Warlord At-Will Powers level 1 via June Preview

[Kwalish Kid]

You get to order another player around. That player may be better positioned or do better damage than you.

This is one of the main reasons that I (and I think Holy Bovine) want to switch to 4E. We have a player who should only be playing warlords.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Secondly, what happens if the enemy is granting combat advantage and Commanding Strike is used to order a Rogue to attack? Is Sneak Attack damage applied in addition to the damage listed for Commander's Strike?

I think the answer to that is dependent on the sneak attack rules. From the rogue preview a few months back:

Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling, your attacks against that enemy deal extra damage. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.

I think it depends on the Rogue. If he's opted to use sneak attack this round, then it's not going to apply whe the Warlord issues a commanding strike. If not, then sure, rack up the damage.

 

[OchreJelly]

Also, it is a very important power because in effect it gives you access to ALL the at-will powers, with the only drawback is that you let someone else roll it. And what are the odds that the player you gifted this action to wil not accept your advice on how to do it.

Not exactly, you get to have an ally make a basic attack - that's sans powers. However since magic missiles and eldritch blasts are basic attacks, you could conceivably use that

Edit: Oops, nevermind it must be a basic melee attack

 

[Mercule]

I can see both sides of the argument. It wouldn't be fun if you typically had to hand over your action to another player. But, every class gets two at-wills, plus several encounter and daily powers. So, it's not like you won't have options.

Myself, I kinda like the power. I often end up in a leadership role, because I'm pretty good at tactical combat and have a good head for rules (I usually GM). If I play the striker or defender (I often play rogues), then I feel like I'm taking the whole limelight.

As a warlord, I'd have a character that provided me with tools to let me play the tactician, but also help others enjoy the game more, too. That's very much a win-win.

As Ulthwithian said, Warlord isn't going to appeal to every player. And that's okay. I've never much cared for playing wizards, but that doesn't mean they are a bad character class/archetype. I wouldn't want to play a warlord all the time, but it sure looks like it'd be fun for as long as a campaign lasted.

 

[Pinotage]

The at will is basically like an unlimited Snake's Swiftness, just more powerful since I don't think it's restricted to melee attacks only.

Pinotage

 

[Ulthwithian]

Okay, the Sneak Attack rules seem to justify getting the damage (as it should...). The range question is still there. It would really suck (comparatively) if the Warlord and the ally in question both had to be in melee range.

Switch the Rogue to a TWF Ranger (assuming they get Hunter's Quarry), and all of a sudden you're cooking with gas.

 

[Scipio202]

I think this is really useful, but situational (which is why you'd want another at will where you attack directly). Though if it is true that you always count as your own ally, you could use this on yourself to make a melee attack if you needed to (e.g. if your other at will is a ranged power).

Need to go kill the squishy caster? Send the rogue, and have the warlord hang back but still get in 2 hits/round.

Have two defenders holding the line in that 2 square wide corridor? Use this to get in an extra hit.

There are lots of ways this will let you concentrate fire when you can't/wouldn't want the warlord to go next to the target.

 

[Cadfan]

I am a little confused by that ability. Does it only work if you're in melee reach of the enemy you want your ally to attack? That seems to be the rule, but I've not bothered learning all the keywords yet.

 

[Novem5er]

With this At Will ability, I could definitely see some players really liking it... and when is another player going to complain that it gets an extra attack? My concern is that it's an At Will ability and some players (Warlords or their teammates) might spam it over and over.

For instance, say the party has both a Warlord and a buffed-out Dragonborn fighter with a greatweapon. Given a straight-up melee, why wouldn't the Warlord use this power every round? What happens when the Dragonborn players starts telling the WARLORD how to fight, to repeatedly use this power because his character does more damage?

So, I'm not against it. If a player doesn't like it, he doesn't have to choose it, nor would he/she have to use it every round. BUT, just as a Cleric doesn't have to use its full turn to heal someone anymore, I was just surprised that there was an At Will ability that requires the sacrifice of the Warlords entire attack.

I would have preferred that this was an Encounter power where the Warlord gets his basic attack AND an ally can use a basic attack

 

[JesterOC]

Not exactly, you get to have an ally make a basic attack - that's sans powers. However since magic missiles and eldritch blasts are basic attacks, you could conceivably use that

Edit: Oops, nevermind it must be a basic melee attack

Oops My bad, missed the melee and basic keywords. Thanks for the clarity.