Commander’s Strike

[erik_the_guy]

If you want to interpret the rules as literally as possible, then I agree with the other people in this thread that said:
In order to use this the enemy must be within melee range of you. The ally must then be in melee range of the enemy or the attack cannot be made.
It makes sense, the warlord tactfully maneuvers the enemy so that you can attack it, and orders you to do so.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm with this dude. LoS is cooler than melee reach.

It doesn't makes sense to me why one would have a "somebody else make an attack" power and only be able to use it if you're standing right behind or beside the "somebody else".

Line of sight ftw.

Maybe it should be a general Warlord feat - "If a power grants an ally a free basic melee attack, he can take a basic ranged attack."? Or would this be too powerful (I know at least one pair of powers that are very similar, but the higher level one offers a free basic attack, while the lower only a melee attack...)

 

[ForbidenMaster]

The warlord is all about empowering others. So he runs into battle, gets flanking, and gives the rogue the sneak attack he couldn't get on his own turn. Or a big bad guy is threatening the mage and the fighter's nearby. Unfortunately, the bad guy will go before the fighter will and so will hit the mage. So you give the fighter an attack so he can mark the bad guy, thus protecting the mage.

The warlord's powers are all about putting other people into position to use their own abilities to the best advantage. And he does so while wielding a melee weapon, and thus is in the thick of battle, affecting the battle around him. If you want a ranged leader, you're a cleric. Later, you may be a bard. You're not a warlord.

The only problem is that this scenario wouldnt work if the range between you and your ally was adjacent/melee. If the warlord and a rogue are flanking a target, the warlord is not going to be within melee range of the rogue unless the warlord is using a reach weapon, which makes no sense.

Its not about being a ranged warlord, its about giving an ally enough of an opening to make a free basic melee attack, and making the range from you to your ally be only adjacent makes the power completely worthless in comparison to melee range from your ally to a target within melee range of you.

EDIT: Never mind, I thought you were going on the above assumption, where after I read your post and the one you quoted it doesnt look like you are.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

I'm with this dude. LoS is cooler than melee reach.

It doesn't makes sense to me why one would have a "somebody else make an attack" power and only be able to use it if you're standing right behind or beside the "somebody else".

Line of sight ftw.

Thats not what I was saying. The range between the warlord and the target is melee. The range between the target and your ally is melee with your ally being the originator.

Why would you give someone else an extra attack? Maybe because they would be better at attacking than you. Maybe because they will do more damage than you. Maybe its just because they have an ability that will end at the beginning of their next turn, and the only way that they will be able to use it again is if you give them one more attack. For the role of a leader, this is a picture perfect ability.

 

[Badgerish]

I'm reading the power as clearly requiring the warlord to be in melee with the target enemy.

The flavour text doesn't match up with the power for me, so i'm changing the standard flavour text (players can ofc update this based on their style) to suggest that the warlord uses a feint to distract the enemy (or actively strike at their weapon to tie it up for a moment) which gives the chosen ally an opportunity to strike again

 

[Ulthwithian]

In my game, I have a player who is playing an Eladrin Warlord who is wielding a Longspear (with Eladrin Soldier Training) and he does indeed Commander's Strike a _lot_.

I find the wording here to be very clear. Whether that wording is intended can be argued, but the actual wording is clearly unambiguous. In my player's case, he allows quite a bit of marking to go on for the party fighter.

 

[webrunner]

The weird thing is the power has the Weapon keyword.

Which means, technically, you would add the Warlord's weapon proficiency, crit effects, etc, to the attack the ally makes.

Which is ridiculous, of course. The power is just so very strange.

 

[wrshamilton]

It seemed obviously required to be within melee weapon range of the warlord to me, but I won't get into any argument about it.

The weird implication of this to me is that I think half-elf Warlocks will always want to carry around reach weapons they aren't really proficient in. Cause this seems like the best dilettante power for them and I don't really see the drawback.

 

[Mengu]

The weird implication of this to me is that I think half-elf Warlocks will always want to carry around reach weapons they aren't really proficient in. Cause this seems like the best dilettante power for them and I don't really see the drawback.

You would be right, except in most cases, the warlock as a striker can do more damage with his own attack (adding curse and everything), than by giving someone else a basic attack. And intelligence, while not bad, isn't your strongest suit. There really are no fantastic dilettante powers for the warlock. You could go with Scorching Burst for some minion clean up, but your attack bonus will still be pretty miserable.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

You would be right, except in most cases, the warlock as a striker can do more damage with his own attack (adding curse and everything), than by giving someone else a basic attack. And intelligence, while not bad, isn't your strongest suit. There really are no fantastic dilettante powers for the warlock. You could go with Scorching Burst for some minion clean up, but your attack bonus will still be pretty miserable.

[offtopic]How about Bolstering Strike or Enfeebling Strike from the Paladin? They're both Cha vs. AC, which seems to me to be the best fit stat-wise, and gives your warlock a little melee punch. Put that pact blade to use![/offtopic]

It's pretty clear that Commander's Strike is supposed to be used on an enemy within melee range of the warlord. That's what "Melee weapon" means - within the range of your melee weapon.

Also, it wouldn't add your proficiency bonus and all that to the ally's attack roll, because you're not the one attacking. Proficiency bonuses, your magic item bonus, etc... are only added when you make an attack roll with that particular weapon. Since you're not making the attack roll, they don't do anything for that power.