Warlord At-Will Powers level 1 via June Preview

[Lacyon]

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 think the kind of player who will pick this power is exactly the kind of player who wants to be using it on the fighter every round. I mean, that's the point of at-wills, right?

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

I wouldn't be surprised if there was such a power.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

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.

Huh... yeah, I didn't notice that before. I'm going to have to get used to looking at the symbols.

Reading the text, I originally thought it was just line of sight to your ally, but it looks like the Warlord player has to be in range to use the power as well.

It's like this power was built for rogues; use wolf-pack tactics to get them Combat Advantage, then Commanding Strike for the bonus sneak attack damage.

 

[Kaodi]

I think it is particularly good because it allows the Warlord to effectively be in two places at once. You can be both the rearguard, protecting the wizard or another fragile character while still effectively contributing to the fight at the front lines. I doubt that it will be used every round, because a sneaky DM probably isn't going to let the wizard and the warlord to sit pretty at the back all the time, and you may need to wade into melee to use some of your encounter and daily powers, but it is certainly a very useful ability.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

There is no I in Warlord!

Wins the thread.

 

[OchreJelly]

The commander’s strike power isn’t for everyone, but man it is versatile. I can see the following uses for it:
- warlord hangs back near the squishies to act as a rear-guard while the front-line melee types are dishing it out. He uses this power to give the fighter or paladin a second attack. The alternative is he would normally attack with a ranged weapon which is probably weaker.
- The warlord is immobilized either thru a spell or hazard. He uses this power rather than have nothing to do.
- The warlord delays allowing him to step in a give someone an attack whenever he wants in the round. This level of versatility can be very handy.

One way to look at it is it’s effectively a ranged attack channeled through one of your allies.

 

[Voss]

It's not for a front-line warlord, I don't think. If you prefer mixing it up in melee with the Fighter, you're probably not going to be interested in this power.

Its a melee attack though, so it seems to require a front-line warlord. And you both have to be able to make melee attacks against the target, which pretty much requires you to be next to the fighter (or whoever). And they just get a basic melee attack. Thats... not a very good trade. I can see some corner cases that would make it good (pair with a melee ranger who has selected the target as his quarry), but most of the time you'll want to use your other at will.

Wolf pack tactics is a bit better. Easy to set up combat advantage through flanking, and opens up all sorts of shenanigans.

 

[OchreJelly]

And here’s another good aspect of commander’s strike:

You are having a really bad night with your dice. We’ve all been there. You give an ally the burden of the attack roll. All the success or failure is then off your shoulders!

 

[Voss]

The commander’s strike power isn’t for everyone, but man it is versatile. I can see the following uses for it:
- warlord hangs back near the squishies to act as a rear-guard while the front-line melee types are dishing it out. He uses this power to give the fighter or paladin a second attack. The alternative is he would normally attack with a ranged weapon which is probably weaker.
- The warlord is immobilized either thru a spell or hazard. He uses this power rather than have nothing to do.
- The warlord delays allowing him to step in a give someone an attack whenever he wants in the round. This level of versatility can be very handy.

One way to look at it is it’s effectively a ranged attack channeled through one of your allies.

None of these work (well except for the delay). Its a melee attack that spawns a basic melee attack on the same target.

 

[Xorn]

Another "corner case" would be literally fighting at a corner. The target has melee cover to the warlord, but not to the adjacent fighter. Grant the fighter a swing instead to avoid the cover penalty.

I think this is going to be an awesome at-will.

 

[Bishmon]

I love the Commander's Strike power because I want a leader/buffer that doesn't have to attack something to help his allies. Unfortunately, based on everything else we've seen from the warlord and cleric, Commander's Strike is a glaring exception to the 'attack to buff' rule. Oh well, at least it's something.