So I read over the new Interception Fighting Style and I don't see anything that says that the target you are saving cannot be yourself. Does anyone else see a reason why you can't apply this to yourself?
So I read over the new Interception Fighting Style and I don't see anything that says that the target you are saving cannot be yourself. Does anyone else see a reason why you can't apply this to yourself?
I don't believe you can target yourself with this style, but I recognize the possibility.
Interception When a creature you can see hits a target that is within 5 feet of you with an attack, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage the target takes by 1d10 + your proficiency bonus (to a minimum of 0 damage). You must be wielding a shield or a simple or martial weapon to use this reaction.
The target being referenced is (as I read it) implicitly not yourself as you are being used as the point of reference. While the Protection style uses basically the exact same language, and does explicitly say you are not an eligible target, the omission of "other than you" doesn't change the reading to me. It's still referring to a target that (probably) isn't yourself.
We also know that UA that actually makes it to publication rarely does so without heavy editing. They tend to overpower UA from the start with looser language to see how things play out, and rework them for balance and language consistency. Thus, the ambiguity (at this point) may be purposeful. If this style actually gets published, I'd expect it to be rewritten in some way that makes it clear whether you actually can be the target or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
"If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you."
Well, this only refers to spells, but I think it should count for this fighting style as well. The way I see it, this fighting style means you use your shield/weapon to block or possibly even parry the attack. Then it should work the same as the parry manoeuvre "When another creature damages you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to reduce the damage by the number you roll on your superiority die + your Dexterity modifier." With the fighting style, it just means you can use it on others.
Of course, this fighting style makes this manoeuvre useless which is sad, but even if you'd rule it to be unable to stop attacks against you I doubt anyone would take both whiles optimizing their character. If they're not optimizing then it can't really be considered.
Yeah that's the thing. Usually these things either say other than yourself or including yourself. But this one doesn't. So this may be open to some interpretation and later retconning.
My argument against it also affecting you is the in-world logistics of it.
Using your reaction to put up a shield to block damage targeted at you is basically equivalent to them missing you. Why would they be able to compromise your Armour Class in the first place if you have a shield right there, and in fact you use it to block them? Doesn't that defeat the point?
When a creature you can see hits a target, other than you, within 5 feet of you with an attack, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage the target takes by 1d10 + your proficiency bonus (to a minimum of 0 damage). You must be wielding a shield or a simple or martial weapon to use this reaction.
When a creature you can see hits a target, other than you, within 5 feet of you with an attack, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage the target takes by 1d10 + your proficiency bonus (to a minimum of 0 damage). You must be wielding a shield or a simple or martial weapon to use this reaction.
Kinda wish I hadn't been right on this one. It's just another generic ally cover reaction, but that's not exactly a bad thing TBH.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It's essentially the monk's Deflect Missile, except that you can't throw it back and you can't use Deflect Missile to help someone else. Though that points out you logically should be able to use Deflect Missile to help someone close to you, or at least when the flightpath travels by you.
So I read over the new Interception Fighting Style and I don't see anything that says that the target you are saving cannot be yourself. Does anyone else see a reason why you can't apply this to yourself?
I don't believe you can target yourself with this style, but I recognize the possibility.
The target being referenced is (as I read it) implicitly not yourself as you are being used as the point of reference. While the Protection style uses basically the exact same language, and does explicitly say you are not an eligible target, the omission of "other than you" doesn't change the reading to me. It's still referring to a target that (probably) isn't yourself.
We also know that UA that actually makes it to publication rarely does so without heavy editing. They tend to overpower UA from the start with looser language to see how things play out, and rework them for balance and language consistency. Thus, the ambiguity (at this point) may be purposeful. If this style actually gets published, I'd expect it to be rewritten in some way that makes it clear whether you actually can be the target or not.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
"If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you."
Well, this only refers to spells, but I think it should count for this fighting style as well. The way I see it, this fighting style means you use your shield/weapon to block or possibly even parry the attack. Then it should work the same as the parry manoeuvre "When another creature damages you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to reduce the damage by the number you roll on your superiority die + your Dexterity modifier." With the fighting style, it just means you can use it on others.
Of course, this fighting style makes this manoeuvre useless which is sad, but even if you'd rule it to be unable to stop attacks against you I doubt anyone would take both whiles optimizing their character. If they're not optimizing then it can't really be considered.
Varielky
Yeah that's the thing. Usually these things either say other than yourself or including yourself. But this one doesn't. So this may be open to some interpretation and later retconning.
You are always a creature within 5 feet of yourself. If it doesn’t explicitly exclude you, then it automatically includes you.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My argument against it also affecting you is the in-world logistics of it.
Using your reaction to put up a shield to block damage targeted at you is basically equivalent to them missing you. Why would they be able to compromise your Armour Class in the first place if you have a shield right there, and in fact you use it to block them? Doesn't that defeat the point?
Official text in Tasha's has clarified the style.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Kinda wish I hadn't been right on this one. It's just another generic ally cover reaction, but that's not exactly a bad thing TBH.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
What page of the guide is intercepted style on?
It's essentially the monk's Deflect Missile, except that you can't throw it back and you can't use Deflect Missile to help someone else. Though that points out you logically should be able to use Deflect Missile to help someone close to you, or at least when the flightpath travels by you.