Commander's Strike

124 posts / 0 new
Last post
In the description it says that the warlord shouts and an ally attacks but this is a Martial, Weapon power. Does this mean that the target must be within reach of my melee weapon? Am I actually physically interfering in the combat?

Is the ally compulsed to attack or is it his/her choice?
In the description it says that the warlord shouts and an ally attacks but this is a Martial, Weapon power. Does this mean that the target must be within reach of my melee weapon? Am I actually physically interfering in the combat?

Is the ally compulsed to attack or is it his/her choice?



The power's range is specified by its range entry.  If I'm not mistaken, Commander's Strike reads "Melee weapon"?  If it says that, you must be within the melee range of your weapon (Melee 1 would be in an adjacent square, no matter the weapon.  Melee touch would be your natural reach, which is 1 for just about everyone.).

As to what your character is actually physically doing in-game, that is entirely up to you, and not the domain of rules - this is what is known as "fluff" or "flavour".  If you have some sufficient explanation of what you're doing that doesn't, by flavour, involve direct physical interference, then you're not interfering.  *shrugs*
In the description it says that the warlord shouts and an ally attacks but this is a Martial, Weapon power. Does this mean that the target must be within reach of my melee weapon? Am I actually physically interfering in the combat?

Is the ally compulsed to attack or is it his/her choice?



Commander's Strike has a range of "Melee weapon," a Target line of "one creature" and an Attack line of "An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack against the target."  That means that the enemy that your ally attacks must be within range of your weapon, although the ally you choose does not (if, for example, you're flanking the target creature with said ally).  If you don't want to go with the default flavor text, think of it as you're reaching out with your weapon to feint the enemy or tickle it behind the ear (or whatever), or what have you, which distracts it and lets your ally get a free swing in.

Why would your ally choose not to make the attack?  (Or, put another way, when using this power, why would you choose an ally who wouldn't want to make the attack?)
loose [loos] vt. to let loose; to release; to unfasten, undo or untie; to shoot or discharge. lose [looz] vt. to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery; to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered; to suffer the deprivation of. LEARN THE DAMN DIFFERENCE. The pen is mightier than the character builder. Copy this to your sig if you like 4e but don't use the CB. "OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E." -RedSiegfried
Ok, say you are running an evil party... You want to complete the module but one party member is a real pain. You see him enter combat with a paladin who uses divine challenge on him. To punish him for being annoying you command him to strike another enemy causing him to take damage each turn. 

Like I said... Is he forced to attack?
Yes.  It's your attack, not his, essentially.  It's little different than a power allowing you to make a basic attack yourself.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
It's involuntary. Although, favor-wise I think the intention is that you're cooperating (sort of like the rest of DnD). In addition, you can make him attack any creature, which is fun. Maybe you feel like killing one of your other teammates?

Also, fun fact, he can declare himself no longer your ally and then you can't use the power on him, which supports the cooperation theory. 
I should think it would work like being granted a shift, wherein the ally in question doesn't HAVE to take it, even though the power in question doesn't expressly give them that out, or not using the full/any forced movement from a power that permits it.  Is there an actual rule that states that your ally absolutely has to make the attack?
The power does.

Attack: An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack against the target

No options.  No 'can make'.  It's your choice who does it, and when you choose it, they have to do it.  It's polite to ask them, and to allow them the input in whether or not they want to do it.  But in the end, it's your decision.  Much like leader powers which grant allies movement - in most cases, the movement is forced, and it's your choice, albeit the person has to be your ally for it to work.

If the Attack line said something like: An ally of your choice may make a MBA if they wish, then it would be up to them.  but it's not.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
The power does.

Attack: An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack against the target

No options.  No 'can make'.  It's your choice who does it, and when you choose it, they have to do it.  It's polite to ask them, and to allow them the input in whether or not they want to do it.  But in the end, it's your decision.  Much like leader powers which grant allies movement - in most cases, the movement is forced, and it's your choice, albeit the person has to be your ally for it to work.

If the Attack line said something like: An ally of your choice may make a MBA if they wish, then it would be up to them.  but it's not.



I see no "must", which in other cases would be what is required to FORCE the effect upon an ally.
It's not needed.  It's not stated as an option, it's stated as a fact.

An ally makes an attack.

You take d6 damage.

You become unconscious.

You are immobilised.

Bloodied creatures within 3 squares take 3d8 damage.

An ally gains hit points as if they had spent a healing surge.

There's no need for a 'must' in any of those other statements, why in this one?

Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
It's not needed.  It's not stated as an option, it's stated as a fact.

An ally makes an attack.

You take d6 damage.

You become unconscious.

You are immobilised.

Bloodied creatures within 3 squares take 3d8 damage.

An ally gains hit points as if they had spent a healing surge.

There's no need for a 'must' in any of those other statements, why in this one?




"You slide the ally 6 squares" - NOT mandatory.
"The ally shifts 6 squares" - NOT mandatory.
Because there's also the case of "you push the creature 3 squares" where it doesn't see but you don't have to.

In the case of granting movement to an ally the Compendium says quite clearly:

If a power notes a distance that you or an ally moves willingly (for example, “you shift 2 squares”), the character allowed to move can decide to move all, some, or none of that distance.



So I can see why there's precedent to allow the Ally a choice in making the attack or not. 
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
"You slide the ally 6 squares" - NOT mandatory.
"The ally shifts 6 squares" - NOT mandatory.


Actually yes, the first one IS mandatory.  The slide is FORCED movement.  Not optional movement.  YOU as the person casting the power choose where and to what extent the target moves, just as you would for an enemy in the same situation.

The shift case is slightly more arguable, you're right - and the way you've phrased it there, the choice would be the ally's as to whether they shift or not.  Had it been 'you shift an ally 6 squares' it would be your choice, not the ally's.  But that wouldn't be a shift, it would be a slide anyway, and that would be a badly phrased power.

The difficulty, I guess, is that there's no specific name for a forced MBA as there is for forced movement.  But you wouldn't argue that something like Hypnotism given an enemy an option as to whether they make an attack or not, would you?  Why should commander's strike give an ally an option?  It's your power, and unless it's specifically worded to give the ally an option as to what they do, it's your decision.  It doesn't need a rule, it's a function of the language.

This may be RAI, if there IS indeed a rule to clarify the point, I'd gratefully change my tune.  But unless there is, I would interpret the power as above.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
"You slide the ally 6 squares" - NOT mandatory.
"The ally shifts 6 squares" - NOT mandatory.


Actually yes, the first one IS mandatory.  The slide is FORCED movement.  Not optional movement.  YOU as the person casting the power choose where and to what extent the target moves, just as you would for an enemy in the same situation.

The shift case is slightly more arguable, you're right - and the way you've phrased it there, the choice would be the ally's as to whether they shift or not.  Had it been 'you shift an ally 6 squares' it would be your choice, not the ally's.  But that wouldn't be a shift, it would be a slide anyway, and that would be a badly phrased power.

The difficulty, I guess, is that there's no specific name for a forced MBA as there is for forced movement.  But you wouldn't argue that something like Hypnotism given an enemy an option as to whether they make an attack or not, would you?  Why should commander's strike give an ally an option?  It's your power, and unless it's specifically worded to give the ally an option as to what they do, it's your decision.  It doesn't need a rule, it's a function of the language.

This may be RAI, if there IS indeed a rule to clarify the point, I'd gratefully change my tune.  But unless there is, I would interpret the power as above.



With the forced movement case, the point I'm making is that it is not mandatory for you to do so.  In general, when a power allows you or an ally to do a thing, it doesn't force you to unless it says it does, like if a Wild Sorceror rolls a 1.

Also: Commander's Strike is worded like the shift case.
The power does.

Attack: An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack against the target

No options.  No 'can make'.  It's your choice who does it, and when you choose it, they have to do it.  It's polite to ask them, and to allow them the input in whether or not they want to do it.  But in the end, it's your decision.  Much like leader powers which grant allies movement - in most cases, the movement is forced, and it's your choice, albeit the person has to be your ally for it to work.

If the Attack line said something like: An ally of your choice may make a MBA if they wish, then it would be up to them.  but it's not.



I see no "must", which in other cases would be what is required to FORCE the effect upon an ally.



If this interpretation is correct, then several similarly worded powers which are clearly intended to force an enemy to attack a different enemy (or sometimes themselves) would be entirely non-functional, since they would always chose not to do so.  Lure of Minauros comes to mind, but there are many others.

No, the ally in question has no choice but to comply.  This is, however, not relevant, since nearly the only reason they would chose not to is if they or the warlord were for some reason disrupting the game.
No, it wouldn't be mandatory for you to make the forced movement.  It wouldn't be mandatory for you to make the ally attack either.  The point I'm trying to make is that it is the power user's choice here, not the ally they're using the power on.

SO in the commander's strike case, the Warlord hits the target, then can choose an ally who makes an MBA against the target with +damage.  But it's the Warlord's choice of who that ally is, and whether they make the MBA (and let's face it, you wouldn't be using the power if you didn't want them to).  The ally doesn't get the chance to say no, RAW.  Maybe the should.  But as the power is written, they don't.

Similarly, in the slide case, you as the caster of the power get to slide the ally up to 6 squares.  You could slide them no squares.  You could slide them 6 squares.  You could slide them off a cliff if you were feeling particularly prickish.  But the point is that it's your choice, not theirs.  (And they would get a save if you tried to slide them off a cliff.)

There are feat combos that rely on this mechanic - leaders force-moving a whole party with Agile Opportunist, in particular.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
It's not needed.  It's not stated as an option, it's stated as a fact.

An ally makes an attack.

You take d6 damage.

You become unconscious.

You are immobilised.

Bloodied creatures within 3 squares take 3d8 damage.

An ally gains hit points as if they had spent a healing surge.

There's no need for a 'must' in any of those other statements, why in this one?




"You slide the ally 6 squares" - NOT mandatory.
"The ally shifts 6 squares" - NOT mandatory.



Actually, these are both mandatory.  The only difference is that forced movement (a slide) has variable distance.  The caster (you) does not need to slide the target the full distance, and may chose to slide the target 0 squares.  Shifting is similar, except that the target has the option to shift 0.

So yes, when your bard uses majestic word on you, and slides you 1 square east, you are as compelled to do so as if an enemy had slid you.  When your warlord commands you to attack somebody, you are as compelled to do so as if an enemy had a power that has a similar effect.  Do you think that getting caught in your wizard's Sleep AoE means you aren't subject to the effects?

I understand that it's counter-intuitive from a roleplayer's or simulationist's viewpoint, but there no reason by RAW that these powers wouldn't take effect because the targeted PC didn't want them to for whatever reason.
Indeed.  The case at issue is amazingly niche as well.  It's only an issue because the party concerned is fighting against a PC class, AFAICT, which are really not designed for PvP combat.  If the Paladin mark were not in place, it wouldn't be an issue.  AFAIK no monsters have similar marks - or do they?

I suppose it could come up with a Dominated ally, too, who marked one of their allies, who the Warlord then used Commander's Strike on to attack someone else.  But again it's such a niche case...

But yeah.  The DM could rule one way or the other.  RAW, the power works as we've described here.  But the DM could rule otherwise in that particular niche case.

It's worth bearing in mind, too, that this is the Warlord's attack power.  Giving the ally the chance to say no would neuter half the warlord's at-will attack capacity.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Rule Compendium p106:

When a power defines a target as an ally the ally is free to ignore the power's effects.

So no, you can't force an ally to attack with commander's strike if they don't want to.
Ah, that's just the rule we were looking for.  However, in this case, it's not applicable.  The power doesn't classify the ally as a target.  The target is the creature the ally is being caused to attack.  The ally attacking the target is the power's attack line - the ally is never targetted by the power.  As written, even in light of that rule, the attack is still the Warlord's decision.


Commander’s Strike

With a shout, you command an ally to attack.


At-Will        Martial, Weapon
Standard Action      Melee weapon


Target: One creature


Attack: An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack against the target


Hit: Ally’s basic attack damage + your Intelligence modifier.

Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.

In the description it says that the warlord shouts and an ally attacks but this is a Martial, Weapon power. Does this mean that the target must be within reach of my melee weapon? Am I actually physically interfering in the combat?

Is the ally compulsed to attack or is it his/her choice?


Yes it needs to be wityhin both the reach of you and your ally as the the PHB FAQ

17. How does the range on Commander's Strike work?

Commander's Strike is a melee weapon attack. Because of this, it has the range of the Warlord's melee weapon reach. Normally this will be one square but weapons such as longspear may increase this. The target of the Commander's Strike must be within melee reach of both the Warlord and the chosen ally who will make the basic melee attack.


Why would an ally not make the attack granted by Commanbder Strike ? The power does not target an ally, so technically the creature would be compelled to the Effect.

But, debating Rules on this power is a hard business case. This Power was never revisited even though its not conform on many instances. First it affect a creature. Then the Attack and the Hit line says a ally is making a basic attak...Nothing would even technically stop an Unconcious ally from making the MBA if it worked....Lots of weirdness here.

This Power is not functional as is.
Take it to the Attack Step of Making An Attack (RC 214) for a sec:

1. Choose Power: I use Commander Strike
2. Choose Target: I choose The Orc there
3. Make Attack Roll: N/A (Bob supposedly make an MBA)
4. Compare Attack Roll to Target Defense: N/A
5. Deal Damage and Other Effects: N/A
6. Repeat Step 3 thihrough 5: If the power has more than one target

What enables Bob to actually make a basic attack ? No Effect grant him to do so in a formal way. You somehow switch place with Bob in the process of Making An Attack and he rolls with another power entirely (MBA) against the target of your original power WTF ? Wink

Now take Direct the Strike to each steps of the process of Making An Attack and compare the difference and see how it really should have worked.

Commander Strike has been screwed for more than 2 years and only survived as is for that long because RAI is unquestionable as to what it's intended to do and how it do it. RAW is another matter.

Plague


EDITED   For it to really work as intended both RAW & RAI it should be like this:

Commander’s Strike     Warlord Attack 1
With a shout, you command an ally to attack
At-will      Martial, Weapon
Standard Action     Melee weapon
Target: One ally
Effect: The target makes a basic attack as a free action against an enemy of your choice within your reach. He gains a bonus to this damage roll equal to your intelligence modifier.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I wouldn't argue with the suggestion that the power should be written like that.  It's probably ripe for an errata.  But as it is, it's not written like that ;)
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Who gets to choose whether the damage is non-lethal?

Darklight Interactive - "Omne ignotum pro magnifico"

"When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer..."

A Walk In the Dark blog

Current PCs
Expedition to Castle Greyhawk (DnD 4e) - Jaana Allera, 13th level Human Rogue
As written now, the Warlord.  It's his attack. 

As it ought to be written, the ally.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Still, the ally could simply revoke his ally-hood to the warlord and then negate the warlord's strike. Since the rules only cover ally/creature/enemy for targeting, for any other purpose you can just say you aren't an ally if you don't want to be.
Still, the ally could simply revoke his ally-hood to the warlord and then negate the warlord's strike. Since the rules only cover ally/creature/enemy for targeting, for any other purpose you can just say you aren't an ally if you don't want to be.


People say that all the time and it is still one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. The only reason you would even want to do something like that is if you enjoy being a jerk or you are trying to game the system. Both of those are a bad idea and really annoying. Plus, the only thing that even suggests that it is possible to do is the lack of any rules covering this scenario.


Commander's Strike is simply poorly worded. Over the years, I've seen more Rules Q&A discussion threads over this power than probably any other. I really wish they'd update the wording.

Although the target line specifies a "creature" and not an "ally", that's only because the creature in question is the target of the proposed attack. The Warlord is basically supposed to be distracting the creature with his own blows or otherwise creating an opening for the ally. That's why the target creature is within melee distance of the Warlord. The involved ally does not need to be within melee distance of the Warlord, but of course is also going to have to be within their own melee range of the target if they're going land the MBA that they're granted.

Long story short, although the ally isn't specified in the target line, the ally is absolutely being granted an attack by the Warlord. The Warlord doesn't have some magical compulsion ability to force this attack, and the ally (if they're being silly) can absolutely decline to make it, as Jay_Ibero_911 has already correctly stated. It seems to me that people trying to argue otherwise are trying to use RAW semantics to overcome what is clearly RAI.

People who are genuinely unclear about how this power is intended to be used should feel free to email WotC Customer Service. This support service exists specifically to help people understand the intended rules and the support staff is pretty good about responding in a timely matter.
It's a difficult power to write correctly - the intention is clearly that the ally attacks a creature within the Warlord's weapon range (usually adjacent to both ally and warlord, but reach weapons prevent the use of that wording).  But the ally doesn't have to be within the warlord's range.  So making it a ranged power both opens the warlord to OAs, and doesn't limit it to creatures in weapon range, rather any creature the ally can MBA.  Similarly, a blast or burst power would give the ally more scope to attack other targets.

The only way I can see to make it work the same way mechanically, but alleviate the ambiguity (which clearly should be removed if possible) would be:

Close burst 5 (maybe bigger, need to be sure of being able to grab an ally flanking you at an opposite corner of a Gargantuan creature).

Target: One ally
Hit: The ally can make a melee basic attack against a target within range of your melee basic attack with a bonus to damage equal to your INT mod.

But even then, there's more ambiguity about precisely what the intent of the power is, in favour of removing a slight ambiguity about who controls the attack.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.

Rewording it would not be hard.


Commander’s Strike (Reworded 1)


At-Will        Martial
Standard Action      Close burst 5


Target: One willing ally


Effect: As a free action, the target can make a melee basic attack against an enemy within your own melee reach.  If the attack hits, it gains a bonus to damage equal to your Intelligence modifier.


- or -


Commander’s Strike (Reworded 2)


At-Will        Martial
Standard Action      Melee weapon


Target: One creature


Effect: One ally of your choice can make a melee basic attack against the target as a free action.  If the attack hits, it gains a bonus to damage equal to your Intelligence modifier.

--

The difference is whether you are supposed to count as attacking the target or not.
Who gets to choose whether the damage is non-lethal?



The ally does, whichever way you look at it.  Regardless of whether the ally gets to choose whether to make the attack at all, it is the ally who makes the melee basic attack and so gets to make any further choices relating to the resolution of the melee basic attack.
Hoard: may earn you gp; Horde: may earn you xp.
It's a difficult power to write correctly - the intention is clearly that the ally attacks a creature within the Warlord's weapon range (usually adjacent to both ally and warlord, but reach weapons prevent the use of that wording).  But the ally doesn't have to be within the warlord's range.  So making it a ranged power both opens the warlord to OAs, and doesn't limit it to creatures in weapon range, rather any creature the ally can MBA.  Similarly, a blast or burst power would give the ally more scope to attack other targets.

The only way I can see to make it work the same way mechanically, but alleviate the ambiguity (which clearly should be removed if possible) would be:

Close burst 5 (maybe bigger, need to be sure of being able to grab an ally flanking you at an opposite corner of a Gargantuan creature).

Target: One ally
Hit: The ally can make a melee basic attack against a target within range of your melee basic attack with a bonus to damage equal to your INT mod.

But even then, there's more ambiguity about precisely what the intent of the power is, in favour of removing a slight ambiguity about who controls the attack.



This has its own set of problems, such as the fact that it can have an equal or larger range to Direct The Strike, making it strictly better.



The only way that would be true would be if your had melee reach 5 or more, which would still give commander's striker the same or greater range than direct the strike as actually written. This gives me an idea for a goliath stoneblessed taclord...
Or a ranged attack that's usable as an MBA. Which can happen.



Care to shed some light on that one? Reaper's touch for instance lets you use some ranged powers as MBA's, but with a range of melee touch, so they wouldn't be in range of your MBA unless they were within your melee touch range, regardless of the ranged range of the power...
lol Divine Bolts.


Power of skill makes Divine Bolts a basic attack, not a melee basic attack.  Assuming that's what you're talking about.

Also, if you did somehow have a way to make an MBA at range, then you could use it with the existing version of CS anyway.  Presumably, that kind of abuse would be the point of such a power.
Yeah, the fact that it turns it into a "basic attack" means it can be either.


What makes you say that?  MBAs and RBAs are basic attacks, but that doesn't mean any basic attack is an MBA or an RBA, much less both.  (Sort of like how squares and circles are shapes, but that doesn't mean an unspecified shape must be both a square and a circle.)


And no, the current wording is limited to the reach of your weapon, not the range of your MBA.


It's limited to the reach of the warlord's weapon, but the warlord is not making an MBA, he's using Commander's Strike.  There is no limit on the distance to the ally you are granting the MBA to, he just needs to be in range of his own MBA, whatever that is.
Yeah, the fact that it turns it into a "basic attack" means it can be either.


What makes you say that?  MBAs and RBAs are basic attacks, but that doesn't mean any basic attack is an MBA or an RBA, much less both.  (Sort of like how squares and circles are shapes, but that doesn't mean an unspecified shape must be both a square and a circle.)


actually that's the definition of a basic attack:  if a power can be used as a basic attack, you can make either a MBA or a RBA.  If something calls for specifically one or the other, you must use the power as that type.

INSIDE SCOOP, GAMERS: In the new version of D&D, it will no longer be "Edition Wars." It will be "Edition Lair Assault." - dungeonbastard

Where is that definition located?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Where is that definition located?



Player's Handbook 1, page 287:

"A basic attack is an at-will attack power that everyone possesses, regardless of class. The power comes in two forms: melee and ranged. You calculate the attack bonuses of a basic attack like those of any other attack power.

When a power allows you to make a basic attack, you can make either a melee basic attack or a ranged basic attack. If a power specifically calls for a melee basic attack or a ranged basic attack, you must use that type. You use a melee basic attack to make an opportunity attack, and some powers or effects (especially warlord powers) give you the ability to make a basic attack when it isn’t your turn."
loose [loos] vt. to let loose; to release; to unfasten, undo or untie; to shoot or discharge. lose [looz] vt. to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery; to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered; to suffer the deprivation of. LEARN THE DAMN DIFFERENCE. The pen is mightier than the character builder. Copy this to your sig if you like 4e but don't use the CB. "OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E." -RedSiegfried
I presume it says 'basic attack' because it applies to both ranged and melee powers - it's worded that way so that Divine Bolts can be used as an RBA, and the others can be used as MBAs.  It could be clarified, maybe, but that seems to be RAI.  I'm not sure how you could clarify that point in brief, though.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Where is that definition located?



Player's Handbook 1, page 287:

"A basic attack is an at-will attack power that everyone possesses, regardless of class. The power comes in two forms: melee and ranged. You calculate the attack bonuses of a basic attack like those of any other attack power.

When a power allows you to make a basic attack, you can make either a melee basic attack or a ranged basic attack. If a power specifically calls for a melee basic attack or a ranged basic attack, you must use that type. You use a melee basic attack to make an opportunity attack, and some powers or effects (especially warlord powers) give you the ability to make a basic attack when it isn’t your turn."


Without disputing erachima's excellent point, I still don't agree with your interpretation.   The two salient lines are:

- Basic attacks come in two forms: melee and ranged.  When written, this was entirely true, but it doesn't technically exclude that a third or yet more forms could exist.  It just specifies two forms that do exist. 

- When a power allows you to make a basic attack, you can make either an MBA or an RBA.  That's not disputed.   But from that it does not follow that if a feat makes a power into a basic attack, it can (or must) be either an MBA or RBA.  First it doesn't mention feats, and second, it only address granting basic attacks, not turning other powers into them.

Of course, there's no doubt that the intent was for Power of Skill to make Divine Bolts into an RBA, and not some kind of indefinite "basic attack" which is neither RBA nor MBA.  But even if you rules lawyer it, I don't think there's really room to say that it makes it usable as an MBA.
A similar argument is Acid Orb and Sorcerous Blade Channeling.  Acid Orb can be used as a Ranged Basic Attack; SBC allows you to change the range of a sorc power from Ranged to Melee.

The consensus thus far is that you cannot use Acid Orb as an opportunity attack - being a melee-range RBA does not make it into a MBA.

There exist three sets of basic attacks.  Basic attacks, melee basic attacks, and ranged basic attacks.  Ranged basic attacks and melee basic attacks are subsets of basic attacks, but there is not (as far as I am aware) something that is both a melee basic attack and a ranged basic attack.  Furthermore, the range of a ranged basic attack or melee basic attack seems (illogically) not tied to whether or not it's actually a RBA or MBA.

Another fun case:


Fading Strike

You launch an attack against your foe and then back away for safety.


At-Will        Martial, Weapon
Standard Action      Melee or Ranged weapon


Target: One creature


Attack: Dexterity vs. AC


Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and you shift 2 squares to a square that is not adjacent to the target.
Level 21: 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.


  Hunter Fighting Style: When making an opportunity attack, you can use this power in place of a melee basic attack.




Shoot it in the face with a bow for shooting you in the face with a bow!
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
This is an "I agree with jaelis" post.