Followup Damage

[Nail]

I'm joining this a bit late, but:

If the Warlord uses Commander's Strike while weilding a Luckblade, and his Fighter friend (an adjacent ally) misses:

#1) Can the warlord use the Luckblade's daily power and re-roll?
#2) Who does the re-roll: the Fighter, or the Warlord?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm joining this a bit late, but:

If the Warlord uses Commander's Strike while weilding a Luckblade, and his Fighter friend (an adjacent ally) misses:

#1) Can the warlord use the Luckblade's daily power and re-roll?

I wouldn't think he could - while the attack is part of the Commander's Strike power, it's not 'an attack roll you just made'.

Same reason he can't add his enhancement bonus to damage - the damage isn't a damage roll, it's a fixed amount. (It just happens to be a fixed amount that can vary based on what the ally rolls.)

-Hyp.

 

[Skyscraper]

At this point in time, I do believe my interpretation is RAW. I just read pg 225 and see it differently. You see “attack rolls and damage rolls” as applying to each dice of each attack. I believe that the plural to “rolls” refers to the different magic items and different implements referred at the start of the sentence. I believe this because the first two paragraphs are all written with plurals. I bolded the plurals below.

To be consistent with your interpretation, you'd then apply no bonus to both attack and damage rolls made for secondary attacks such as with Sudden Strike (Ranger attack 1)?

Why would the ranger not benefit from bonuses from his weapon on his secondary attack? Isn't the attack accomplished with the same magic weapon as the first?

The same logic applies to Dire Radiance IMO. Rolled followup damage would benefit from the implement's bonus.

This being said, it would be possible to reasonably conclude to the contrary and powers with followup damage would work very well; however if you want to make a single rule that fits all powers with followup damage or secondary attacks, you'll have a hard time IMO.

Sky

 

[Nikosandros]

I don't see a difference between "The Warlord hits the orc with his shoulder, and his Flaming Longsword deals fire damage since it's the accessory for the power", and "The Warlord hits the orc with his ally's battleaxe, and his Flaming Longsword deals fire damage since it's the accessory for the power". In both cases, you're going to have to make cinematic justifications for why the damage was fire damage even though the longsword wasn't what hit the orc in the gut. In both cases, the mechanics apply regardless of the cinematics; the power has the Weapon keyword, so the damage is damage dealt by the weapon.

IMO, the flavor text for furious smash is poorly though out. I think that the warlord is using his own weapon, just in a way that doesn't really deal too much damage.

OTOH, with commander's strike, he's not actually attacking the enemy at all.

Let me turn around this a bit... assuming that you are correct in the reading of the rule (and I fully admit that this is not really unlikely), do you like the way commander strike works or would you rather rewrite it so that it had an effect line?

 

[Hypersmurf]

IMO, the flavor text for furious smash is poorly though out.

Whereas I don't have an issue with it - I'm on record numerous times here as saying that I have no problem with flavour being rewritten without changing mechanics.

As an example from a game I'm in - playing a ranger, adjacent to two enemies. I used the Twin Strike power... and described it as attacking one opponent with my axe, while using my sword to parry a lunge from the other, guiding his weapon so that he over-extended and stabbed his friend.

Mechanically? I made an attack roll with my axe, and an attack roll with my sword, and dealt axe damage and sword damage to the opponent. Does it matter that when we filmed the scene, it was the second opponent's knife that caused the wound, even though I used the stats of my sword to resolve the mechanics?

So if the Warlord is using a flaming sword, I don't care if he says "I smack him with my shield", or "I drive my shoulder into his gut" - he makes his attack roll and deals damage just as if he'd hit the guy with the sword. Because otherwise, as a DM, I discourage players from saying "Regdar parries the orc's axe with his blade, and the weapon bites deep into the sod, causing the wielder to overbalance; Regdar takes the opportunity to smash a heavy boot into its face." If I say "Well, that's an unarmed strike, so no proficiency bonus, and you deal 1d4 damage", the player's going to think "Well, that was a waste of an action," and next round he'll say "I hit him with my sword." But if I say "Cool! Roll longsword," then the player knows that his attack and damage rolls aren't going to be penalised for cinematics that don't include "I hit him with my sword", and we'll have more exciting action scenes.

OTOH, with commander's strike, he's not actually attacking the enemy at all.

Like I say, I flavoured my sword attack as an opponent striking my target, with my assistance. I don't see why that flavour should invalidate my using the mechanics of my power.

Let me turn around this a bit... assuming that you are correct in the reading of the rule (and I fully admit that this is not really unlikely), do you like the way commander strike works or would you rather rewrite it so that it had an effect line?

I don't have a problem with it. I think it would work differently if it had an effect line, and I'd be fine with that too. I'd just interpret the mechanics differently, because the power would have different rules.

-Hyp.

 

[Nikosandros]

Does it matter that when we filmed the scene, it was the second opponent's knife that caused the wound, even though I used the stats of my sword to resolve the mechanics?

Yes, for me it matters a great deal. Especially if you factor weapons with magical abilities.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, for me it matters a great deal.

Then that's our disconnect.

To me, the flavour text they chose for Furious Smash suggests that they look at the relationship between flavour and mechanics the same way I do - you say you kick him in the groin, but all the rolls you make use the modifiers and [W] of your greataxe.

You like a tighter relationship between flavour and mechanics - if you say you kick him in the groin, then the mechanics should reflect "kick", not "axe".

-Hyp.

 

[Nikosandros]

Then that's our disconnect.

Indeed.

I don't mind a high level of abstraction... I like games in which a character deals a certain amount of damage and the player is free to describe how this happens.

But D&D, with all the different stats for weapons, doesn't seem to me a good fit for this kind of playing style.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But D&D, with all the different stats for weapons, doesn't seem to me a good fit for this kind of playing style.

4E, with its healing surge mechanic leading to a layer of insulation between hit points and in-game events, makes it seem a great fit, to me

-Hyp.

 

[keterys]

OTOH, with commander's strike, he's not actually attacking the enemy at all.

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.