The "RAW" argument in favor of unlimited range goes that the "range" listed for CS applies to the range of the ally making the attack, not the warlord. It's an exception to the general rule that "range" applies to the person using the power, because "obviously" it should apply to the person making the actual attack, not the person using the power. Therefore, the warlord can be quite distant, and shout to the fighter to make another attack even if they're no where near each other.
The "RAI" argument in favor of unlimited range is that the flavor text simply says the warlord shouts at his ally to attack again, and implies that it can be done at any range (or earshot, at least).
The "RAW" argument in favor of the warlord being in melee range of the target goes that the "Range" listing applies to the warlord, not the ally he is giving the attack to. CS is actually an attack being used by the warlord and as such the "range" limitation of "melee weapon" applies to the warlord, not the ally. However, the ally does have the same limitation by default since the ally is using a melee basic attack. Therefore, both the ally and the warlord himself need to be within weapon's reach of the target.
The "RAI" argument in favor of this more limited range is that the warlord is clearly a "frontline leader" and this would be the only warlord at-will that allows the warlord not to be near the frontlines to use it.
I'm in favor the more conservative, "must be within weapon's reach of the target" reading. I think it's more balanced this way because otherwise the warlord can stay completely out of harm's way and give the party's strongest attacker an extra attack each round, which to me, is overpowered.
Does anyone agree that my reading is the more balanced one?
At the moment I think everyone has to houserule this power, regardless of reading, because either:
1) The warlord can use the power at any range, and thus errata is required showing this to be clearly the case and giving us a clear "range" limitation (earshot, line of sight, etc).
or
2) The warlord must be within melee range and grants the ally an extra attack, and thus errata is required merging the "attack" and "hit" lines into an "effect" line to clear up confusing and be more consistent with the power formatting of the rest of the book.
I wanted to bring this subject here because there are some math guys on this board that I respect, and wanted an opinion on this from them. Not really so much from what you think RAW or RAI is (although if you want to share, that's great) but rather what the implications of each various reading would be.
With 5 squares, it means your target and ally have to be within 25 feet of you, and the ally has to be able to make a basic melee attack (I'm not sure, is the ally allowed to move before the attack?).
I've been in the heat of battle before. I know how hard it is to hear commands shouted at you, especially when your attention is focus on not getting killed. I think 25 feet is a good maximum range for this ability.
Now is that broken or overpowered? I'm not sure honestly, but I don't think it could be that overpowered. I don't think it would break any games, and the good thing about it is that it mainly helps the PCs work together rather than allowing one uber PC to outshine the others. I think Warlords are a little under-powered and not as much fun to play as some other classes, so I think it would make playing one more fun for the players (and let's hear it for fun).
So I say, tell someone to "Kick him in the biscuits" from up to 25 feet away in order to insure that the Warlord has a good enough view of the scene.
As for this thread, if you really want a hardcore math discussion and so forth, the Character Optimization forum would be the way to go.
Until there is an official update, as a DM I would compromise and say that both the ally and the creature being attacked would have to be within a Close Burst 5 from the Warlord. I don't think a Close Burst 10 would be too unrealistic, but I would go for 5 for the sake of compromise. I don't think that ruling that it works within sight range of the Warlord is necessarily a bad call, though.
Now is that broken or overpowered? I'm not sure honestly, but I don't think it could be that overpowered. I don't think it would break any games, and the good thing about it is that it mainly helps the PCs work together rather than allowing one uber PC to outshine the others. I think Warlords are a little under-powered and not as much fun to play as some other classes, so I think it would make playing one more fun for the players (and let's hear it for fun).
So I say, tell someone to "Kick him in the biscuits" from up to 25 feet away in order to insure that the Warlord has a good enough view of the scene.
As for this thread, if you really want a hardcore math discussion and so forth, the Character Optimization forum would be the way to go.
That would mostly devolve into what the RAW and RAI are rather than a genuine discussion on what the implications of various rulings would be, though.
Also, as shown in the Weapon Balance thread, there are some great math guys that browse this forum as well.
If it's given a range, there'd be little logical reason not to make it a basic attack, as well, instead of a melee basic attack. If you can spur someone to make a melee attack with a shouted command, doubtless you could spur them to make a ranged attack, as well.
Given that - quite generous - house rule, the power still wouldn't be terribly overpowered. It still trades a Standard Action for a mere basic attack, and the carnage an ally can wreak with a basic attack should not be all that great. It supports the flavor text of the power (a shouted command) but doesn't support the broader flavor text of the warlord, itself, which is supposed to be a melee-oriented warrior who 'leads from the front' not 'shouts commands from the rear.'
Alternately, it'd be perfectly reasonable to merely change the flavor text to match the mechanics, and merge the attack/hit lines into a single, more sensible effect line that says something like "One ally of your choice may make a melee basic attack against the target as a free action, with a bonus to damage equal to your intelligence modifier."
This version would certainly be balanced: it requires the Warlord be in position to make his own melee basic attack, but gives an intelligence bonus to damage, making it modestly more powerful than a regular basic attack (by a margin similar to Sly Flourish) - plus it requires/synergizes with an ally's capability at making melee basic attacks.
It supports the central concept of the Warlord as a strong warrior who leads from the front. But, it would require changing the flavor text - possibly even the name, if you couldn't come up with a reasonable visualization of the power that required the Warlord's participation in melee.
18. 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 long spear 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.
So, case closed as to what the official ruling is.
However, this is the House Rules forum, so the discussion can continue for anyone who wants to continue it.
18. 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 long spear 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.
I would call that a pretty cohesive answer, and as far as I'm concerned, authoritative, even if the FAQ isn't "official".
I would call that a pretty cohesive answer, and as far as I'm concerned, authoritative, even if the FAQ isn't "official".
It is more official than the Cust Service replies which had prior to that had held the "ranged" part of it.
Personally, I'm sad to see it ruled that way, but can accept it as such.
There aren't many at-wills that add two modifiers (CS is essentially 1[W] + their Str + your Int), and those double-modifier powers are either striker powers (Sly Flourish), conditional (Holy Strike), or insanely good (Cloud of Daggers).
Ultimately, of course, your house rule is going to depend on how powerful you want the thing to be. But a close burst 10 Commander's Strike in the right party (BS rogue, maul fighter, and/or TWF ranger) could make a case for being the best at-will in the game. And that's before you start doing things like double-dipping on Weapon of the Gods, Master of the Hunt, Follow-up Blow, pit fighter damage bonus, etc., etc.
It's all stuff you can do anyway, of course, but for that solid and versatile an effect, bringing your leader self to the front line is a reasonable price to pay. Without that price....
I would call that a pretty cohesive answer, and as far as I'm concerned, authoritative, even if the FAQ isn't "official".
I would consider the FAQ official. Why wouldn't it be? It's as official as errata to me.
It is more official than the Cust Service replies which had prior to that had held the "ranged" part of it.
Customer Service ruled both ways on Commander's Strike.
I would consider the FAQ official. Why wouldn't it be? It's as official as errata to me.
IIRC, the FAQ is 'more official' than CS, but less official than an 'update.'
IIRC, the FAQ is 'more official' than CS, but less official than an 'update.'
Do you have a source? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see if WotC supports that thinking themselves.
I don't understand why the FAQ would be considered "less" official than an update. They serve two different purposes. Updates contain errata, whereas FAQ clarifies things that WotC feels don't need errata.
Both hold equal weight, in my view. It's just the FAQ doesn't modify RAW, whereas updates do. The FAQ is just the "ultimate" judge ruling, and clarifies exactly what the RAW is.
I would consider the FAQ official. Why wouldn't it be? It's as official as errata to me.
Customer Service ruled both ways on Commander's Strike.
With all the Commander's Strike Threads I've read, noone ever posted one pointing the way the FAQ has it. That's not saying that it didn't exist, but it was one of the reasons the CS was believed by many, as they should have been posting on both sides (as most CS's do, example the IRS CS line has an accuracy rate of 50% give or take 5%). All posts from CS were to imply it was used at range, and noone could/would give a CS saying it should only be as melee.
However, since its in the FAQ now, it doesn't matter. FAQ trumps CS by a mile. Why does Errata trump FAQ, mainly because Errata means the PHB is changed, and a certain process is gone through to edit it. Its less of a process to put a FAQ up and describe the issue.
Mainly, that without an Errata clearing up the "cloudyness" of it, some will say, its still a mess, and the rational for saying it was the other way still exists. They changed Cleave to state you can't hit the same target twice, even though a FAQ could have been done just as easily. FAQ's could have reduced the overall Errata by pages, but many view them as less official.
I know, in my group, we don't have a striker fighter, the Ranger usually hits with one TWF attack (and has elven reroll on top of that), and the rogue's basic attack chances to hit aren't good. My Warlord's 18 Str would be better suited at swinging away himself with a different at will most of the time. Unless the DM decides to ignore the FAQ (and houserule it in), I'll most likely retrain the At Will at next level.
Do you have a source? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see if WotC supports that thinking themselves.
Nope, just seem to remember it from the 3e boards.
With all the Commander's Strike Threads I've read, noone ever posted one pointing the way the FAQ has it. That's not saying that it didn't exist, but it was one of the reasons the CS was believed by many, as they should have been posting on both sides (as most CS's do, example the IRS CS line has an accuracy rate of 50% give or take 5%). All posts from CS were to imply it was used at range, and noone could/would give a CS saying it should only be as melee.
However, since its in the FAQ now, it doesn't matter. FAQ trumps CS by a mile. Why does Errata trump FAQ, mainly because Errata means the PHB is changed, and a certain process is gone through to edit it. Its less of a process to put a FAQ up and describe the issue.
Mainly, that without an Errata clearing up the "cloudyness" of it, some will say, its still a mess, and the rational for saying it was the other way still exists. They changed Cleave to state you can't hit the same target twice, even though a FAQ could have been done just as easily. FAQ's could have reduced the overall Errata by pages, but many view them as less official.
I know, in my group, we don't have a striker fighter, the Ranger usually hits with one TWF attack (and has elven reroll on top of that), and the rogue's basic attack chances to hit aren't good. My Warlord's 18 Str would be better suited at swinging away himself with a different at will most of the time. Unless the DM decides to ignore the FAQ (and houserule it in), I'll most likely retrain the At Will at next level.
You keep saying Customer Service only ruled in favor of the ranged reading, but that's not true. I read through at least one post that copied/pasted a CustServ ruling in favor of the melee reading. Another poster went through the entire thread on the Leaders board and counted the number of times CustServ ruled on each side of the issue-- which was a lot.
IMO, Customer Service doesn't have any more weight on rules rulings than board members do. In fact I'd prefer discussing any rules problems with board members, since at least that way they can make convincing (or unconvincing) arguments for their position(s).
I thought a "close burst 10/one ally in burst" (above) because 1) it's consistent with many leader powers that affect an ally at range but don't provoke and 2)the range matches that of Combat Commander and the other trade-an-action warlord exploit, Knight's Move.
But, Knight's Move is ranged, so I could see house-ruling ranged rather than close for CS, making the tactical warlord less of a front-liner. Would that hurt the class concept?
So, if you don't like the 'official' melee interpretation of Commander's Strike, how would you house-rule it?
I though of a "close burst 10/one ally in burst" (above) because 1) it's consistent with many leader powers that affect an ally at range but don't provoke and 2)the range matches that of Combat Commander and the other trade-an-action warlord exploit, Knight's Move.
But, Knight's Move is ranged, so I could see house-ruling ranged rather than close for CS, making the tactical warlord less of a front-liner. Would that hurt the class concept?
Good questions. I don't personally plan on house-ruling Commander's Strike, but I'd be interested in hearing what other people have to say.
Perhaps they could convince me to house-rule it in my own game, who knows!
