Followup Damage

[keterys]

You see “attack rolls and damage rolls” as applying to each dice of each attack.

Sadly, no. The rules in question don't even contain that quotation. There is a rule for damage rolls found on p276 and it makes no mention of your interpretation. On p57 the rules for modifiers to damage rolls 'apply to any roll of the dice'. Every time you make a damage roll, which is to say you pick up the dice and roll them for damage, you add all relevant modifiers.

There is no rule to link attack rolls to those damage rolls through a common plurality, nor does an abundance of plurals used constitute a rule. Despite the best of intentions and well wishing, you are injecting your desire into the rules in this instance.

Rule as you will for your games, but the language does not support your interpretation. I do believe this issue will remain cloudy because it can feel unjust or overpowered to work that way so people wish it were not so, but hopefully WotC will supply clarifying language at some point.

Finally, I don't think the warlock is the best target for reducing damage even if I would agree that multiple attacks on a target are too powerful and should work more like striker extra damage dice. Going through examining powers I am consistently baffled that something like 'Do 3W damage and some minor thing' is considered on par with 'Make 3 attacks at 1W' when the W is perhaps a d10 and each attack also carries another +10 to +20 with it through enhancement, ability, bonuses, etc. Frustrating.

 

[DracoSuave]

Commander's Strike?

-Hyp.

Doesn't have a damage roll component, nor an attack roll component (it instructs an ally to make a melee basic attack instead) so the bonuses would not apply.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Doesn't have a damage roll component, nor an attack roll component (it instructs an ally to make a melee basic attack instead) so the bonuses would not apply.

But the 'instructions' are an Attack entry, and the power has a Damage entry.

If the power was "Effect: An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack
against the target, and adds your Intelligence modifier to the damage dealt", there's clearly no attack roll or damage roll that belongs to the warlord.

But the power has an Attack entry, so the ally's melee basic attack isn't just something the power allows him to do; the ally's melee basic attack is the power's attack roll. And the power has a Damage entry; the damage dealt by the ally's melee basic attack isn't an incidental result of the Warlord using the power, but it is in fact the damage dealt by Commander's Strike.

Consider a Warlord with a Lifedrinker Longspear.

He uses Commander's Strike. It's a Melee attack (it has the Melee keyword), and it's made with the Longspear (it has the Weapon keyword). The Warlord's ally makes a melee basic attack, and the damage dealt by Commander's Strike is the ally's basic attack damage + warlord's Int mod.

If the foe is dropped below 0 hit points, he was dropped by a melee attack with the longspear (Commander's Strike), and the warlord gains 5 temp hit points.

Contrast Commander's Strike with, say, Surprise Attack (Warlord 7), where the power permits an ally to make an attack, but that attack is not the Attack entry of the power, nor is the damage the ally might deal the Damage entry of the power.

-Hyp.

 

[Nikosandros]

I disagree with your interpretation. The warlord isn't using his spear to attack, the ally is using his own weapon to perform the attack. Thus the modifiers come from the ally's weapon non the one used by the warlord.

 

[HighTemplar]

I disagree with your interpretation. The warlord isn't using his spear to attack, the ally is using his own weapon to perform the attack. Thus the modifiers come from the ally's weapon non the one used by the warlord.

Unfortunately I believe Hypersmurf is only stating the rules and not his opinion. If they're really badly designed it's not his fault !!! (Commander's strike is full of issues, thats a fact)

 

[Hypersmurf]

I disagree with your interpretation. The warlord isn't using his spear to attack...

The Weapon keyword for the power suggests otherwise.

Yes, the ally makes a melee basic attack with his own weapon. But the Warlord is making a Melee attack (using a power with the Melee keyword) using his spear (since the power has the Weapon keyword). The damage he deals with this Melee attack is [damage of ally's basic attack, plus Int mod].

If the enemy is a Rogue who just hit the Warlord with Riposte Strike, then Commander's Strike - as a Melee attack made by the Warlord, targeting the Rogue - will trigger Riposte Strike's followup attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Nikosandros]

In my opinion the weapon keyword can only refer to the weapon wielded by the ally. Your interpretation seems rather counter intuitive to me. It it was correct, a warlord with a flaming weapon could make his ally weapon deal fire damage...

 

[Hypersmurf]

In my opinion the weapon keyword can only refer to the weapon wielded by the ally.

But a Warlord with a longsword can designate an adjacent enemy as the target of Commander's Strike, while a Warlord with a longspear can designate an enemy one or two squares away as the target. Because the power has the Weapon keyword, and is dependent on the weapon the Warlord is using as an accessory.

It it was correct, a warlord with a flaming weapon could make his ally weapon deal fire damage...

The Warlord at-will, Furious Smash, has the Weapon keyword. It deals damage equal to your Str modifier on a hit. There is no damage roll, so anything that adds to damage rolls will be ignored. But would you agree that this damage, when the power is used with a weapon as an accessory (as the Weapon keyword allows) is 'damage dealt by this weapon'? If the Warlord has a +1 Flaming longsword, he'll get to add the longsword's proficiency bonus and enhancement bonus to the attack roll, and he can make the damage he deals (Str modifier, no [W]) be fire damage via the weapon's at-will power?

The flavour text of Furious Smash says that you bash him with your shield, or hit him with the pommel, or drive your shoulder into his gut. Would you agree that the longsword's bonuses apply to the attack roll, and the Flaming weapon's at-will applies, even if the player describes the attack as being with his shield or his shoulder... as long as the Flaming longsword is the Weapon used as the accessory?

-Hyp.

 

[Nikosandros]

But a Warlord with a longsword can designate an adjacent enemy as the target of Commander's Strike, while a Warlord with a longspear can designate an enemy one or two squares away as the target. Because the power has the Weapon keyword, and is dependent on the weapon the Warlord is using as an accessory..

So, do you think that a warlord's flaming weapon lets an ally deal fire damage?

 

[WalterKovacs]

The weapon keyword of Commander's Strike refers to the melee 'reach' the Warlord must be to the target. If the Warlord has a pole arm he has to be within 2 squares, otherwise he'd have to be adjacent.

One note on the critical dice not getting the enhancement bonus on damage: Critical bonus dice for damage are NOT an additional damage roll. They are part of the INITIAL damage roll. Instead of rolling for non-crit only damage, you max it out, and add on the crit-only damage rolls. As it's all one single damage roll, you don't add the enhancement bonus a second time to that same, single, damage roll.