Followup Damage

Given that it requires you be in melee range and adds your Int to damage, it certainly seems like the warlord might be making some attacking motions along with his command to an ally when to strike.
Some motions yes... but not actually delivering the attack with its own weapon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Given that it requires you be in melee range and adds your Int to damage, it certainly seems like the warlord might be making some attacking motions along with his command to an ally when to strike.

Especially given that it does things like trigger Riposte Strike and end Invisibility. A Warlord with Heavy Blade Opportunity could use Commander's Strike as an OA. It is a melee attack, and it uses his weapon as an accessory.

-Hyp.
 

Some motions yes... but not actually delivering the attack with its own weapon.

An attack that does not connect is still an attack.

I mean, part of me is still surprised it's not Ranged or Close burst 5 or 10, Effect one ally makes a basic melee attack with Int power bonus to damage.
 



Commander's Strike is worded that way because Warlords are melee combatants. So their 'heavy attack' at-will is gonna be a melee ranged power.

Ranged would be terrible (provoking OA) and Close burst x might be too powerful to justify the additional Int mod bonus damage it gives the basic attack.
 

Commander's Strike is worded that way because Warlords are melee combatants. So their 'heavy attack' at-will is gonna be a melee ranged power.

Ranged would be terrible (provoking OA) and Close burst x might be too powerful to justify the additional Int mod bonus damage it gives the basic attack.
I wasn't arguing for ranged or close burst. I was saying that I'd rather it was a power with an effect, instead of an attack and damage.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top