Well, not being able to read a power and accept a correct answer for a power doesn't really lend much to your personality either.
I sure as hell can read a power as written better than you have demonstatated that you can. I can also read what the FAQ says about it and see the problems with it. I have no problem accepting that the FAQ answer is official and using it in RPGA campaigns, but I can't dumb down and ignore the defective reasoning presented.
A "correct" answer is whatever those in charge claim it is. A proper answer is one that conforms with the facts. The FAQ answer is now official within the RPGA, thus correct, but is not proper nor satisfactory. If you are not playing within the RPGA, the correct answer is the one whoever is in charge of your campaign accepts.
Trust me, the correct usage of this power is still more than useful.
I don't trust your opinions, based on what you have posted in his thread. And my experience is that other at-will powers are generally more useful for a warlord who isn't paired with a good striker, following him around (or controling where he goes) so that they spend much of their time adjacent to the same foes.
If you think about many at-will powers being not too much more than 1W+Mod, this is another regular strength hit +Int Modifier, which is pretty good. When you have a good striker to use this with, you get to recreate his awesome attack and damage bonus, as well as giving him more chances to crit, which he most likely has very good effects for.
My 3rd level warlord, who used to use Commander's Strike, can regularly deal 1d8 + 8 with a one-handed melee basic attack with a +1 longsword (it could be more if he didn't use a shield and used a weapon two-handed). Most characters of similar level, when they don't have combat advantage, won't do much better as the ally with Commander's Strike. Barbarians have a tendensy to charge around the battlefield, rarely adjacent to the same enemy as a warlord. Other melee strikers also tend to move around a lot seeking combat advantage, often taking them away from the warlord.
I find it useful more often to use Opening Shove than Commander's Strike and it specifically can affect "one ally that you can see", regadless of how far away the ally is, if that ally neds to shift a few squares rather than attack the creature that you push). {Opening Shove is a fairly weak power, but it can be used to give an ally a melee basic attack, push a an enemy, shift an ally multiple squares from anywhere in sight, or even push an ally and shift the same ally or a different one to improve the tactical situation. There is more to being a warlord than damaging an adjacent enemy.)
I sit my taclord next to a tempest fighter and use commander's strike. +1 Vicious Urgrosh at level 1 gives him a +8 attack bonus for a d12+7. My averagely built Eladrin Taclord has a +6 Melee basic attack that does d8+3. Commander's strike is awesome so far. DPR in this situation of Commander's Strike off my Tempest: 12.85 That's pretty decent for level 1 characters.
This more often than not doubles the usefulness of Warlord's Favor and Adaptive Stratagem.
Now here's the DPR of this same Tempest Fighter using Dual Strike: 13
A leader at will that (at least at these early levels) has nearly the same DPR (These were done using the DMG's suggested 14+level AC reference which seems to be commonly used in DPR calculations) as the party's well built striker.
How can you argue that that's not useful? Melee attacks are supposed to do more than ranged attacks (in general), most likely due to the risk. So why should you be able to get a relatively hard hitting power that lets you hide away from combat?
My Warlord Handbook: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/21004845/Leading_the_Attack_Warlord_Tactics My Feycharging Taclord build: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/21817401/My_Eladrin_Feycharging_Tactical_Warlord
I sit my taclord next to a tempest fighter and use commander's strike. +1 Vicious Urgrosh at level 1 gives him a +8 attack bonus for a d12+7. My averagely built Eladrin Taclord has a +6 Melee basic attack that does d8+3. Commander's strike is awesome so far. DPR in this situation of Commander's Strike off my Tempest: 12.85 That's pretty decent for level 1 characters.
1d12 + 7 averages 13.5 (crits for average 25.5 if vicious).
My level 1 wizard is currently using a nonmagical urgrosh for +5 attack bonus and 1d12 + 5 damage (average 11.5) and just found a lightning longsword +1 with which she has +7 attack bonus and will do 1d8 + 7 damage (average 11.5) two-handed without using its power (she will be using the longsword as an implement at 2nd level). But she only makes melee basic attacks if the enemy closes with her. She could benefit from being the ally for Commander's Strike, but only rarely (and much more rarely if the warlord had to be close to her at the time). With my interpretation, she could be chosen as the ally when an enemy closes with her, letting her strike hard before getting away, while your interpretation would be very unlikely to allow the warlord to aid her.
My level 1 warlord is +6 to attack for 1d10 + 4 (average 9.5) with a nonmagical longspear (it would be +7 to attack for 1d10 + 5 with a vicious longspear +1, not a lot less than your assisted tempest fighter.
My level 3 warlord, with plain magic longsword +1, is +8 to attack for 1d8 + 8. If he dropped his shield, he could two-hand for 1d8 + 9 (average 13.5), and he is proficient with urgrosh so could have had a magic urgrosh +1 with +7 to attack for 1d12 + 8 (average 14.5). Raise your assisted tempest fighter to level 3 with his current items and he would be +8 to deal 1d12 +7.
I still don't see the benefit of shadowing a tempest fighter (if there where even one at the table; I play with a variety of different players, not a consistent home group) when I could be dealing my own damage or or moving creatures around for better advantage.
Commander's Strike may work well for some, given the makeup of the party and how they are equipped and how well the work together, but it doesn;t work well for me using the FAQ "clarification".
This more often than not doubles the usefulness of Warlord's Favor and Adaptive Stratagem.
Mu level 3 warlod is +8 with Warlord's Favor for 2d8 + 6 (av 15) one-handed, and grants a +4 power bonus to attack vs the target to any one ally within 5 squares, which could be a ranged or two-weapon striker, not just a melee attacker who I can grant an attack against the same target with my next standard action.
I can also use Adaptive Strategem to grant a +3 bonus to damage to any ally within 10 until the end of my next turn, not just to one who will melee attack a target within my reach. I think it will generally be more effective at a distance, often granting the power bonus to an ally who can hit targets multiple times in the round (such as a controler.
Now here's the DPR of this same Tempest Fighter using Dual Strike: 13
A leader at will that (at least at these early levels) has nearly the same DPR (These were done using the DMG's suggested 14+level AC reference which seems to be commonly used in DPR calculations) as the party's well built striker.
How can you argue that that's not useful? Melee attacks are supposed to do more than ranged attacks (in general), most likely due to the risk. So why should you be able to get a relatively hard hitting power that lets you hide away from combat?
If you're playing a Taclord with a starting Int of 16... you did it wrong. That's what I picked up on between the bla bla bla and a wizard that makes an ok melee attack for some reason. You seem to favor odd combo's so it makes more sense why you read oddly... least I got Chicken...
My Warlord Handbook: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/21004845/Leading_the_Attack_Warlord_Tactics My Feycharging Taclord build: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/21817401/My_Eladrin_Feycharging_Tactical_Warlord
Our wizard does get caught in melee once in a while - she's a staff wizard, and they're moderately tough, but no Melee Training, so her MBA is the pits. She usually thunderwaves, to get the enemy off her back, if that doesn't work (or if my initiative comes up first), I'll often run over and use Wolf Pack Tactics to let her shift away, then she can open the distance on her action, and cast, while I play defender. Using Commander's Strike on a wizard without coming to her aid doesn't seem like something that'd be worthwhile very often, even with Melee Training - and WPT, Knight's Move, or a lot of other things, would probably be better.
Taclords tend to be slightly more mobile, since they often go for light armor, so getting into range, especialy with a reach weapon, is usually practical. And, the feel of the class really isn't much geared towards ranged offense of any kind.
She's an eladrin wand wizard with Eladrin Soldier feat, Int 18, Str 16, Dex 14. At 2nd level she will take Eladrin Sword Wizardry. Eladrin Soldier gives proficiency with spear group (includes urgrosh) and adds +2 to damage with longswords and spears. Eladrin Sword Wizardry lets an eladrin wizard wield a longsword as an implement as if it were a wand AND lets you apply a magic longsword's properties to implement spells.
As an urgrosh has [W] = d12 (primary) and is a defensive weapon (+1 to AC) it seemed a better weapon to use if forced into melee than a nonmagical dagger, quarterstaff, or longsword. In her first adventure she found a lightning weapon +1 which she took as longsword. She will be switching to using the longsword, and will get the the weapon's enhancement to both melee basic attacks and (when it counts as an implement) to implement spells. The +2 Eladrin Soldier bonus to damage should apply to spells cast through the longsword as well as to weapon damage. Wand of Accuracy should also apply to a melee basic attack with a magic longsword.
This wizard could be a reasonable ally for Commander's Strike when forced into melee. She could then step back and follow up with a spell on her own turn. She isn't a standard wizard, but will be an effective controller with a good melee fallback.
My level 3 tactical warlord has Str 16, Int 16, Cha 14 and the Eladrin Soldier feat. He picked up Bracers of Mighting Striking before he found a magic weapon. He will be bumping Str and Int regularly.
My level 1 tactical warlord has Str 18, Int 16, Cha 14 and uses a longspear for reach attacks., but does less melee base attack damage (1d10 +4) than my wizard (1d12 + 5 or 1d8 + 7).
You seem to be bringing up evidence that Commander's strike is worthwhile even if not used at range. If you can get even a wizard to do more melee damage than yourself with a 16 strength (I'm referring to the wizard) than I think this goes forth as evidence that this is still a very useful At-will with the FAQ ruling. As far as flavor of the warlord goes, his whole schtick is lead from the front. Ranged Commander's strike is the complete opposite of that. The only ranged attacks (I'm pretty sure, haven't gone down the whole list lately) for the warlord are only usable with heavy thrown weapons, which are generally a subpar form of ranged combat (I wanna say horrible/useless, but I can't really back it up, I'm sure somethings out there).
sidenote-if we're not going to agree on a power interpretation, I'm just gonna try to convince you that this power is definitely worth taking even with the FAQ ruling.
My Warlord Handbook: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/21004845/Leading_the_Attack_Warlord_Tactics My Feycharging Taclord build: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/21817401/My_Eladrin_Feycharging_Tactical_Warlord
You seem to be bringing up evidence that Commander's strike is worthwhile even if not used at range. If you can get even a wizard to do more melee damage than yourself with a 16 strength (I'm referring to the wizard) than I think this goes forth as evidence that this is still a very useful At-will with the FAQ ruling.
You are reading superficially again. I have indicated why my 3rd level warlord retrained out of the power - it wasn't proving worth having in his experience. The way you have claimed to use the power, tagging along with a specific other character is unlikely to have your warlored in a position to chose my wizard if they were in the same party, even though he could do similar melee basic atack damage to the tempest fighter you mention - they would typically be on different parts of the battlefield. If the target need only be within the ally's reach, and the warlord able to see the ally and target and communicate with the ally, then the power would be useful with whichever ally is the better tactical choice at the time.
Your benefit from it presuposes that you are regularly close to an ally who is likely to deal more melee basic attack damage than would result from your warlord using some other acton at the time, or for which giving that ally an attack on your turn is otherwise the best tactical use of your action.
As far as flavor of the warlord goes, his whole schtick is lead from the front. Ranged Commander's strike is the complete opposite of that.
The schtick of my tactical warlord is to assist the entire party in succeeding in encounters by making good tactical decisions and acting upon them. Sometimes that involves him attacking on his own, sometime coordinating with an ally close to him, sometimes setting up an enemy for an ally's action, sometimes helping an ally across the battlefield.
The warlord can do several things that affect ally's that he can see or that can hear him. Look in Martial Powers. Opening Shove, for example, is an at-will melee weapon power. It does require the warlord to make an actual melee attack against a target in reach, but deals no direct damage. Instead it pushes the target to a more desirable location, "Then choose one ally you can see. That ally either shifts a number of squares equal to your intelligence modifier or makes a melee basic attack against the target."
I replaced Commander's Strike with Opening Shove, which fits my idea of how a warlord interacts with allies, though itr does not seem to fit yours. My warlord started with Str 16 for a good attack modifier for many of his own powers and Int 16 as a secondary stat, which allow adding a +3 bonus to ally's damage with Commander's Strike or a shift of an ally of up to 3 squares (with the ally anywhere in line of sight) which can often help when the ally needs to be in a different location immediately.
Actually reading Opening Shove indicates tactical posibilities, such as targeting an ally in reach ("any creature", and I'm no harming the ally) to push him a square away (possibly out of a bad square or closer to where he wants to be) and the shifting the same or a different ally a few squares to a tactically better location. Even using it for having an ally attack the target, If both the ally and the warlord have reach weapons, they might be up to 5 squares apart for use this melee weapon attack, pushing the target from the warlod's reach into the ally's reach.
sidenote-if we're not going to agree on a power interpretation, I'm just gonna try to convince you that this power is definitely worth taking even with the FAQ ruling.
You haven't made any headway yet. I agree that the power can be used on occation to tactical advantage as interpreted by the FAQ, but not often enough for a character I would like to play to consider it a good strategic choice of at-will options. It goes against my impression of how a tactical leader should view the battlefield and choose his actions.
Under my interpretation, you can still play your warlord exactly the way you do under your current interpretation. If the FAQ interpretation is enough for the power to be worthwhile for you, okay. But it's not good enough for me to tie up an at-will power slot (having tried it both ways).
Dude, what was I thinking, a warlord power where you have to be next to an ally? He doesn't have any powers like that, and if he did, they'd likely be pretty horrible. You get two at-wills dude. Guess what though, there all, for the most part, best or only useful when close to or adjacent to an ally. Most of the warlord's attack bonus' effect the enemy he is attacking at melee range. If he's going to actually use any of his powers, he has to be with an ally for an additional effect to matter. You seem to be stuck on the idea that if a warlord only does damage on his turn that he's wasted it. People don't need a shift every turn. Commander's strike is a very damaging at-will. halfway through heroic tier most of your allies should be able to get out of tough situations on their own. Not saying that it's useless to move them, but they shouldn't rely on the warlord for getting them out of every mob of enemies. My party doesn't really have a squishy, the ranger even has a 17 AC, that's the lowest in the party. No one really cares if I give them a shift for CA. However, when I let another one of my allies get another attack in that let's them use their attack (again, more damaging than mine even before the Int bonus) we both feel good. I still feel responsible for the damage, so I'm content and the fighter got to hit something, so he's happy.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the warlord is designed to stick close to other party members or at least one ally (works great sitting right next to the defender). In response to your argument of why your warlord wouldn't want to stick next to a wizard... duh. Nobody said you had to pick a random/weak ally to stand next to. Go out with the striker or defender and flank with him. Flanking is probably the best bonus the warlord can give, you're hurting yourself if your not next to someone that can take advantage of your bonus'.
My Warlord Handbook: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/21004845/Leading_the_Attack_Warlord_Tactics My Feycharging Taclord build: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/21817401/My_Eladrin_Feycharging_Tactical_Warlord
Dude, what was I thinking, a warlord power where you have to be next to an ally?
Inapropriate sarcasm. Who say that some, even many warlord powers aren't approprite where the warlord has to be close to an ally or an enemy? Even thge FAQ does no require that the warlord be next to the ally for Commander's Strike, just that the target be within melee reach of both the warlord and the ally.
What I claim, and Opening Shove, Commanding Presence, and some other warlord powers and properties support, is that that some aspects of being a warlord aren't so limited.
You get two at-wills dude. Guess what though, there all, for the most part, best or only useful when close to or adjacent to an ally.
The way you interpret them, not they way some (such as Opening Shove or Commander's Strike) are actually written.
Look at the 4 PH warlord 1st level at-wills:
Commander's Strike - the contested interpretation.
Furious Smash - "choose one ally adjacent to either you or the target".
Viper's Strike - "Wffect: If the target shifts before the start of your next turn, it provokes an opportunity attackfrom an ally of your choice." No restriction on where the ally is when you use the power, nor on where you or the target are when it shifts.
Wolf Pack Tactics - "one ally adjacent to either you or the target".
You seem to be stuck on the idea that if a warlord only does damage on his turn that he's wasted it.
Tou didn't read that in my posts. You jump to conclusions again.
People don't need a shift every turn. Commander's strike is a very damaging at-will. halfway through heroic tier most of your allies should be able to get out of tough situations on their own. Not saying that it's useless to move them, but they shouldn't rely on the warlord for getting them out of every mob of enemies.
You seem to have a low opinion of the usefulness of moving allies or enemies. On Monday my warlord 3 was in an adventure where PCs would take 10 ongoing damage from starting a turn adjacent to a swarm, or had to deal with being grabbed and imobilized. Having the warlord next to the swarm to grant an ally an attack wouldn't have been a reasonable option. Pushing an creature withing reach a square, then shifting an ally within sight up to 3 squares (Int 16) helped more than once to liberate allies and prevent damage. Wolf Pack Tactics to shift an ally out of a grab before attacking the grabber was also useful more than once. Warlord's Favor was used in an attempt to deal 2d8 + 6 damage to a foe and grant a +4 power bonus to attack to an archer 4 or 5 squares behind me (but I rolled a natural 1 and missed). I fey stepped past foe who bottled up the party in an entrace hallway and used Bastion of Defense (unfortunatelt rolled a natural 2 and missed) but the effect gave the rest of the party each 7 temp hp to help them deal with that foe, and the others once they got past it. Adaptive Stratagem (Close burst 10) gave a distant ally a +3 power bonus to all damage rolls before the end of my next turn.
Effective, but not what you seem to think appropriate for a warlord.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the warlord is designed to stick close to other party members or at least one ally (works great sitting right next to the defender).
A rather thin limb. It might support your wait this time, but may not on another occation, and depends on circumstances whether or not a warlord should be near one or more allies. I don't see oit as a designed assumption that most warlords will habitually do so.
In response to your argument of why your warlord wouldn't want to stick next to a wizard... duh. Nobody said you had to pick a random/weak ally to stand next to.
But you seem to be saying that you are supposed to pick an ally to stand next to. I see the warlord as being conerned with the entire tactical situation, not just how to assist one allyl He's supposed to be a tactical leader, not a follower.
Go out with the striker or defender and flank with him.
Try that with a good charging barbarian, who is moving all over the battlefiield, leaving you behind, or with a ranged striker, or when an ally has climbed/flown/releported onto a ledge to bring down an enemy leader.
Flanking is probably the best bonus the warlord can give, you're hurting yourself if your not next to someone that can take advantage of your bonus'.
But you have more options if you can give bonuses or other assistance from a distance, and have the choice of assisting whichever ally currently can make best use of it.
Even leading from the front doesn't mean you are close to an ally, nor that you are close to the foe that should have your current attention.
