The Prepare Action - ruling needed

[kobbold]

It might be a tactical advantage, but only if the player is wise enough to use it well, in which case they deserve the advantage for creative planning.

Yes, and interrupting is the advantge : the price is every actions are part of the "preparing" process... minor action spent to prepare, major spent while triggered.

You conveniently ignored the section where I listed the inherent disadvantages of the prepared action.

In play, it does not give players an unfair advantage. They get the chance to interrupt an enemy's action, but it comes with significant trade-offs and the truth is that most of the time, the player is still better off or as well off if he just uses his actions on his turn as usual.

If you can show me an example of how my interpretation of the Prepare action gives players an unfair advantage compared to players who don't use Prepare, than I will recant my evil ways. Until then I will enjoy playing the game the way I like to play it, with a legitimate rule interpretation that does not unbalance the game.

Everybody plays as he wants to but we are on a forum and express contradictory opinions. It's how the forum's game is played imo. (and its interst)

But lets take admiral yacob example, or its situation anyway. So the warrior wants to protect the mage but let's say the warrior is not close enough to the mage to simply prepare a charge action, he has to move first. The one who doesn't prepare has to move and charge the ennemy. He technically does the same thing: attacking an ennemy but he has to put himself in danger. The warrior deciding to hold ground doesn't run into the ennemie's arms, he places himself in a good position then waits... not exposing himself to danger immediately and interrupting his ennemy's action. So then, what's the interest of not preparing your action if you don't "loose" an action while preparing? I mean, if the blow should be lethal, then it will be with the prepared action. A thouroughfull player would then be able to use this to a great advantage by placing himself and phrasing correctely his preparation. It would allow him to reduce the risks.

When you allow no other minor action, you ask, imo, for the player to make a true choice: hold ground and focus on finding the right opportunity, or act fully but be unable to react. It creates two truly different stances, from my perspective. And without this, i see no interest in the use of a normal way of acting : anyway the prepared action will offer more flexibility almost without a price (and any player is able, in a fight, to assess the situation and phrase things in a way he will be almost certain not to loose his actions)

We can argue about the exact phrasing of this action, rulewise, for days. But i still firmly believe that if the prepare action was meant to give a bonus action (as prepare is still a minor action, not a free action), it would have been stated in the text, as it is clearely an exception to the rules (as for stunts allowing additionnal attacks). Finally, i believe that if this action was meant to allow another minor action plus the prepare action and the prepared major action, it would have been made a free action, or an activate action, for simplicity purpose.

My personnal opinion about that.

I would have liked to develop more examples as for duels for instance but i'm posting from a tablet and it's not that comfortable for typing.

[DKH]

The example you gave is one specific case where the Prepare action can be used intelligently to gain a tactical advantage, not an example of a player using Prepare to get unfair advantages through an "exploit". For that matter, the player could get a similar advantage to what you described with either of our interpretations of the rule.

The reason that players wouldn't use Prepare on all actions is that most of the time, you can't guarantee that the action you prepare will be appropriate to the situation you will find yourself in. If a player tries to use Prepare every turn, he will frequently find himself unable to act. That is the basic trade-off of the Prepare action.

For instance, in the situation you described, for the Prepare action to be risk-free, the player would need to be sure his opponents couldn't hit him with ranged attacks, and that his opponents would attack him or the mage rather than another party member.

[kobbold]

Happily, my point is after the example.

[Teamjoey]

The Talent: Quick reflexes enables prepare as a free action. Prepare is a minor, move is a minor and then there are the lists of major, to prepare. I'm not trying to tell people how to play the game, but if you feel a certain class/character should have the ability to use prepare as a free action, then give them an item that enables it, or even quick reflexes from extensive training or good roleplaying <waaaaah i wasn't able to save my friend in time, i must train harder!!1>. Reward the group for roleplaying well, if you got rules sploiters beat them at their own game <archers prepare to protect their ally> so they learn to take it easy and enjoy the ride. Keep it simple, keep it fun. that's my motto.

[Allensh]

I am going to continue to handle this rule as I have been. You cannot take two minor actions and have the second one be a Prepare; Prepare is used to delay your major action to use as an interrupt later.

Allen

[Elfie]

The Talent: Quick reflexes enables prepare as a free action.

I think this simple fact cinches that (without Quick Reflexes) Prepare absolutely uses up both of your actions for your turn. You cannot move and prepare. Otherwise this effect of Quick Reflexes would be pointless.

[Sharsek]

The Talent: Quick reflexes enables prepare as a free action.

I think this simple fact cinches that (without Quick Reflexes) Prepare absolutely uses up both of your actions for your turn. You cannot move and prepare. Otherwise this effect of Quick Reflexes would be pointless.

Quick Reflexes: Once per round you can use Ready as a free action on your turn. (emphasis mine)

"Ready" is not the same action as "Prepare".

Anyway, I agree with you: I think that Prepare uses up both of your actions for your turn, for two reasons:
1) If Prepare allowed to actually "trade" a minor action for a major action, it would generate a loophole that could be heavily exploited with spells that cause the target to take only a minor action on his next turn.
2) If Prepare allowed to actually "trade" a minor action for a major action, I can't understand why the designers decided to make it a minor action with specific limitations, instead of making it a plain major action from the beginning.

However, in this case the rules as written aren't perfectly clear, I see as they could be open to interpretation.

Just IMHO, obviously.

[DKH]

@ Teamjoey

As someone else already said, Quick Reflexes makes Ready a free action, not Prepare.

@ Sharksek

By the same logic, I'd ask: if the developers intended for Prepare to work that way, why didn't they just say "Prepare holds your existing major action until later", instead of "you can't use Prepare if you've already taken a major action"? I agree that both are legitimate interpretations and neither upsets gameplay balance.

@ kobbold

I've made my point. While you are free to disagree with me, I stand by my argument that my interpretation doesn't give anyone an unfair advantage. I don't think anything you've shown so far proves otherwise. Unless you have any new arguments to put forward, I'm going to go ahead and leave this topic where it is.

Everyone should implement Prepare as they see fit, knowing that both interpretations preserve game balance just fine.

[Sharsek]

@ Sharksek

By the same logic, I'd ask: if the developers intended for Prepare to work that way, why didn't they just say "Prepare holds your existing major action until later", instead of "you can't use Prepare if you've already taken a major action"?

I think that the developers decided to put in the game the ability to interrupt the actions of other combatants with a major action, but with the drawback of "burning" a minor action to do so (the Prepare itself). This decision caused the Prepare action to be worded that way, with that limitations.

And then there is reason 1)...

[DKH]

@ Sharksek

By the same logic, I'd ask: if the developers intended for Prepare to work that way, why didn't they just say "Prepare holds your existing major action until later", instead of "you can't use Prepare if you've already taken a major action"?

I think that the developers decided to put in the game the ability to interrupt the actions of other combatants with a major action, but with the drawback of "burning" a minor action to do so (the Prepare itself). This decision caused the Prepare action to be worded that way, with that limitations.

But that still doesn't explain why they didn't just say: "You hold your major action from this turn until later...". And I've already explained the drawbacks to Prepare in my interpretation (risk of losing your action and inability to take a major action on your turn, both of which are specifically described in the rules, unlike your explanation).

And then there is reason 1)...

Which is easily solved by ruling that if you've lost your major action through a spell or other effect, it counts as having used your major action for the purposes of Prepare.

Really, I don't think there are any new arguments to be had on this rule. Follow whichever interpretation makes sense for you.

[eldritch_hobbes]

I'm not by my books right now; real quick, does Prepare's "interrupt" cause enemies to lose the rest of their turn, or just delay it?

[DKH]

I'm not by my books right now; real quick, does Prepare's "interrupt" cause enemies to lose the rest of their turn, or just delay it?

It allows the player to act out of normal order, but Prepare doesn't negate enemy's actions. Opponents still get their actions as per usual, after the player uses his Prepared action.

Someone here earlier said they made a house rule that allowed Prepare to stop an opponent's movement. Now THAT would change game balance...

[eldritch_hobbes]

I'm not by my books right now; real quick, does Prepare's "interrupt" cause enemies to lose the rest of their turn, or just delay it?

It allows the player to act out of normal order, but Prepare doesn't negate enemy's actions. Opponents still get their actions as per usual, after the player uses his Prepared action.

Someone here earlier said they made a house rule that allowed Prepare to stop an opponent's movement. Now THAT would change game balance...

I imagine it wouldn't come up to often, but if a character says "if such and such enemy gets in close range, I attack him" and the enemy question was originally going to run past, I'd imagine letting the PC "clothesline" the enemy, burning the remainder of the enemy's move, but not the enemy's major action (ie they could counter-attack).

Then again, knocking an enemy prone with a prepared action would be a pretty devious stunt too .

[kobbold]

I've made my point. While you are free to disagree with me, I stand by my argument that my interpretation doesn't give anyone an unfair advantage. I don't think anything you've shown so far proves otherwise. Unless you have any new arguments to put forward, I'm going to go ahead and leave this topic where it is.

Well, we could certainely both argue for days, for what I do feel as an "unbalanced ruling" seems balanced to you.

Ultimately, you've proven no point to me, as for me to you.

I think we could agree to disagree.

Of course I'm not trying to teach you how to play the game as you see fit... We each have a different way of seeing things (for me the possibility to lose a prepared action is not that much of a "choice" ou "price" for the character, for you it is... well we just don't play the exact same way. And that's fine.)

[DKH]

Since I think we've taken the original question as far as it can go, here's a new one:

Does the Prepare action allow a player to interrupt an enemy mid-action? Or does the prepared action take place before the interrupted action?

Here's an example: A melee character is up front protecting an archer, and chooses to Prepare a Charge action, ready to attack a group of oncoming Hurlocks if one of them makes a move towards the archer. Let's say the GM decides to have a Hurlock Move up to the archer in order to attack. The player decides to use his prepared Charge to interrupt the Hurlock. Would he make his Charge before the Hurlock Moved, or in the middle of the Hurlock's Move?

And if he could use his Prepared action during the Hurlock's Move, does the Hurlock then have the ability to finish his move after the Charge is over?

[Allensh]

I will handle it by saying that it can come before an action or between the turn's two actions, or in response to a specified action ("I shoot the first person to open that door").

Allen

[Admiral Yacob]

As mentioned in my earlier post, my thoughts are it is able to be used as an interrupt (i.e. during an action, provided the conditions are met). Otherwise I worry about the usefulness.

As an example, enemy is doing a move of 14 followed by a charge to reach their target, directly behind a warrior. They are starting 6 yards from the warrior with a move of 10 who prepared to charge an enemy attempting to get past. At the start of the enemy's action, the enemy is outside charge range of a warrior, so the warrior could not charge them then. At the end of the move action, the enemy has gone 14 yards or at least 6 past the warrior (since the warrior is part of a 2 yard row it takes 6 to reach, 2 to pass and 6 to complete the move action) and the warrior is still outside charge range. The warrior cannot then use their charge.

This is a legitimate concern in my party as I have two party members with movements at 14 or higher and it isn't hard for a heavily armored opponent to have a movement of 10 or less.

[Loswaith]

If this wasnt the case you could take prepare as a minor action use it as a major action (you havent done one yet), then do another major action, as ther are no limitations on other major actions that you havent taken a major action already.

You cannot do that, because the rules specifically state that "You cannot take the prepared action if you've already taken a major action on your turn." Allowing a player to get two major actions would certainly give the player an unfair advantage, but it is also definitely against the rules in my interpretation.

People are getting stuck on this minor+minor+major thing. I disagree with that interpretation, but the important thing here is the actual effects of these interpretations in play. As I showed before, my interpretation doesn't give the player an unfair advantage or "exploit".

I do agree, as I said in the line following what you quoted.
However the same reasoning still holds, your using your minor action as a prepared action first (thusly havent taken a major action), leaving you a minor or major action left as on your interpertation you get an extra major action for the prepare, if you havent yet taken one (if doing the prepare first you havent).
Its all about how you nitpick the wording, and there is no ruling to disallow it, as clearly you havent used a major action yet that round when you use prepare, the major action is after the prepare (as prepare is after the move), and no major action explicitly says you cant take the action if you have made a major action already.

For me as soon as you declare a prepare action your turn ends at that exact point (as the rule states your turn ends), no partial action, no moving, nada untill the prepared action/situation occurs. As you are declaring your actions for the entire round.

The rules will note when something is a free action.

This quote basically explicitly stats that free actions will be noted and prepare is not stated as such.

Since I think we've taken the original question as far as it can go, here's a new one:

Does the Prepare action allow a player to interrupt an enemy mid-action? Or does the prepared action take place before the interrupted action?

Here's an example: A melee character is up front protecting an archer, and chooses to Prepare a Charge action, ready to attack a group of oncoming Hurlocks if one of them makes a move towards the archer. Let's say the GM decides to have a Hurlock Move up to the archer in order to attack. The player decides to use his prepared Charge to interrupt the Hurlock. Would he make his Charge before the Hurlock Moved, or in the middle of the Hurlock's Move?

And if he could use his Prepared action during the Hurlock's Move, does the Hurlock then have the ability to finish his move after the Charge is over?

The prepare action clearly states "you can interrupt another character and take your prepared action immediatly".
Though I suspect that meant you can use it at any time even during anothers turn (character meaning anyone PC or NPC/monster) so anytime even during the hurlocks turn. However common sence would say that if the warror charged the hurlock, the hurlock is going to address the immediate threat and halt its current, most likely redirecting them at the warrior.
The rules neither state that the character you interrupt stops or doesnt stop their actions.

Keep in mind that the combat isnt actually stop and start like it is played out, its purely fluid sequence. The warrior isnt realy waiting for the hurlck to move but asses the combat sees the hurlock is moving to the archer and charges to intercept (hurlock and warrior moving simultaneously), attacking the hurlock before it gets to the archer.

Overall:
The advantage of the prepare is that you gain the ability to react to some predefined event (the character is assessing the battlefield), the risk is that the event wont occur.
Much like an aim action, you take aim increasing your chances to hit, though the risk is you still wont hit.

Being able to move first, prepare and charge gives the character that prepared the advantage over the guy that just moved and charged the group of hurlocks, the ability to intercept the hurlocks action.

Im not saying you arent free to interperate it as you want and have prepare effectivly a free action, I just realy dont think thats the intent behind the RAW because at no point does it say the character gains extra actions.

Having it written as "You pick your one major action..." sounds clunky.

[Crazydwarf]

For me as soon as you declare a prepare action your turn ends at that exact point (as the rule states your turn ends), no partial action, no moving, nada untill the prepared action/situation occurs. As you are declaring your actions for the entire round.

While this prevents preparing and moving, it doesn't seem to prevent moving and preparing.
The actions can be taken in any order the player wishes as stated on p.58

Being able to move first, prepare and charge gives the character that prepared the advantage over the guy that just moved and charged the group of hurlocks, the ability to intercept the hurlocks action.

Why is reacting to something considered better than acting before it occurs ?
Especially when you KNOW it's going to occur, like the hurlock eating the face off the mages skull asap.

Right off the top of my head I can only imagine one such scenario, something like:
Archie points his crossbow at Bob's head and prepares to shoot if Bob runs or makes a move for his sword.
Just shooting Bob right of the bat is undesierable because he might have information or whatnot that the party needs/wants.

There seems to be very little tactical advantage in pure combat for this, especially if moving is also disallowed.
It has to be some very finniky situation where placement on the battlemap is of great importance, like holding a bottleneck so enemies don't surround you, and even then taking the defend action seems more suited.

Having it written as "You pick your one major action..." sounds clunky.

The whole section seems clunky to me, they keep refering to "a major action" never "your major action"

[kobbold]

It has to be some very finniky situation where placement on the battlemap is of great importance, like holding a bottleneck so enemies don't surround you, and even then taking the defend action seems more suited.

It could be greatly tactical, even on a battlemap... Considering a good fighter generally exceeds his victim's defense and that you could roll stunts...

Even without the principles of Admiral Yacob (like "the movement is interrupted by the prepared attack"), you just have to roll 2 SP (which is likely to occur), or 1 SP with the journeyman Unarmed Style talent to knock prone your oponent...

What happens in this case ? The opponent has to use his second action to get on his feet (delaying greatly his advance) ans forbiding him to attack, or to attack efficiently if he doesn't stand.

What would have happened if this occured with a non prepared attack ? The oponent would have used his first minor to stand and could have used his major to run or to charge.

In this case, preparing takes great sense (though it clearely depends on the fact of rolling stunts, which happens almost 50% of the time).

IMO, preparing gives all it's sense to the Konck Prone stunt too, which seems to be underused by many players (many players I know).

Seems to me that this is a purely tactical action and as I said to DKH, I like the idea of having to make a choice, to take a stance :
- acting normally
- or preparing but not being able to to anything else than preparing and acting when triggered.

It requires right phrasing, right placement, a sense of tactics... And is so rewarding when it works.

[Crazydwarf]

What happens in this case ? The opponent has to use his second action to get on his feet (delaying greatly his advance) ans forbiding him to attack, or to attack efficiently if he doesn't stand.

Ah but there are no rules forbidding anyone from attacking while prone, or even a negative modifier to do so.
Infact a prone person has full acess to his movement (except in the turn when he drops prone), other than the run action, wich is explicitly forbidden.
The only reprecussions of becoming prone is that you make a slightly easier target in melee.

So the Hurlock in our example could move towards the target, get interrupted by the prepared warriors charge, get knocked on its arse, continue his path towards the target (sliding on his butt in the mud, or for a less slapstick comedy scenario, run on all fours, belly upwards in some weird spider like way) and then attack the target if his remaining movement was enough to reach him.

A case could be made that his remaining movement is halved, or that his total movement is halved, wich might mean he allready exceeded his new limit, thus stopping him.
But the rules are not clear on these details and each induvidual GM must make a call, and many will probably want to houserule this differently so the prone status acctually makes more sense.
I mean you can legally charge while prone....Yeah

What would have happened if this occured with a non prepared attack ? The oponent would have used his first minor to stand and could have used his major to run or to charge.

So basically the hurlock lost out on a slight attack bonus, still no big whoop.
I'd much rather use the defend and stand firm actions if I wanted to hold a key position on the grid.

Seems to me that this is a purely tactical action and as I said to DKH, I like the idea of having to make a choice, to take a stance :
- acting normally
- or preparing but not being able to to anything else than preparing and acting when triggered.

It requires right phrasing, right placement, a sense of tactics... And is so rewarding when it works.

Fair enough, I'm not opposed to these ideas.
I'm just trying to see the whats written in the rules from a neutral point of view.

[Elfie]

Ah but there are no rules forbidding anyone from attacking while prone, or even a negative modifier to do so.
Infact a prone person has full acess to his movement (except in the turn when he drops prone), other than the run action, wich is explicitly forbidden.
The only reprecussions of becoming prone is that you make a slightly easier target in melee.

Holy crapbuckets, I never noticed this before! Thanks for pointing it out! We've absolutely been playing it that you cannot attack or move while prone. I just let my players know that we've been doing it wrong. I hope they take it well

[Crazydwarf]

Or you could just stick to what you where allready doing, since it would..You know...Make sense
I'm not trying to make you "do it right", as I said I'm just discussing the RAW here and trying to view them neutrally. Though with some diffculty.

Really, prone charging ?
I...Wha....No.....Really ?

[Elfie]

I think the key is that "knocked prone" does not mean "knocked down." It just means you're distracted or in pain or what have you. If you were really "knocked down" the penalty should be a lot more than a +1.

[kobbold]

So basically the hurlock lost out on a slight attack bonus, still no big whoop.
I'd much rather use the defend and stand firm actions if I wanted to hold a key position on the grid.

I'm talking about a case where the character interrupting the action by making his ennmy prone was not the primary traget of this ennemy. (as I would rule that no, you can't charge while prone... even if the rules don't say anything about that...)

Fair enough, I'm not opposed to these ideas.
I'm just trying to see the whats written in the rules from a neutral point of view.

Problem is that, even with neutral eyes, there is no correct answer.