Interpreting Cunning Stalker Feat from HotFK

[Grabuto138]

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.

If you (an no one else) are not adjacent to it, then no creatures are adjacent to it.

If you are adjacent to to, then the "other than you" qualifier becomes relevant.

I think is is painfully obvious that you must be in melee (and adjacent if you are using a reach weapon).

 

[shmoo2]

If you (an no one else) are not adjacent to it, then no creatures are adjacent to it.

If you are adjacent to to, then the "other than you" qualifier becomes relevant.

I think is is painfully obvious that you must be in melee (and adjacent if you are using a reach weapon).

While I find this situation neither painful nor obvious, I agree that CS and Grabuto have it right here.

An update is probably in order though, to make the wording more clear if that is the intent.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

While I find this situation neither painful nor obvious, I agree that CS and Grabuto have it right here.

An update is probably in order though, to make the wording more clear if that is the intent.

...and slowly, as the comments accumulate, the balance shifts. What was obviously so to some is now equally obviously not so to others. This is why I raised the question in the first place.

Here's what I think: RAI, the feat is melee only, but the writer made the mistake of thinking that the final clause made it clear, while in fact, the lack of the adjective "adjacent" before "enemies" made it not only ambiguous but also departed from the standard style of most of the newer feats, which tend overall to be unambiguous to the point of redundancy. RAW, the feat is unrestricted, because a creature with no one adjacent still meets the criterion, regardless of what CS, Grabuto or shmoo2 say.

I will note that with the more liberal interpretation, it makes the Thief's Ambush Trick completely pointless so long as you don't mind spending a feat to get Cunning Stalker. In every case where Ambush Trick could be used to get CA, it is granted automatically via Cunning Stalker (no one adjacent at all) or by using Tactical Trick (one or more creatures are adjacent to the enemy, but those creatures are allies of the PC). Because Tactical Trick is superior in every other way to Ambush Trick (no 5 square limitation, and superior in its movement clause), Ambush Trick becomes a pure loser -- a Red power in CharOp terms.

So we can probably expect a revision of the feat, either to clarify the ambiguity or to nerf it because it is otherwise just too good.

 

[Caerin]

Prestigitalis, I was going to raise the Ambush Trick issue as well. Even as interpreted more conservatively, it makes Ambush Trick a bit less attractive for pure melee thief builds.

In the games I'm in, we've played the feat the way CS interpeted it. We also played Hunter's privilege as the ranger needing to win initiative to get the bonus. It honestly didn't occur to us to view it otherwise in that case. ^^;

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Prestigiitalis, I was going to raise the Ambush Trick issue as well. Even as interpreted more conservatively, it makes Ambush Trick a bit less attractive for pure melee thief builds.

In the games I'm in, we've played the feat the way CS interpeted it. We also played Hunter's privilege as the ranger needing to win initiative to get the bonus. It honestly didn't occur to us to view it otherwise in that case. ^^;

The HP thing is vexing because one interpretation makes it practically impossible to ever get the bonus, and the other interpretation makes it virtually assured you will get the bonus. A really high initiative ranger (which is after all not too unlikely) might still find use for it under the more restrictive interpretation, but it certainly becomes a VERY niche power. OTOH they might as well not have included that aspect at all if you only have to beat one other creature. That will happen only once in a very long time, probably never with a ranger having any decent DEX at all.

The RAI argument with Cunning Stalker is pretty good. I do think by RAW it works from range. Whether it SHOULD or not is a whole other discussion. Not having built any Thieves yet I won't even venture an opinion on that one.

 

[RigaMortus2]

At first reading, the way I interpret it, is that the feat user has to be adjacent to the target AND has the be the ONLY creature adjacent to the target for combat advantage to be gained.

Kind of reminds me of that optical illusion where one person looks at it, and it is an old woman, another person looks at it and sees a beautiful lady...

 

[Prestidigitalis]

At first reading, the way I interpret it, is that the feat user has to be adjacent to the target AND has the be the ONLY creature adjacent to the target for combat advantage to be gained.

No one is questioning that IF a creature is adjacent to the target, it must be the attacker and only the attacker, or the condition is not met.

The question is whether the attacker has to be adjacent to the target. If you go back to the analogy in my original post, you can see that "other than you" language does not ordinarily imply an imperative.

 

[bryanlo]

Your analogy is flawed, cause it denotes a permission, not a condition.

The 'have' in the feat wording says is a condition, so that means it must be fulfilled, it's not an either or MAY situation.

Let's put it another way: "The apple is yours as no else is next can reach it other than you."

 

[bryanlo]

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...."

By that same token why put in 'other than you' in the first place?

"You gain combat advantage against enemies that have no creatures adjacent to them." <--- This is what it would have been worded as if it would allow ranged. "Other than you" was included to state that you're the only one next to it.

 

[Aegeri]

I actually think that's a pretty good argument and I think it's probable it's supposed to work only when you're adjacent (but nobody else is).