You proceed with using the Power as normal, following the rules on Page 269 for making an Attack.
What does the power do?
Read the Attack line and tell me?
Allows the Warlord to grant a melee Basic Attack to an ally against the target of the power. I think both of us can agree on that, we just disagree with where the Warlord has to be to do that.
I think you misconstrued the argument I was making:
The requirement on Page 272-273 is a restriction and definition seperate from any other analysis of the Power. I've also made my argument previously on how you handle the Attack line in regards to Page 269, but that's not related to: the Range listed in the power applies to the user of the Power, or you (Pages 272-273). That's a hard restriction and definition.
Then back to the previous argument: you can see what the Attack does, which is grant the use of the mBA power to an ally. You can then follow the steps specifically on Page 269: Determine type of attack (Melee) Determine range to target from you (since Range is defined as distance from you to target on Page 272-273).
The remaining steps on Page 269 are unnecessary, because it doesn't include an attack roll, which is valid for an Attack Power per Page 59.
Then you move on to the mBA the ally does, a seperate Power, and start on the steps on Page 269 all over again. Only this time, he is using the Range in the mBA (since it is defined to apply to him), but with a pre-chosen target. And his power includes an attack roll.
Pages 272-273 stop your argument from even leaving the ground, because the Range in the Power applies to the user of the Power. Works fine with my method.
Please refrain from personal attacks. While I had difficulties following tombollis reasoning he definitely has a point.
He really doesn't. That's why he's made his 'reasoning' so difficult to follow. James has some points to make, and he's able to make them fairly clearly and concisely. I can't agree with certain of them, but he's not just talking in circles. He uses some of the same snippets of reasoning as t., but he doesn't try to weave them together into web of obfuscation. That's what tombolis does, he argues from verbosity, substituting long winded diatribes for actual reasoning. There's bits of reasoning in there, but they're strung together and selectively aplied in completely invalid ways, and prove nothing.
I made an honest and not inconsiderable effort to understand the 'logical proof' tombolis frequently claimed to have made, and, I had no choice but to conclude that the claim was false. I don't ascribe a motive to his doubletalk, nor draw any judgements about his worth as a human being. That's just a frank assessment of his contribution to this thread - and, he's certainly contributed to it's /length/.
Continuing my analysis of how Commander's Strike (CS) and Melee Basic Attack (MBA) fit the structured format of a power, and I read them based on How to Read a Power and other rules as written. I've covered the first few lines of each through keywords.
The next line specifies Action Type, as well as Attack Type and Range.
Both list Action Type of :"Standard Action", which is the type of action required to use the power on it's own. A warlord uses up a standard action to use CS on his turn. Any character can use up a standard action to use MBA on his turn. However, there are other ways specified that allow MBA when not your turn, such as 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" (PH 287). CS is such a warlod power and requires no action by the ally given the ability to make a melee basic attack.
Both powers have Attack Type of "melee", described on page 270 in general terms for actual attcks.
MELEE ATTACK
Targeted: Melee attacks target individuals. A melee attack against multiple targets consists of separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll. Melee attacks don't create areas of effect(page 272).
Range: A melee attack's range usually equals your melee reach. (Sometimes a power specifies that it only affects adjacnt targets, though, so even if you're using a reach weapon, you can't attack more distant targets with that power).
Reach: Most characters have a reach of 1 square. Certain powers , feats, and weapons increase your reach.
This deals with the normal cases, and implies an actual attack with an attack roll against each target.
Melee powers (as opposed to melee attacks) are covered on page 56, particularly those with range of "weapon". "A melee power affects a target within melee reach. Many melee powers require a weapon. You make a separate attack roll against each target." (Note that besides mentioning melee reach, it mentions attack roll against each target. Note that not all melee powers affect targets within reach, as some are specified as affecting adjacent targets instead, thus theire can be exceptions.)
Melee reach: A melee attack power that has a range of "weapon" alows you to attack a target within reach of the wepon you're wielding. Some weapons extend your reach beyond adjacent squares. Example: If you use a "melee weapon" power while you're wielding a dagger, you can attack a target within 1 square of you. If you're wielding a halberd (a reach weapon), you can a target within 3 squares of you.
Not that the power isn't the attack, a powwer tht specifies "melee wepon" is one that allows an attack with a melee weapon. Each attack requires an attack roll, and the target must be in reach of the attacker and the weapon he wields.
Both CM and MBA are melee attack powers with range of weapon, meaning the range is determined by the reach of the weapon used for the allowed attack. Note that who can be a target is not specified at this time, nor has anything specified which weapon will be used for the attack. We are told how to termine whether a target can be attacked and affected by the power, once we know who the target is and what weapon will be used.
Next comes the "Target" entry, which specifies what sort of creatures or objects can be affected, and how many. "One creature" means only one target and and the target can be you, someone willing (an ally), or anyone else (an enemy), or possibly even an object. Both CS and MBA can have "One creature" as target, and the MBA spcified by CA shares the same target.
"Most attack powers that deal damage require you to make an attack roll." There are some attack powers that deal damage but don't require attack rolls, such as Consecrated Ground. They can be recognized by the lack of an "attack" entry or anything requiring you to make an attack, or determine whether the power succeeds.
The "Attack" entry specifies the kind attack you make and which of the target's defenses you check against. If you have a modifier to your attack roll, that's mentioned here as well. Example entries are given above [including "Decterity vs. AC, one attack per target]. If your power can attack multiple targets, you make a separate attack roll against each target.
Note that it refers to powers that can attack targets, and an attack rol against each target. Note the purpoose of the entry is to specify the kind of attack and the defense (usually in the form [ability] vs. [defense]), but additional information can be included related to the attack to be made.
MBA specifies "Strength vs. AC" in the normal form, and The Attack Roll on page 274 tells how yu actually make an attack roll.
CS has an unusually worded "Attack" entry, saying "An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attck against the target", but the structure of the power description says this is for the normal purpose of an "Attack" entry. The entry incluses the ally's MBA, thus includes the entire structure of MBA, including the specified Strength vs. AC attack roll made by the ally, and the allowed attack vs. the target of CS, but specifes that the ally makes the attack. It isn't normal for a power to allow a different attacker for it's attack roll, but page 11 states that "Every class, race, feat, power, and monster in the D&D game allows you to break the rules in some way", and "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins." CS can be read as having a specific exception to who makes the power's attack, and thus it's attack roll when the warlord choses an ally to attack instead of specifying his own attack. that implies the ally as alttacker and maker of attack roll, and MBA as the mechanism for determining the details of the attack, including the attack roll. That attack roll still serves the purpose of CS's "Attack" entry, determining whether or not the allowed attack succeeds and CS affects the target.
The final part of the power structure used in CS is the "Hit" entry.
Every power that requires an attack roll includes a "Hit" entry, which explains what happens when an attack roll succeeds.
For effects that don't depend on a successful attack roll, there are "Effect" entries, but neither CS nor MB has one.
MBA says "Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength modifier damage at 21st level"
It also has a "Special" enry (for something that doesn't fit the normal components pof a power structure): "You can use an unarmed attack as a weapon to make a melee basic attack"
Thus, if the attack roll for MBA succeeds, the ally determines damage using his weapon per the method specified (ho to do so is detailed on page 276), but thse results are part of CS's "Attack" entry, indicating that CS succeeds and its "Hit"entry adds the warlord's Intelligence modifier to that damage to determine the final effect that CS has on the target.
There is no attake made witrhout an attack roll, because the attack roll is specified several places in the rules, particularly page 269, Making an Attack. No exception is specified nor required to use the power. The spcified attacker being the ally instead of the warlard, using the ally's weapon to attack, using the rules for the specified melee basic attack causes us to read "you" with respect to the attacker for CS as being the ally rather the vwarlord, with the attack for CS being the attack for the MBA works.
On a related note, Fox's Cunning has an uncertain Attck type and range (Melee or Ranged weapon) that can't be detemined until the ranger choses a melee or ranged attack when he attacks, and an "Attack" entry that allowes him explicitly to shift before he attacks. Rather than a target entry of its own, the target is determined to be the triggering attacker, which is passed to either a melee basic attack or a ranged basic attack by the ranger against the enemy. The range is determined through the MBA or RBA, as is the attack roll and the result of a hit. As the "Hit" entry for the included MBA or RBA describes the full efects of the hit (it is effectively the "Hit" entry for FC), FC doesn't need an explicit "Hit" entry in the power description, even though"Every power that requires an attack roll incluses a "Hit" entry. The "Hit" entry is there, just as the attack roll is.
Then back to the previous argument: you can see what the Attack does, which is grant the use of the mBA power to an ally.
So the warlord successfully grants the mBA to an ally.
Thus he scores a 'hit' and does damage.
No?
If the Hit entry is dependent upon the MBA's successful attack roll, then the attack roll of the power is the MBA.
The Commander's Strike Attack line is describing an attack roll for you to make and upon a successful roll the Commander's Strike Hit line tells you the damage.
FitzNighteyes wrote:
The remaining steps on Page 269 are unnecessary, because it doesn't include an attack roll, which is valid for an Attack Power per Page 59.
No, it's not valid for a power with an Attack entry.
Some attack powers don't have attack rolls, but for those that do we have the Attack line. The purpose of the line is to describe the attack roll or rolls involved.
FitzNighteyes wrote:
Pages 272-273 stop your argument from even leaving the ground, because the Range in the Power applies to the user of the Power. Works fine with my method.
Except there is no attack roll for Commander's Strike in your method, and thus there is no Hit called for Commander's Strike.
So the warlord successfully grants the mBA to an ally.
Thus he scores a 'hit' and does damage.
No?
If the Hit entry is dependent upon the MBA's successful attack roll, then the attack roll of the power is the MBA.
IMO he Hits with his Attack automatically. The Attack is granting a mBA, and since there is no attack roll he is automatically successful. Yes, that's questionable.
No, it's not valid for a power with an Attack entry.
Some attack powers don't have attack rolls, but for those that do we have the Attack line. The purpose of the line is to describe the attack roll or rolls involved.
No, the purpose is to tell you what the attack is and any attack roll if it has one. If it doesn't list an attack roll, the Attack doesn't have an attack roll. As per Page 59, it's not required to have one.
Except there is no attack roll for Commander's Strike in your method, and thus there is no Hit called for Commander's Strike.
Doesn't seem to fine.
The range for the Warlord is fine (per page 272-273). The Attack works, but I do understand you don't agree with my interpretation of how. The Hit is questionable, I'll freely admit it. That last is completely seperate issue from the range on page 272-273 being defined as for the user of the power and the range from him ("you"), if you want to use the Power. That part works fine.
My argument runs down at the Hit line. Your's fails before it even starts, because you can't use the Power under your interpretation. You don't have a Range that meets the rules.
Do you really not get what I'm saying, or are you just refusing to accept what I'm saying?
I guess I just wasn't accepting it.
You think that the Attack line can say anything whatsover including not defining any attack whatsoever and be a valid line. That boggles my mind.
If there's no attack described in the Attack line then what's it's purpose and how does one determine whether or not to apply the Hit or Miss entries (if any)?
mplindustries wrote:
No, in Offhand Strike, you are explicitly told what weapon can do the attack. The default assumption is, any weapon can do the attack. Offhand Strike has an explicit exception. There is no such exception in Commander's Strike.
Incorrect, I see such an exception in Commander's Strike.
I see the attack in the Attack line there being the ally's basic melee attack.
The warlord's weapon cannot make the ally's basic melee attack, only a weapon wielded by the ally can do that. Thus there is a similar restriction here.
Will you agree if the attack is the ally's basic melee attack then this line of reasoning follows as much as your line for which weapon is valid for Offhand Strike?
mplindustries wrote:
The attack is K itself.
So you believe the 'attack' is 'you choose an ally' rather than the basic melee attack of the ally?
Then wouldn't a 'successful' attack be that you've successfully chosen the ally?
Thus you do damage automatically and separately from the ally's basic melee damage (if any)!
You think that the Attack line can say anything whatsover including not defining any attack whatsoever and be a valid line. That boggles my mind.
And it boggles my mind that you find that less reasonable than using an ally's weapon to determine anything about your power.
JamesMaissen wrote:
If there's no attack described in the Attack line then what's it's purpose and how does one determine whether or not to apply the Hit or Miss entries (if any)?
Well, if you noticed, especially with Fox's Cunning, an Attack line does not automatically require a Hit or Miss line. A Hit line doesn't explain a successful attack, it explains a successful attack roll.
JamesMaissen wrote:
Incorrect, I see such an exception in Commander's Strike.
I see the attack in the Attack line there being the ally's basic melee attack.
I understand that you see that, but precedence indicates that such an exception would be still listed as X vs. Y and then noted in parenthesis, just as it is in Ranger/Tempest dual-wielding powers.
Or it would work the way Beastmaster powers work. Attack: Ally's Strength vs. AC (Ally's weapon) or something like that.
JamesMaissen wrote:
Will you agree if the attack is the ally's basic melee attack then this line of reasoning follows as much as your line for which weapon is valid for Offhand Strike?
I'm not sure of your claim here, honestly. Maybe I'm too tired right now.
JamesMaissen wrote:
So you believe the 'attack' is 'you choose an ally' rather than the basic melee attack of the ally?
Yes. I'm sorry its so boggling, but I think I said that a couple pages ago
JamesMaissen wrote:
Then wouldn't a 'successful' attack be that you've successfully chosen the ally?
No, there is no success/fail dichotomy here. Those are inherent in attack rolls, not necessarily attacks. If the warlord can attack with Commander's Strike (i.e. meets the requirements of the power in order to use the attack line...namely keywords, range, and if there is a prerequisite line), then he does. If he can't meet the requirements to attack, then he can't use the power anyway. There's no try. Only do. (Couldn't resist.)
The Hit line implies an alteration to the ally's MBA's Hit line, and follows the form of Coup De Grace. I've said before, if the Hit line were replaced by an Effect line, it'd have to start with "If it hits" and thats just a Hit line anyway. It saves type.
And yes, if the power said:
Attack: An ally of your choice makes a melee basic attack against the target. Effect: If it hits, it deals additional damage equal to your Intelligence modifier.
It would be very clear that the antecedent of "it" in the effect line would be the MBA. So, replacing "Effect: If it hits..." with "Hit: ..." is much easier and perfectly valid.
Anyway, while this may or may not matter, I have two powers that back my claim (Commander's Strike and Fox's Cunning), while you have only one (as you seem to have trouble with Fox's Cunning). Thus I win! (This is a joke if you can't tell)
You think that the Attack line can say anything whatsover including not defining any attack whatsoever and be a valid line. That boggles my mind.
If there's no attack described in the Attack line then what's it's purpose and how does one determine whether or not to apply the Hit or Miss entries (if any)?
Based on what I think you're saying here, only the attack roll need be referenced from melee basic attack, because the range and other keyword requirements are already covered in Commander's Strike. So the Attack line in Commander's Strike would would be better written as something like
Attack: Chosen Ally's Strength vs. AC (Chosen Ally's weapon)
And the hit line should be something along the lines of
