|
4 years ago ::
Jun 14, 2009 - 10:48PM
#1871
|
|
|
Both need to be in range.
The power range line is for the warlord, the attack granted to the ally is a melee one which must be in range to attack the target creature.
Clumsy wording but valid with the limitations of all the components.
And if the warlord holds two weapons.. which weapon's range is used?
-James
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2009 - 1:59AM
#1872
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
And if the warlord holds two weapons.. which weapon's range is used?
Which one does he make his attack with? That's no different from any other single weapon attack made by a character holding two weapons. It's whichever one he designates for the attack, which must be valid within the TWF rules.
Interpretations on which weapons can be designated within those rules has varied, but assuming he can legally attack with both weapons in a TWF attack, it's whichever one he picks.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2009 - 4:07AM
#1873
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2005
|
Which one does he make his attack with? That's no different from any other single weapon attack made by a character holding two weapons. It's whichever one he designates for the attack, which must be valid within the TWF rules.
The warlord uses the power but he mkes no attack with any weapon. TWF rules deal with which weapon is used to make the attack roll and for dealing any weapon damage - that is the alliy's weapon, wielded by the ally, based on Comander's Strike's Attack and Hit entries and the rules for making an attack (see past posts).
Interpretations on which weapons can be designated within those rules has varied, but assuming he can legally attack with both weapons in a TWF attack, it's whichever one he picks.
Not so. It is whichever one he uses with the power to make an attack. The warlord doesn't use a weapon of his own. (see various rules regarding which weapon is used with a power, and the PH FAQ re which weapon is used with a power.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2009 - 4:09AM
#1874
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2008
|
And if the warlord holds two weapons.. which weapon's range is used?
Since it only uses one weapon, its the one with the longest reach as the power only states melee range and not melee range x.
Two weapons have no bearing with this power.
The caveat, is both the warlord and the ally must be in range of the target of the attack. If either isn't in range for the attack then the attack is null.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2009 - 7:15AM
#1875
|
|
|
Which one does he make his attack with? That's no different from any other single weapon attack made by a character holding two weapons. It's whichever one he designates for the attack, which must be valid within the TWF rules.
Interpretations on which weapons can be designated within those rules has varied, but assuming he can legally attack with both weapons in a TWF attack, it's whichever one he picks.
I will agree its the weapon that is making the attack.. but of course I only see the ally's weapon there.
I like to reference offhand strike (ranger 1 from MP) that while requiring the ranger to be wielding two weapons is obviously just an attack using the offhand weapon. The range is melee weapon and should just as obviously be referring to the offhand weapon.
The argument that a weapon held by the warlord is applied to the range for commander's strike seems less sturdy than the argument for using the range of the ranger's main weapon during an offhand strike.
I know that you, Fitz, don't believe that Commander's Strike functions as it is written.. and I can respect that.. it's just I have been approaching things from assuming that it is not just broken (in the mechanical rather than balance perspective).
-James
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2009 - 7:24AM
#1876
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
I will agree its the weapon that is making the attack.. but of course I only see the ally's weapon there.
Yeah it wasn't until after I answered that I realized that my answer was relevent only to my interpretation of the power.  I wasn't trying to get into that at all. So I'll qualify my answer with "provided you accept that the range of melee weapon applies to the Warlord."
I like to reference offhand strike (ranger 1 from MP) that while requiring the ranger to be wielding two weapons is obviously just an attack using the offhand weapon. The range is melee weapon and should just as obviously be referring to the offhand weapon.
For Commander's Strike under my interpretation ... yes you can use the offhand weapon (and it's range) for the Warlord. Provided it meets the standard requirement for using an off-hand weapon in a round. And those requirements can be debated (I should know, I've participated in a few of them).
The argument that a weapon held by the warlord is applied to the range for commander's strike seems less sturdy than the argument for using the range of the ranger's main weapon during an offhand strike.
Not really. In that case, the off-hand weapon is specified as the weapon when the Ranger makes his Attack, so when you get to the range check that's what applies. Whereas with Commander's Strike, the Warlord has a choice just as with any other power for making his Attack, which then grants an MBA to the ally. Again, under my interpretation. I understand that you see the ally's weapon as the thing making the Attack, and thus the range applies to it instead.
Edit: Or possibly you see the ally as making the Attack himself, which a small but important difference. I forget exactly which but I think it's the former, you see the Warlord making the attack with the ally's weapon (for mechanical purposes).
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2009 - 10:46PM
#1877
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2005
|
Edit: Or possibly you see the ally as making the Attack himself, which a small but important difference. I forget exactly which but I think it's the former, you see the Warlord making the attack with the ally's weapon (for mechanical purposes).
I see the warlord and ally cooperating in order for the warlord to use his power. The warlord uses his poower by granting an attack to the ally, who makes the attack and damage rolls for the power (thus makes the only attack associated with the power, wielding the only weapon actually used with the power).
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2009 - 11:56PM
#1878
|
|
|
I see the warlord and ally cooperating in order for the warlord to use his power. The warlord uses his poower by granting an attack to the ally, who makes the attack and damage rolls for the power (thus makes the only attack associated with the power, wielding the only weapon actually used with the power).
If you wish to be completely technical you can argue that the warlord's player is the one that rolls the ally's MBA, but there doesn't seem to be much point to doing so.
But I would comment that the warlord is not granting an attack. Rather the form of the warlord's attack is the ally's MBA. No power was called via an effect or like entry. The attack line describes the attack made and what is rolled against what.
-James
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 16, 2009 - 12:29AM
#1879
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2001
|
Hm...
haven't we reached the consensus that the power is badly worded and could be read in both ways - depending of the order of precedence you give the different rules sections.
I play a warlord in the RPGA and am happy with the strict interpretation of the power (i.e. both ally and warlord have to be in melee range of the target).
However, if I DM I wouldn't insist on this interpetation, but I would rule that line of effect is required to the ally and line of sight to the target (for the warlord of course).
Ceterum censeo scrinium puniceum esse delendam
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 16, 2009 - 1:07AM
#1880
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2005
|
I play a warlord in the RPGA and am happy with the strict interpretation of the power (i.e. both ally and warlord have to be in melee range of the target).
I don't consider that the strict interpretation. I play a warlord in LFR, and have had some DMs allow the warlord to use Commander's Strike when not adjacent to target and others who didn't. I don't like the power when the warlord is adjacent to the target (have only found a couple of times ever when I would use it), so have retrained out of it.
|
|
|
