Commander's Strike, is it an attack in itself?

[DracoSuave]

Actually, yes it does.

It's an exception to the normal rule that an attack must include a roll. It's the -only- exception to that.


But it's not the -attack- that Aegis asks for, but whether you -hit-. And that is something commander's strike -clearly- has an effect for.

You cannot apply the Int mod damage unless the power hits, because it's a Hit effect of the power, therefore the power must potentially -hit-.

And of course, to -hit- a power must first attack.

'But it doesn't require an attack roll!'

Specific beats General. It contradicts the rules for what consititutes an attack for triggers, etc. Ergo, you go by the power.

 

[Shin Okada]

But can you find a rule which says, "If there is an attack line in a power, the user of the power is attacking." or similar thing?

If no rule defines so, the existence of "attack" line does not assure that the user of the power is attacking.

That is not the issue of "Specific beats General".

The power has an "Attack" line. But no rule supports that the user of such power is making an attack. Also, that specific power (Commander's Strike in this case) is not saying so.

 

[Shin Okada]

Oops! Double Post.

 

[DracoSuave]

But can you find a rule which says, "If there is an attack line in a power, the user of the power is attacking." or similar thing?

If no rule defines so, the existence of "attack" line does not assure that the user of the power is attacking.

PHB:

The “Attack” entry specifies the kind of attack you make and which of the target’s defenses you check against.

Definition of what the Attack line -is- tells you that it's you making an attack. Not only does it assure you the user of the power is attacking, it tells you -exactly- how you attack.

More importantly, the Hit line tells you what you do when your attack hits. It just happens that this singular power makes the attack someone else using their power. And thusly you never make an attack roll.

However, you are still making an attack, and this presents an exception to that.

And after a year they haven't errata'd it to anything but an Attack line, so it is safe to assume that the at-will that gives them the most customer questions is -as intended for it to be.-

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's no question that Commander's Strike is oddly worded, and that wording has odd consequences. For instance, you couldn't use a power that gives an ally an attack 'as a free action' to give that attack to a stunned or dazed or dead ally. Commander's Strike, OTOH, doesn't grant a free action, it doesn't place any requirement upon the ally at all, in fact. (Fortunately, you can construe the requirements of an MBA, other than the Standard Action, of course, as still aplying to the ally, though it's not clear exactly where you draw the line).

That C'sS has an attack & hit line rather than an effect line has been used to argue that it, in fact, has unlimitted range, rather than melee:weapon range. Funny, huh?

Anyway, while you can indeed argue that the presence of the attack line makes C'sS different from other powers that grant free attacks in an effect line, I don't think it conclusively makes it 'an attack,' for the very simple reason that the game declines to adequately define 'attack.' Attack rolls, attack types, attack actions, attack lines, yes - but not 'attack.' Any power so badly phrased as to say ".... when attacked," is necessarily ambiguous and it's up to the DM to come up with a reasonable interpretation.

Draco, I actually do find your interpretation reasonable, and wouldn't argue it (much) were I a player in your game. However, the alternate interpretation isn't that bad, either. Whether it's the warlord or the ally that's deemed to be 'attacking,' the power could be used to activate or avoid something triggered on condition of 'attacking.'

 

[Nifft]

Here's what the FAQ has to say about Commander's Strike:

19. How does the range on Commander's Strike work?

Commander's Strike is a melee weapon attack. Because of this, it has the range of the Warlord's melee weapon reach. Normally this will be one square but weapons such as long spear may increase this. The target of the Commander's Strike must be within melee reach of both the Warlord and the chosen ally who will make the basic melee attack.

Two things are cleared up by this:
1/ Commander's Strike is, itself, a melee attack.
2/ The chosen ally makes a melee basic attack (which is an attack).

So to answer the OP's question:
a/ Any bad things that would trigger when the Warlord makes an attack do indeed trigger.
b/ However, the damage applied to the attacked critter comes from the second attack (the granted melee basic attack) and not from the Warlord's attack, so the Aegis on the Warlord is ineffective.

Cheers, -- N

 

[DracoSuave]

b/ However, the damage applied to the attacked critter comes from the second attack (the granted melee basic attack) and not from the Warlord's attack, so the Aegis on the Warlord is ineffective.

Cheers, -- N

...except that the damage from the second attack comes from the Hit line of Commander's Strike.

Hit: Ally’s basic attack damage + your Intelligence modifier.

Commander's Strike's hit line does, in fact, deal the damage. If it didn't, Commander's Strike doesn't get to add your Intellegence modifier to the damage dealt.


You being marked doesn't affect Commander's Strike because you don't make an attack roll, so there's nothing to apply the -2 to. But the reactions to you attacking while marked work fine because -you- are attacking, and -you- are dealing damage.

And yes, if your ally is marked, it applies the -2 to his roll as well, because he -is- making attack as well.

That C'sS has an attack & hit line rather than an effect line has been used to argue that it, in fact, has unlimitted range, rather than melee:weapon range. Funny, huh?

However, the fact it calls out an attack against your target is what keeps it in melee reach. Target is the operative word that keeps things in reach.

 

[Nifft]

...except that the damage from the second attack comes from the Hit line of Commander's Strike.

... except it doesn't. Here's the full text:

Commander’s Strike
With a shout, you command an ally to attack.

At-Will • Martial, Weapon
Standard Action • Melee weapon

Target: One creature
Attack: An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack against the target
Hit: Ally’s basic attack damage + your Intelligence modifier.

You being marked doesn't affect Commander's Strike because you don't make an attack roll, so there's nothing to apply the -2 to. But the reactions to you attacking while marked work fine because -you- are attacking (...)

And yes, if your ally is marked, it applies the -2 to his roll as well, because he -is- making attack as well.

This is correct.

-you- are dealing damage.

This is incorrect. Your ally's melee basic attack deals damage, because melee basic attacks deal damage when they hit.

If the rule said "... makes a melee basic attack against the target which deals no damage", then your argument might have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't.

What's really going on is: the power modifies your ally's melee basic attack to deal extra damage. It's poorly worded, sure, but Draco's line of argument leads to insanity.

See, the melee basic attack does deal damage, because nothing specifically says it doesn't. So you can argue that Commander's Strike modifies that damage, or you could argue (as Draco does) that Commander's Strike has its own damage. But then you have to apply the damage twice (once with +INT), and that is just plain broken. So let's not argue for that.

Cheers, -- N

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm not saying the damage is dealt twice. There's one of two things going on. Either the Hit does damage, and adds in the Intellegence, or it does not, and does nothing.

Personally I go with the former, because abilities that do nothing are not worth doing.

 

[Nifft]

I'm not saying the damage is dealt twice. There's one of two things going on. Either the Hit does damage, and adds in the Intellegence, or it does not, and does nothing.

Personally I go with the former, because abilities that do nothing are not worth doing.

The granted melee basic attack deals damage on a hit. Why does it deal damage on a hit? Because normally melee basic attacks deal damage on a hit, and this power does not modify that.

So our two choices are:
- the "Hit" line is intended to modify the melee basic attack's damage, or
- the "Hit" line deals additional damage, more than doubling the damage of the melee basic attack.

In neither case does the Fighter not deal damage. That's not an option.

Cheers, -- N