to do X to a creature that fireballed you and themselves, and nobody else.
First interception cannot be used on any attack. There is a range and reaction limit to it. To try and read more into a feat to impose another limit when the norms of English would not impose said limit is nonsensical.
Also show me where in the attack action or target rules that it says you can't attack yourself. You can attack anything as long as you're in range. It's silly to try to impose a limitation that doesn't exist in the game and claim that since this limitation exist the feat can't be used in a way that follows the norms of English.
The second argument ignores my argument about the norms of English. If you don't agree with my assertion about the norms of English please give me some examples and refute it.
The argument where the wording of the feat was changed in an attempt to generalize it is a straw man. Rewriting the words of the feat to do something different and arguing that, because of this rewrite, the correct reading is X makes no sense.
None of those restrictions are relevant to the discussion at hand.
Show me where it says you can. Show me where the possibility is mentioned at all in the rules.
Except, according to you, this one fighting style, where they specifically phrased it so that it could be used against any opponent's attack in range, except that opponent attacking itself.
I mean, I already gave you the counter argument, which is that "you, the person with the ability" is inherently in-scope.
More importantly, the "norms of English", inasmuch as they actually exist, require that one uses the context of a sentence to resolve ambiguities. The relevant context includes:
So, when the question arises "does this mean 'another creature than the attacker' or 'another creature than the one with the ability'?" you have additional information beyond the sentence diagram.
The fact that "you" is mentioned in the text doesn't make it the reference of the context.
What if it was "a creature that spent its last weekend at a resort where the barman knew someone who bought a dagger from you 3 weeks ago"? "You" is also mentioned in the text, doesn't make it any relevant to the situation described...
The only thing that "you" is used for in this description is to define who the triggering creature can be, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less.
Any other extrapolation is completely unjustified.
"is inherently in-scope"? Says who? Simply asserting that you are right does not constitute an argument... And while it is true that one should use context to resolve ambiguities, first, there is no ambiguity here as the meaning of the sentence can be extracted from grammatical and syntactic rules alone, and second, there is absolutely nothing that even remotely suggests that "another creature" could possibly be interpreted as "another creature than the one with the ability", because the fighting style is not described from the point of view of "the one with the ability". Maybe you feel that it would make sense that it is, but it's not.
Again, the fact that the word "you" is mentioned somewhere in the text is not nearly enough. The context must also make it the main subject, and it doesn't. You said it yourself: context is important. Well in this one, the description explicitly uses the attacking creature as the subject. That's the context.
The point of this argument is that trying to apply a limitation to a feat that doesn't exist in the wording of the feat doesn't make sense. The feat already has these limitations and adding another is unnecessarily nerfing a feat that has pretty severe limitations and isn't commonly used already.
If you want to continue this argument that has little bearing on the discussion, then the attack action says "When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an unarmed strike" it does not specify what you can attack in the rules glossary so we have to go to target to get a better understanding which reads "A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon." So, unless there is a rule saying that a creature can't target themselves with an attack the character or creature making the attack is a viable target if in range because it is a creature.
*edit* for further clarity, in the combat section of the PHB when it describes making an attack it says "1: Choose a Target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."
If we take the assertion that you should use the context to resolve any ambiguity, then this argument doesn't really counter my argument because it selectively ignores some of the context and asserts that context that is less direct is more important than the wording of the feat, common use of English, and the apparent intent of the developers. This is some of the context that is ignored.
As a DM, would you have someone roll at disadvantage if they tried to shoot themselves with a bow?
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)
"another" is found in different features, "you" it's not explicitly stated, and I'd say the intent is to affect other creatures, not you:
"you" or "yourself" is explicitly stated in the text when that's the intent:
If they're within 5 feet of an enemy that can see them and isn't incapacitated.
If they're shooting themselves, clearly they see themselves as an enemy
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)
I'd like to push back on this a bit. In the examples that you listed where another is used and excludes the character there is no ambiguity in whether another creature includes you or not because you are the subject of the clause or previous sentence and the only viable reference for another creature, which by the definition of another excludes you. As far as I can tell this feat is one of if not the only feature that uses another creature where "you" is not the subject of the clause or previous sentence and "a creature" is instead. This leads to "another", with common English usage, prioritizing "a creature" as the subject over "you" as a noun in the adjective phrase "you can see" or the prepositional phrase "within 5 feet of you".
RAI there is some ambiguity introduced due to the change in verbiage from Tasha's to 2024 and a feat that performs a similar function and had the same Tasha's verbiage retaining the verbiage. The saying goes "If it ain't broke don't fix it" so why did they change it when they didn't change a similar feat if the intent was to leave it the same.
RAW it can be used for an attack targeting you. No argument so far has refuted the argument that another creature can refer to you just that it isn't intended to refer to you.
Can you be your own enemy in D&D? Also how does this have any relevance to the wording of Interception?