Interpreting Cunning Stalker Feat from HotFK

[Prestidigitalis]

The feat Cunning Stalker (HotFK) is ambiguously worded.

"You gain combat advantage against enemies that have no creatures adjacent to them other than you."

I believe it can be used at range, but suspect that many would interpret this as meaning that you must actually be adjacent to the enemy in question.

To make a real life analogy, if I say "You must not allow anyone to enter this room other than you", it means that you MAY enter the room, not that you MUST.

Comments?

 

[DracoSuave]

It can be used at range.

You are not required to be adjacent--if you are not adjacent, no creatures are adjacent to it other than you.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

It can be used at range.

You are not required to be adjacent--if you are not adjacent, no creatures are adjacent to it other than you.

Glad you agree. But you can see why some people might interpret it the other way, right?

 

[TDarien]

Agreed, if it was intended that you are required to be adjacent it would say so. Such as "You gain combat advantage against any adjacent enemies...."

 

[Stumblewyk]

It can be used at range.

You are not required to be adjacent--if you are not adjacent, no creatures are adjacent to it other than you.

Yup. This.

This reminds me of the discussion I had with two different gaming groups regarding the 2nd-level Ranger Utility "Hunter's Privilege." It's trigger reads, "You make an initiative check at the beginning of an encounter and your check result is higher than any other combatant’s". I had to convince two different groups that all the ranger had to do was beat any one, single combatant's initiative with their own to gain the benefits of the power. 8 different people argued that they had to beat EVERY other combatant, not ANY other combatant.

I figured they'd leap to my side of the argument, considering I was DM'ing both groups.

 

[Aegeri]

Yes you can use this at range. It just means that it ignores you effectively and only considers if other creatures are adjacent to the target or not.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Agreed, if it was intended that you are required to be adjacent it would say so. Such as "You gain combat advantage against any adjacent enemies...."

You know, I meant to include that point and got distracted midway through my post.

Glad there is unanimity. It just struck me as the kind of thing that people might get hung up on.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

You know, I meant to include that point and got distracted midway through my post.

Glad there is unanimity. It just struck me as the kind of thing that people might get hung up on.

FWIW I can see what you mean. I've known players/DMs who might try to twist the wording in the manner you describe.

 

[spayne]

Yup. This.

This reminds me of the discussion I had with two different gaming groups regarding the 2nd-level Ranger Utility "Hunter's Privilege." It's trigger reads, "You make an initiative check at the beginning of an encounter and your check result is higher than any other combatant’s". I had to convince two different groups that all the ranger had to do was beat any one, single combatant's initiative with their own to gain the benefits of the power. 8 different people argued that they had to beat EVERY other combatant, not ANY other combatant.

I figured they'd leap to my side of the argument, considering I was DM'ing both groups.

Any can mean one, and it can mean every. You were both right.

 

[Caerin]

WotC CS

I had the same question. For what it's worth, WotC customer service interpreted like this:

---
Question: Does the Cunning Stalker feat require a character be adjacent to the target?
Answer: Indeed it does. Cunning Stalker reads "You gain combat advantage against enemies that have no creatures adjacent to them *other than you*."

I hope this helps to clear things up. Please let me know if you need anymore help!
___