*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?
Hey, you're the one arguing the rules were written to account for the possibility of attacking yourself. I'm just chasing that idea down the rabbit hole
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)
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.
The word "another" does not have to be referring to the main subject. As you said, "Any other extrapolation is completely unjustified."
*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?
As someone who's practiced archery for several years, yes. Absolutely, 100%. Mechanically, shooting yourself with a bow would be absurdly difficult. These weapons are not meant to be used backwards. It would be easier with a crossbow, but to be fair, the "roll ranged attack roll at disadvantage if the target is less than 5ft away" rule in general doesn't really make sense. It's one of these rules that are there for balance reasons, even though they're not very logical.
*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?
As someone who's practiced archery for several years, yes. Absolutely, 100%. Mechanically, shooting yourself with a bow would be absurdly difficult. These weapons are not meant to be used backwards. It would be easier with a crossbow, but to be fair, the "roll ranged attack roll at disadvantage if the target is less than 5ft away" rule in general doesn't really make sense. It's one of these rules that are there for balance reasons, even though they're not very logical.
It's an abstraction. It is hard to properly load, draw, aim, and shoot a bow at point blank while someone is attacking you with a sword.
[...] 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.
At this point, I'm tempted to think the feat that needs errata is 2024 Protection, to add "another" / "another creature" in the same way other features or feats are written across the book (e.g. 2024 Interception).
Doing so, both feats would behave similarly in context, being the intent to affect others, not you.
By that logic, during combat and while being attacked by an enemy, every other enemy and ally is invisible to you... Don't apply real world physics to DnD. It never works.
[...] 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.
At this point, I'm tempted to think the feat that needs errata is 2024 Protection, to add "another" / "another creature" in the same way other features or feats are written across the book (e.g. 2024 Interception).
Doing so, both feats would behave similarly in context, being the intent to affect others, not you.
This comment makes no sense. The grammatical structure of these two feats is different than anywhere else. All of the examples you gave of another there is only one thing that could be considered a creature mentioned before or around another. You are proposing an erratum that creates more ambiguity than clarity. Why should a noun in an adjective clause be the reference point for another over the subject of the clause that is the exact same noun that another is modifying? To use a noun that is serving as an adjective in an adjective clause is not common English. You can argue that it's ambiguous and I'd be willing to agree because of the context, but to argue otherwise is to ignore how English is commonly used.
In the sentence "When your ring finger hit another one, it jammed" is another in reference to the finger or the ring? Both are nouns and could therefore be the reference, but one noun is serving as an adjective, so it makes no sense to use it. That interpretation is grammatically the same as thinking another means ring rather than finger since "you" in the feat is serving as part of an adjective phrase.
*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?
Hey, you're the one arguing the rules were written to account for the possibility of attacking yourself. I'm just chasing that idea down the rabbit hole
I don't understand why saying you can attack yourself is so controversial. It's clear that the rules allow you to attack yourself as I stated above quoting the relevant rules. Why would you advocate for imposing a limitation that doesn't exist in the rules and use that limitation to justify why a feat (interception) shouldn't be used in a RAW way? That makes no sense.
To continue down this rabbit hole, mechanically can you counterspell yourself if you are casting a spell that doesn't use a spell slot to avoid running afoul of the one spell slot per turn rule?
If they're shooting themselves, clearly they see themselves as an enemy
Not necessarily. There are many rules in 5e where, despite the fact that they were intended for enemies, also work just fine toward allies. So no. Just because you can target yourself with an attack, doesn't mean you see yourself as an enemy. For example, the rules of attack of opportunity don't impose the triggering creature to be an enemy. You can't very much take an attack of opportunity against an ally. Why would you do that? If you have the War Caster feat, you can cast a spell instead... Like Haste. Speaking of Haste, here's the first sentence: "Choose a willing creature that you can see within range." Anybody here wanna argue that you can't target yourself with Haste? Or can we finally lay this debate to rest?
For example, the rules of attack of opportunity don't impose the triggering creature to be an enemy.
Completely and utterly wrong, my dude. This is the kind of stuff that made them put this section in the rules
Combat Is for Enemies. Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack.
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)
[...] 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.
At this point, I'm tempted to think the feat that needs errata is 2024 Protection, to add "another" / "another creature" in the same way other features or feats are written across the book (e.g. 2024 Interception).
Doing so, both feats would behave similarly in context, being the intent to affect others, not you.
This comment makes no sense. The grammatical structure of these two feats is different than anywhere else. All of the examples you gave of another there is only one thing that could be considered a creature mentioned before or around another. You are proposing an erratum that creates more ambiguity than clarity. Why should a noun in an adjective clause be the reference point for another over the subject of the clause that is the exact same noun that another is modifying? To use a noun that is serving as an adjective in an adjective clause is not common English. You can argue that it's ambiguous and I'd be willing to agree because of the context, but to argue otherwise is to ignore how English is commonly used. [...]
I'm not continuing this discussion any more, sorry.
My previous reply was just to leave my last thought: both feats, as they are now (or if the designers wanted to align the wording), are meant to be used the way most people in the thread are saying.
For example, the rules of attack of opportunity don't impose the triggering creature to be an enemy.
Completely and utterly wrong, my dude. This is the kind of stuff that made them put this section in the rules
Combat Is for Enemies. Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack.
Fair enough, but barely. From what I'm reading, this is about players trying to trigger combat and initiative when there shouldn't be a combat situation. Also what you quoted is only the introduction to Opportunity Attacks, not the rules regarding making one. Here's the rule about making an opportunity attack, which you conveniently omitted:
Making an Opportunity Attack. You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach. To make the attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against that creature. The attack occurs right before it leaves your reach.
Do you see the word "enemy" or "hostile" in this rule? Me neither.
But I still agree with you. The intent is for enemies. And we know that why? Because it's explicitly mentioned in the introduction that you quoted. We know that opportunity attacks are for enemies only because it's stated clearly and unambiguously. There's no such mention for Interceptor 2024 being restricted to creatures other than the player. There used to be one, but not anymore, because they specifically and purposefully removed it, while they left it for Protection 2024.
On another note, and I'm talking as a former game developer here, if we just forget semantics for a minute and wonder whether this is a good idea or not to let players use Interceptor on themselves, I can understand why the devs would want to do that. Nobody uses the Interceptor fighting style. It's terrible, and it could use a buff. If you want to protect other players at melee range, the Protection style is much better, and because both use a reaction, you can't even use both at the same time. This fighting style, if it cannot be used on oneself, is completely useless.
Plus, I don't think being able to use it on yourself is OP at all. At low level, a 1d10+2 damage reduction per round is really good, but that means forgoing Archery, or Great Weapon Fighting, or whichever Fighting Style you would have normally chosen as an offensive buff. And at higher level, when you can pick an extra fighting style for fighters, the damage reduction will be almost negligible, so it still might not even be good defensive feat compared to Defense... unless you're a Barbarian and don't wear armor, in which case you might consider this.
Many people in this thread seem to look at this like some sort of exploit to gain an unfair advantage. But what I see is a long overdue balance fix.
Hey, you're the one arguing the rules were written to account for the possibility of attacking yourself. I'm just chasing that idea down the rabbit hole
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)
The word "another" does not have to be referring to the main subject. As you said, "Any other extrapolation is completely unjustified."
As someone who's practiced archery for several years, yes. Absolutely, 100%. Mechanically, shooting yourself with a bow would be absurdly difficult.
These weapons are not meant to be used backwards. It would be easier with a crossbow, but to be fair, the "roll ranged attack roll at disadvantage if the target is less than 5ft away" rule in general doesn't really make sense.
It's one of these rules that are there for balance reasons, even though they're not very logical.
It's an abstraction. It is hard to properly load, draw, aim, and shoot a bow at point blank while someone is attacking you with a sword.
At this point, I'm tempted to think the feat that needs errata is 2024 Protection, to add "another" / "another creature" in the same way other features or feats are written across the book (e.g. 2024 Interception).
Doing so, both feats would behave similarly in context, being the intent to affect others, not you.
Reading these 3 pages of notes and reading the rule on page 209, I don't understand the ambiguity unless someone is trying to get an unfair advantage.
The rule is clear, this is the player that helps another (not them) creature/player get reduced damage as a reaction so not in their turn.
You can't see yourself, so it is not you and if you are in a hall of mirrors, and can see yourself, it seems that is not RAI.
Of course you can see yourself.
Have you tried looking down? You should be able to see every part of your body, except your own head.
Ever been in a gunfight or fistfight? You don't see yourself. If you do, that is probably the last thing you see.
By that logic, during combat and while being attacked by an enemy, every other enemy and ally is invisible to you...
Don't apply real world physics to DnD. It never works.
This comment makes no sense. The grammatical structure of these two feats is different than anywhere else. All of the examples you gave of another there is only one thing that could be considered a creature mentioned before or around another. You are proposing an erratum that creates more ambiguity than clarity. Why should a noun in an adjective clause be the reference point for another over the subject of the clause that is the exact same noun that another is modifying? To use a noun that is serving as an adjective in an adjective clause is not common English. You can argue that it's ambiguous and I'd be willing to agree because of the context, but to argue otherwise is to ignore how English is commonly used.
In the sentence "When your ring finger hit another one, it jammed" is another in reference to the finger or the ring? Both are nouns and could therefore be the reference, but one noun is serving as an adjective, so it makes no sense to use it. That interpretation is grammatically the same as thinking another means ring rather than finger since "you" in the feat is serving as part of an adjective phrase.
I don't understand why saying you can attack yourself is so controversial. It's clear that the rules allow you to attack yourself as I stated above quoting the relevant rules. Why would you advocate for imposing a limitation that doesn't exist in the rules and use that limitation to justify why a feat (interception) shouldn't be used in a RAW way? That makes no sense.
To continue down this rabbit hole, mechanically can you counterspell yourself if you are casting a spell that doesn't use a spell slot to avoid running afoul of the one spell slot per turn rule?
Not necessarily. There are many rules in 5e where, despite the fact that they were intended for enemies, also work just fine toward allies.
So no. Just because you can target yourself with an attack, doesn't mean you see yourself as an enemy.
For example, the rules of attack of opportunity don't impose the triggering creature to be an enemy.
You can't very much take an attack of opportunity against an ally. Why would you do that? If you have the War Caster feat, you can cast a spell instead... Like Haste.
Speaking of Haste, here's the first sentence: "Choose a willing creature that you can see within range."
Anybody here wanna argue that you can't target yourself with Haste? Or can we finally lay this debate to rest?
Completely and utterly wrong, my dude. This is the kind of stuff that made them put this section in the rules
Literally the first sentence of the Opportunity Attack section is
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'm not continuing this discussion any more, sorry.
My previous reply was just to leave my last thought: both feats, as they are now (or if the designers wanted to align the wording), are meant to be used the way most people in the thread are saying.
Fair enough, but barely. From what I'm reading, this is about players trying to trigger combat and initiative when there shouldn't be a combat situation.
Also what you quoted is only the introduction to Opportunity Attacks, not the rules regarding making one. Here's the rule about making an opportunity attack, which you conveniently omitted:
Do you see the word "enemy" or "hostile" in this rule? Me neither.
But I still agree with you. The intent is for enemies. And we know that why? Because it's explicitly mentioned in the introduction that you quoted.
We know that opportunity attacks are for enemies only because it's stated clearly and unambiguously.
There's no such mention for Interceptor 2024 being restricted to creatures other than the player. There used to be one, but not anymore, because they specifically and purposefully removed it, while they left it for Protection 2024.
On another note, and I'm talking as a former game developer here, if we just forget semantics for a minute and wonder whether this is a good idea or not to let players use Interceptor on themselves, I can understand why the devs would want to do that. Nobody uses the Interceptor fighting style. It's terrible, and it could use a buff. If you want to protect other players at melee range, the Protection style is much better, and because both use a reaction, you can't even use both at the same time. This fighting style, if it cannot be used on oneself, is completely useless.
Plus, I don't think being able to use it on yourself is OP at all. At low level, a 1d10+2 damage reduction per round is really good, but that means forgoing Archery, or Great Weapon Fighting, or whichever Fighting Style you would have normally chosen as an offensive buff. And at higher level, when you can pick an extra fighting style for fighters, the damage reduction will be almost negligible, so it still might not even be good defensive feat compared to Defense... unless you're a Barbarian and don't wear armor, in which case you might consider this.
Many people in this thread seem to look at this like some sort of exploit to gain an unfair advantage. But what I see is a long overdue balance fix.