Commander's Strike clarified: Ask Wizards

[DracoSuave]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080827

The target has to be in melee weapon range of the warlord, and in melee weapon range of the ally, but the ally does not have to be in melee weapon range of the warlord.

In otherwords, exactly as the power is written, literally speaking.

 

[jaelis]

But it's not very good. It says "The target of commander’s strike must be within melee reach of both the warlord and the chosen ally who will make the basic melee attack." But of course, the target of the power is the ally (based on the power description). So really that sentence doesn't make any sense under scrutiny.

It does at least say how it is supposed to work, but it opens other questions... should the enemy be considered the target of the power for all purposes? (Like would the warlord's feat bonuses apply?)

It seems to me a literal reading would be that the ally has to be in melee range of the warlord, and the enemy in melee range of the ally.

Edit- I should add though, that I'm working off memory, since the compendium seems to be down (at least for me.) So I might be full of ****. (Yes, I might be full of asterisks.)

 

[Stalker0]

One question down. Now we just need to know if the warlord's weapon abilities and feats and all of that effect the damage his friend does.

 

[Khime]

But it's not very good. It says "The target of commander’s strike must be within melee reach of both the warlord and the chosen ally who will make the basic melee attack." But of course, the target of the power is the ally (based on the power description). So really that sentence doesn't make any sense under scrutiny.

Target: One creature
Attack: An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack against the target

How do you read that as the target of the power being the ally? If it is, and the ally makes a basic attack against the target, then your reading has the power letting an ally attack himself.

 

[occam]

But it's not very good. It says "The target of commander’s strike must be within melee reach of both the warlord and the chosen ally who will make the basic melee attack." But of course, the target of the power is the ally (based on the power description). So really that sentence doesn't make any sense under scrutiny.

Nope, the target of the warlord's power is the enemy, not the ally.

Target: One creature
Attack: An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack against the target.

The WotC answer is, as DracoSuave said, exactly the way the power is written.


Edited: Garrr!!! Ninjas! An' why be these boards so slow?!

 

[Fundin Strongarm]

One question down. Now we just need to know if the warlord's weapon abilities and feats and all of that effect the damage his friend does.

Maybe I missed something in another thread but why would the Warlord's weapon abilities or feats effect the damage? It looks like it does Warlord's Int mod to ally's basic damage -- and that's it. What am I missing?

 

[James McMurray]

Maybe I missed something in another thread but why would the Warlord's weapon abilities or feats effect the damage? It looks like it does Warlord's Int mod to ally's basic damage -- and that's it. What am I missing?

The power has the weapon keyword, so technically the warlord's weapon enhancement and feats should paply. It doesn't make a lick of sense, but that doesn't stop some people from arguing absurdities in the name of "rules purity" or something like that.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

The power has the weapon keyword, so technically the warlord's weapon enhancement and feats should paply. It doesn't make a lick of sense, but that doesn't stop some people from arguing absurdities in the name of "rules purity" or something like that.

Maybe someone should tell those people something about "a specific rule beats the general rule" (PHB P11).
And the weapon still defines the reach of the power.

 

[WerewolfPaladin]

So, out of curiosity, what would be the point of this power for a Warlord who isn't using a reach weapon? It seems like the other At-Wills are a lot more useful than this if the Warlord himself is in melee range of the target.

 

[ebertran]

So, out of curiosity, what would be the point of this power for a Warlord who isn't using a reach weapon? It seems like the other At-Wills are a lot more useful than this if the Warlord himself is in melee range of the target.

I don't get it either... why not just hit the damn thing yourself.
I fail to see the point. I'd understand if this was a minor action, where in effect the warlord was using a minor action to get an extra hit through someone else, but as his standard action.... i don't understand the point.

Granted, I havent devoted the time to really study the class all that well...