DKH wrote:kobbold wrote:DKH wrote: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.