|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:27AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
We are not (correctly, I believe) reading what the designers might have meant into the parameters of this power. Despite Customer Service's response, for example, the power clearly says 'Melee weapon' which is a clearly defined term and limits where the target must be to within melee weapon range of the warlord.
I think that same test, however, has to be made with the question about whether or not the ally must attack. I think the power pretty clearly says that the attack occurs (not 'might occur'), even though I agree that such an interpretation is somewhat problematic.
Forcing an ally to attack is a little strange, but both the color language and the attack language of the power use strong language: 'order' and 'makes', respectively. Other powers use 'may', 'can', 'allows', or 'lets' when that's what they mean for an ally's side benefit, such as the use of a healing surge or free movement of some sort. Also, the warlord is using a standard action to issue this order, not a free action like speaking a few words would normally require.
For the same reasons that I would not use a subjective read of the power for its other limitations, I wouldn't use one for this aspect, either. It absolutely should be clarified or corrected officially, but, as written, the attack that occurs with this power, which is an attack power, occurs due to the hand of an ally. It may or may not hit, but that is the attack that results from the use of Commander's Strike.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 12, 2008 - 12:55AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2008
|
We are not (correctly, I believe) reading what the designers might have meant into the parameters of this power. Despite Customer Service's response, for example, the power clearly says 'Melee weapon' which is a clearly defined term and limits where the target must be to within melee weapon range of the warlord.
I think that same test, however, has to be made with the question about whether or not the ally must attack. I think the power pretty clearly says that the attack occurs (not 'might occur'), even though I agree that such an interpretation is somewhat problematic.
Forcing an ally to attack is a little strange, but both the color language and the attack language of the power use strong language: 'order' and 'makes', respectively. Other powers use 'may', 'can', 'allows', or 'lets' when that's what they mean for an ally's side benefit, such as the use of a healing surge or free movement of some sort. Also, the warlord is using a standard action to issue this order, not a free action like speaking a few words would normally require.
For the same reasons that I would not use a subjective read of the power for its other limitations, I wouldn't use one for this aspect, either. It absolutely should be clarified or corrected officially, but, as written, the attack that occurs with this power, which is an attack power, occurs due to the hand of an ally. It may or may not hit, but that is the attack that results from the use of Commander's Strike.
This is where we get into an odd way of adjudicating rules. First, we have people using the strict interpretation of the term Melee in respect to the range of the power. Thus, because the range is listed as Melee the Warlord must be within that range to use it. I agree, it's a difficult power to rule on.
But here's my problem, once the example was raised of someone forcing a teammate to attack a target other than the one who targeted him (thus forcing the teammate to suffer an OA or other ill effect as a direct result of Commander's Strike), those same people using the strict reading of the rules are now crying "But that's not the spirit of the rules." I'm sorry, but I have to side with the original people who said the spirit of the rules is to have the Commander barking orders to his teammates on the battlefield.
I don't think the power was meant to be used only in the case of the Commander being within Melee range. And I do think that the ally should have the choice, just in case you do have a Warlord doing something a little weird. But, if you're going to use the strict reading of the rules, well I'm sorry but it works both ways.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 12, 2008 - 6:11AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
A) The warlord power being restricted to melee is in the spirit of the rules because the warlord is a lead from the front melee class.
B) Forcing the ally to attack is nebulous. An ally is described under targets as implying voluntary. "But this use of ally isn't as a target!" That's true, and that's why I said there should be an errata on this just to be clear. You'll note that I'm not saying the rules clearly say the ally needs to be voluntary (the way they do clearly say the warlord needs to be in melee range of the target), I'm saying the rules in this case are uncertain and should be cleared up. But the fact that the rules are unclear about wheather the ally can be forced to attack does not make them unclear about whether the warlord needs to be in melee range of the target.
As a practical matter, the ally term needs to require the ally to be willing, because if he wasn't willingly working with you then he wouldn't in that case be your ally. If the warlord was able to unilaterally decide who was or was not his ally in any given round then he could decide monsters were allies and force them to attack each other.
But either way, these are two different questions with the power, and the answer to one has nothing to do with the answer to the other.
Necromancy: Friendship is MagicSpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 12, 2008 - 7:17AM
#54
|
|
|
Something that needs to be kept in mind is that you aren't trading one of your basic attacks for a basic attack of an ally. You are trading a standard action for a basic attack of an ally.
What this means is that your ally's basic attack must be better than any of your at-wills, or your basic attack.
That makes it far less useful. You are, in essence, giving up the ability to boost to
1.) deal your strength damage and your cha damage to an enemy
2.) potentially move an ally into CA a round early while inflicting your basic attack
3.) essentially mark an enemy
or use one of your encounters
Commander's Strike can be useful, but not often.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 12, 2008 - 10:15AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2008
|
Even if you do 'force' an ally to attack (which is correct as RAW), they can still decide to do thier damage to knock the enemy out as oppose to killing them.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 12, 2008 - 11:08AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2005
|
To me it only makes sense that Commander's Strike's range of melee means that the target (your ally) of the ability must be within melee range of the opponent you wish for them to attack. Otherwise there would hardly ever be a situation in which this power was useful. My ruling would be that the ally would need to be able to both see and hear the warlord; it's up to the dm to keep this within reason...saying that a warlord a mile away from his target ally can't use commander's strike on said ally for example.
I know that the wording of the power when compared to other powers seems to indicate otherwise; however, I do feel that -especially since these are new books and new rules- that some thought beyond strictly the printed word needs to be used when looking at many of the things inside the books. There are a few places in which the wording for things is weird or the wording of something seems to make a power useless.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 12, 2008 - 8:55PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
With a fighter it can mark an enemy. With a rogue it can give another chance to sneak attack if the rogue missed on their own turn. It typically does more damage than the other at wills for a taclord. It takes advantage of temporary ally buffs, which you can grant, or of their flanking when you don't, like when using a reach weapon. It doesn't care if you are 'weakened' or have a penalty to hit. It is a very useful power, even by RAW.
Necromancy: Friendship is MagicSpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 12, 2008 - 9:33PM
#58
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Quick suggestion, if you wouldn't feel connected enough just telling someone to make another attack: Roll the die for them.
So, 'And Tordek gets a free attack - 15 on the die should hit.'
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 12, 2008 - 10:25PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2008
|
A) The warlord power being restricted to melee is in the spirit of the rules because the warlord is a lead from the front melee class.
B) Forcing the ally to attack is nebulous. An ally is described under targets as implying voluntary. "But this use of ally isn't as a target!" That's true, and that's why I said there should be an errata on this just to be clear. You'll note that I'm not saying the rules clearly say the ally needs to be voluntary (the way they do clearly say the warlord needs to be in melee range of the target), I'm saying the rules in this case are uncertain and should be cleared up. But the fact that the rules are unclear about wheather the ally can be forced to attack does not make them unclear about whether the warlord needs to be in melee range of the target.
As a practical matter, the ally term needs to require the ally to be willing, because if he wasn't willingly working with you then he wouldn't in that case be your ally. If the warlord was able to unilaterally decide who was or was not his ally in any given round then he could decide monsters were allies and force them to attack each other.
But either way, these are two different questions with the power, and the answer to one has nothing to do with the answer to the other.
Fair enough, I just don't like the argument that "We take the letter of the law here, but then interpret the spirit of the rules here." You're saying that we strictly enforce the range because that's what the rules say (even if Costumer Service says otherwise) but then it's obvious that the ally must be willing to make the strike.
However, nothing is obvious about the power if we're even having a discussion about the range and willingness implied.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 12, 2008 - 11:16PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2005
|
Obsessive RAW fealty is rather against the spirit of the game. D&D's supposed to be fun, not a game of "Nope! The rules don't say that you can yell to that guy over there from the top of the building, therefore you can't. Sorry. Blame RAW." Chill out, play the game, and don't let a few instances of bad writing and unclear text get your panties in a wad. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/ … ttext_0618
|
|
|
