Backstab and Isolated Strike wording issue?

Both abilities read
"...you can give yourself advantage on that attack roll if there is at least one creature hostile to your target within 5 feet of it."



Does this count the backstabbing Rogue as a hostile creature? If so, it effectively means free advantage on every melee attack. There's no way that can be right.

Thoughts? 
Both abilities read
"...you can give yourself advantage on that attack roll if there is at least one creature hostile to your target within 5 feet of it."



Does this count the backstabbing Rogue as a hostile creature? If so, it effectively means free advantage on every melee attack. There's no way that can be right.

Thoughts? 

Yeah that's a misreading of the ability.  Backstab is intended for someone in combat with your ally (or the enemy of your enemy) and isolated strike is for enemies by their lonesome.  It's not free advantage everytime.  Although asking if people interpret it that way would be a good litmus test to weed out min maxers and optimizers.

Vampire Class/Feat in 2013!

I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."

Heh. I saw that too. Obviously not intended that way, but it's pretty funny.
Powergamers? More like sloppy game makers... RAW you dont need anyone but yourself.
Powergamers? More like sloppy game makers... RAW you dont need anyone but yourself.
RAW, yea...

RAI ... add the word 'other'

Isolated - You can give yourself advantage on that attack roll if there are no OTHER creatures hostile to your target within 5 feet of it

Backstab - You can give yourself advantage on that attack roll if there is at least one OTHER creatures hostile to your target within 5 feet of it
I agree that its better that way and I will houserule it like that, but is there any source for the assumption of the intention of the added "other"?
I agree that its better that way and I will houserule it like that, but is there any source for the assumption of the intention of the added "other"?



No, but Isolated Strike would not work at all with melee attacks if it did not include it
Powergamers? More like sloppy game makers... RAW you dont need anyone but yourself.



That's not what RAW means. RAW refers to a rule that is written in an unambiguous way that makes its express and implied purpose clear, but the end result that is contrary to what the author intended.

The interpretation of the original poster is not an application of RAW. Instead, it is merely one interpretation of an ambiguously written rule.
Powergamers? More like sloppy game makers... RAW you dont need anyone but yourself.



That's not what RAW means. RAW refers to a rule that is written in an unambiguous way that makes its express and implied purpose clear, but the end result that is contrary to what the author intended.

The interpretation of the original poster is not an application of RAW. Instead, it is merely one interpretation of an ambiguously written rule.



RAW literally means Read As Worded
Meaning do exactly what it says

The interpretation of the original poster is proper RAW, and it was just poorly worded (remember this is beta testing)

Whenever you start inferring what the author Intended, we call it RAI - which literally means Read As Intended
Powergamers? More like sloppy game makers... RAW you dont need anyone but yourself.



That's not what RAW means. RAW refers to a rule that is written in an unambiguous way that makes its express and implied purpose clear, but the end result that is contrary to what the author intended.

The interpretation of the original poster is not an application of RAW. Instead, it is merely one interpretation of an ambiguously written rule.



RAW literally means Read As Worded
Meaning do exactly what it says
 



This implies that, taking a textualist approach to interpretation (without reference to intent), there will only be one reasonably supportable interpretation. As this is not the case here, it is not an application of RAW.


(as an aside, replace "that is contrary" with "that might be contrary" in my original post.)  
I agree that its better that way and I will houserule it like that, but is there any source for the assumption of the intention of the added "other"?



No, but Isolated Strike would not work at all with melee attacks if it did not include it



I quite liked that as I see the scout crying out for being ranged... until I noticed the rake also has Isolated strike. So yes I concede intention must include the word "other".
 
 And there IS only one way to interpret "no hostile creatures"! No hostile creatures means no creatures who are hostile...YOU attacking it IS hostile. There is absolutely no way that the rules as written can be misinterprited! Rules as Intended is another matter entirely, and talamere has proven in the quote above what is RAI.