Warlord and commander's strike

[Kirian555]

Hello all,
I'm thinking of a house rule for the commander's strike at will power for the warlord. The way i see it, the warlord is a leader aiding his allies on the front lines. He actually need to be there to use most of his abilities. At first, i liked the idea of a commander strike with a small range (something like 3-4 squares, or less). The idea is that the leader can still be usefull when he is slightly behind the front line - keeping an eye on what's happening and giving order to his comrades, having a bigger picture of the melee and looking for opportunities others characters don't see since they are directly in melee. Meanwhile, he can be a second line of defense between the front line and the artillery in back - moving himself back and fort to ensure no enemies can reach the artillery but still be usefull when he is right behind his allies.
Do you think giving commander's strike a small range will give me bad surprises? I think it's a nice add to role-playing warlord in combat (which is the first reason i want to bend the rules on commander's strike), but i don't want it to be an overpower ability. Any opinions?

 

[sunrisekid]

At-will powers have necessarily received the most play testing during development. My opinion, then, is to not make changes until sufficient experience has been acquired with the default rules. With enough experience in handling a wide variety of game situations you will come to realize on your own what sort of changes are sensible (if at all).

 

[deleteme123456]

Do you think giving commander's strike a small range will give me bad surprises? I think it's a nice add to role-playing warlord in combat (which is the first reason i want to bend the rules on commander's strike), but i don't want it to be an overpower ability. Any opinions?

Considering that Commander's Strike is one of the highest-damage single-target At-Will Powers at first level, when used correctly... assume you allow a Fighter with +4 STR and a 1d8 weapon (Longsword) to attack and you have a +3 (at least) to INT, you're dealing 1d8+7 damage (avg 11.5) on hit. The most comparable thing I can come up with off the top of my head is a rogue using Sly Flourish with a Short Sword with +4 DEX and +3 CHA (or otherwise +7 between these), that's 1d6 + 7 (avg 10.5) (likewise a wizard with Cloud of Daggers) or a Twin Strike Archery ranger with a longbow, that's 2d10 (although it needs 2 attack rolls), avg 11.0 if both attacks hit, which is not as likely as getting a single attack to hit.

 

[Kirian555]

Both of your insight are interesting, thanks. Since i haven't played this edition yet, i think i'm going to stick with the current rule. Alternatively, if i decide to give a range to commander's strike, one option is to give the int modifier bonus to warlord using it in melee (better insight of the battle), if they use it outside of melee but withing range (of course), the int modifier bonus is lost, but the free standard attack is still possible. Anyway, i'll run with the actual rules and see if my players and myself like them the way they are.

 

[Zsig]

If i was to change anything in this power, it wouldn't be the range, because that would obviously break the power.

Instead, I'd change the attack line to:
"Attack: An ally of your choice within 5 squares makes a basic attack against the target."

This means that you still need to engage the enemy in melee, and you are simply exchanging your melee attack for your allies' basic attack (ranged or melee).

If that's balanced enough I'm not sure, it'd require some playtesting.

 

[deleteme123456]

If i was to change anything in this power, it wouldn't be the range, because that would obviously break the power.

Instead, I'd change the attack line to:
"Attack: An ally of your choice within 5 squares makes a basic attack against the target."

This means that you still need to engage the enemy in melee, and you are simply exchanging your melee attack for your allies' basic attack (ranged or melee).

If that's balanced enough I'm not sure, it'd require some playtesting.

Often enough you probably want to move to flank an enemy so your ally gets +2 to the attack roll if he's melee'ing from the other side, so you probably wouldn't use an ally's ranged attack often.

 

[Zsig]

Often enough you probably want to move to flank an enemy so your ally gets +2 to the attack roll if he's melee'ing from the other side, so you probably wouldn't use an ally's ranged attack often.

Yes, as well as often enough the other(s) melee ally(ies) is/are dealing with other threats and you're there fighting it alone...

Also, sometimes you're the only melee type on your group.

 

[Nifft]

At first, i liked the idea of a commander strike with a small range

Have you considered using a Warlord with a Reach weapon? That might give exactly the effect you want.

Cheers, -- N