The Prepare Action - ruling needed

[Allensh]

I am having a discussion with one of my players. He disagrees with my interpretation, but as he was kind enough to wait to discuss it until after the game, I am interested in finding out the designers' intent on this.

I ruled that the Prepare action requires you to take it first and then end your turn, thus precluding moving and then taking Prepare, as by doing that you would not have a Major action left on your turn to prepare.

He feels that you should be able to take a Prepare action as the second minor action since you would not have a major action anyway, as he does not think the intent of the rule is to "trade" a major action for the second minor.

I would like an "official" ruling on this please, although of course viewpoints of other players and GMs are always useful as well. Thank you.

Allen Shock

[Elfie]

I was about to say that it seemed crystal clear that you are giving up your minor action in order to delay your chosen major action, but upon re-reading I'm not so sure. It specifically says that you cannot take your prepared action if you've already taken a major action on your turn.

I think as written, you could in fact move, then prepare. The downside being that if you do not get the opportunity to use your prepared action, it is lost.

I can't say for sure whether that was the intent, but I think that's what I'd allow because that's how it's written.

[eldritch_hobbes]

First off, welcome to the forums. Stick around a bit, we tend to be a friendly bunch.

Second, I'm gonna go ahead and say you're probably not gonna get an official ruling. While the game devs might sometimes slum it down here, I've yet to see them respond directly to any questions asked of them, especially when it comes to rulings. Maybe it's the conceit of a rules-light system, but when it comes to rulings, you're gonna have to rely on what the book tells you, what us other lowly GMs can advise, and what your heart tells you.

Personally, I'd rule that a prepare action could be taken after another Minor action, essentially making the "prepared" action a major action. I'd also rule that you could hold a minor action until after you took the prepared one. Mostly this is because I'd love for my players to think tactically / strategize the timing of their actions, and I'd like to make that as easy as possible.

[zanwot]

Honestly there is way too much rules lawyering round here. DA is rules light, requires as a necessity the GM to exercise his judgment even more so than other RPGs. That is in part why I would be amazed if you got an official answer. Personnaly I would certainly react depending on the situation, and remind the rules lawyer player the spirit of the rules.

[DKH]

I have to agree with the interpretations others have given. The rules state that you can't take a prepare action if you have taken a major action that turn, but there's no reason you couldn't take a minor action (like Move) first, and then use Prepare. Is there a particular reason you feel this is not appropriate?

[Allensh]

My feeling on this was that the rule seemed to be meant to allow for "delaying" major actions such as attacks, and that meant taking the Prepare action first and then "saving" the rest of the turn for later. If you trade your major action for a second minor action than you effectively have no major action to save, and you would then get two minors AND a major, with the only difference being the major occurs later. So, my initial ruling was that you could NOT take a Prepare if you had already used a minor action to move, because you would have to have a major action left to delay.

An "official" ruling would have made it a bit easier to stick to my original ruling, but I am the GM so what I say goes (sometimes hard to enforce in a world where 4e and FATE seem to be taking the authority away from the GM).

Allen

[Elfie]

Allensh, your interpretation certainly makes sense. This is probably a rule that could have used a "for example" in the players guide. I'd say go with whichever makes more sense in your game and just stick to it.

[kobbold]

I have to agree with the interpretations others have given. The rules state that you can't take a prepare action if you have taken a major action that turn, but there's no reason you couldn't take a minor action (like Move) first, and then use Prepare. Is there a particular reason you feel this is not appropriate?

It would just give you one more minor action per round, which like exploiting the text of the rules to get one more minor action during the combat round.

For me, preparing the major action means you put it in reserve. It's "I'm not taking it now, but I'll react and inteerupt the ennemy's turn". It's like delaying the remaining major action untill the conditions are right.

I have always and will always rule you can't take any minor action before preparing. For me, a character has two actions (including one major if needed) for the whole combat round (except for any stunt rolled). Allowing that would mean giving him a third action.

[DKH]

@allensh and kobbold

I think I understand our difference in interpretation now. You interpreted the Prepare action as an action that merely allows the player to hold their major action until later. My interpretation is that the Prepare action essentially takes the place of the major action. I can see how you could interpret the rules that way, but I disagree with your reasoning.

You argued that my interpretation of Prepare gives players extra actions. I won't try to argue that, but what I will argue is that my interpretation of Prepare does not give players any extra or unfair advantages. Here's an example:

1) Without Prepare: A player Moves their character towards an enemy and then Charges them.
2) My interpretation of Prepare: A player Moves towards an enemy and then Prepares an Attack action to be used later.
3) Your interpretation of Prepare: A player Prepares an Attack action to be used later, but can't move.

Note that in my interpretation, both the player who Prepared and the one who did not were able to attack and move. They had effectively the same ability to act on their turn. Whereas in your interpretation, the player using Prepare could only attack but not move or do anything else, giving him less of an ability to act than the player who didn't use Prepare.

Ultimately, it is up to each GM to interpret the rules and apply them to their game. That said, your main objection seems to be that my interpretation of the Prepare action gives a player extra or unfair advantages over a player who doesn't use prepare. I hope the example above showed you that that is not the case.

[Crazydwarf]

You interpreted the Prepare action as an action that merely allows the player to hold their major action until later

I belive by RAW that is correct, it's listed as a minor action after all, not as a free action.
That said, I think the other interpretation works better. What sort of preparations are being done anyway, seems to be a simple thoughtprocess at most.

[DKH]

You interpreted the Prepare action as an action that merely allows the player to hold their major action until later

I belive by RAW that is correct, it's listed as a minor action after all, not as a free action.
That said, I think the other interpretation works better. What sort of preparations are being done anyway, seems to be a simple thoughtprocess at most.

Just to clarify. My interpretation is that by taking the Prepare minor action (which does nothing on your turn and prohibits you from taking a major action), you gain a major action that you can then spend any time until the beginning of your next turn. That interpretation is supported by the rules as written, and as I already demonstrated, this interpretation does not give players an unfair advantage for using Prepare.

[Crazydwarf]

I'm not sure I follow.
In your demonstration you take the following steps:
1. Move (minor action)
2. Prepare (minor action)
3. Use the prepared action (major action)

This is one minor too many.
But because the prepare action is basically a non-action, I do think it should be labled as a free action to allow what you demonstrate to work, it's just plain better that way IMHO.

[kobbold]

3) Your interpretation of Prepare: A player Prepares an Attack action to be used later, but can't move.

Yes... because preparing has a price. If it was taking the place of the major action, it would have been easier (and less subject to personnel rulings) to have written it down as a free action delaying the major action (thus allowing the use of a minor action).

Note that in my interpretation, both the player who Prepared and the one who did not were able to attack and move. They had effectively the same ability to act on their turn. Whereas in your interpretation, the player using Prepare could only attack but not move or do anything else, giving him less of an ability to act than the player who didn't use Prepare.

Yes. 'cause he spends his turn paying attention to what happens in order to react.

Ultimately, it is up to each GM to interpret the rules and apply them to their game. That said, your main objection seems to be that my interpretation of the Prepare action gives a player extra or unfair advantages over a player who doesn't use prepare. I hope the example above showed you that that is not the case.

Yes because it allows to delay the action plus get the opportunity to interrupt trggering actions. Tactically, this is an advantage for me.

[DKH]

Ultimately, it is up to each GM to interpret the rules and apply them to their game. That said, your main objection seems to be that my interpretation of the Prepare action gives a player extra or unfair advantages over a player who doesn't use prepare. I hope the example above showed you that that is not the case.

Yes because it allows to delay the action plus get the opportunity to interrupt trggering actions. Tactically, this is an advantage for me.

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. While a player who uses Prepare may be able to use it to gain a tactical advantage, he gives up the right to act earlier on (which is a significant advantage) and risks losing his action entirely if the situation that would trigger his action doesn't come up. The player has to be smart and thoughtful to get an tactical advantage from Prepare. Calling advantages that come from smart, thoughtful play "exploits" seems silly to me.

My point was that players do not get additional attacks, movement, or other actions that directly affect the battlefield by using Prepare compared to players who do not use Prepare. That would indeed be an unfair exploit, but it is not the case.

In the end, you can play the game either way. Neither gives players a significant unfair exploit or hampers the game. I think my interpretation encourages players to think tactically and coordinate more, so I'll keep using it, and you can use whatever rule suits you best.

I'm not sure I follow.
In your demonstration you take the following steps:
1. Move (minor action)
2. Prepare (minor action)
3. Use the prepared action (major action)

This is one minor too many.
But because the prepare action is basically a non-action, I do think it should be labled as a free action to allow what you demonstrate to work, it's just plain better that way IMHO.

My interpretation of Prepare is that it does technically give you an extra action; however, since the Prepare action itself does not actually affect the battlefield in any way, the result is the same as if you had taken one minor and one major. This interpretation is supported by the rules as written if you examine the rule for Prepare closely. Prepare allows you to "pick one major action... to execute... Any time before your next turn..." It does not say anywhere in the rules that you hold onto your existing major action, although that is the ultimate effect of this rule.

[Crazydwarf]

This interpretation is supported by the rules as written if you examine the rule for Prepare closely. Prepare allows you to "pick one major action... to execute... Any time before your next turn..." It does not say anywhere in the rules that you hold onto your existing major action, although that is the ultimate effect of this rule.

But it also says: "You cannot take the prepared action if you’ve already taken a major action on your turn."
Thus you cannot use your major action to pay the price for preparing. Not without a minor time paradox anyway

[DKH]

This interpretation is supported by the rules as written if you examine the rule for Prepare closely. Prepare allows you to "pick one major action... to execute... Any time before your next turn..." It does not say anywhere in the rules that you hold onto your existing major action, although that is the ultimate effect of this rule.

But it also says: "You cannot take the prepared action if you’ve already taken a major action on your turn."
Thus you cannot use your major action to pay the price for preparing. Not without a minor time paradox anyway

You aren't using your major action to pay the price for preparing, per se. I didn't say that. The price is that you can't use a major action that turn, which is slightly different. You could also include in the price of using Prepare other things like the fact that you have to pre-determine what your Prepared action is ahead of time, that you might lose it altogether, etc., etc.

[Crazydwarf]

The price is that you can't use a major action that turn

AND a minor action for the preparation itself, whatever that might encompass.
If you allready spent your minor action to move, then you only have your major action left to take actions with.

And if you spend it on the prepare action we have the time paradox situation
Like going back in time to kill yourself before you went back in time...You invalidate your actions after the fact that they have been preformed.

[DKH]

The price is that you can't use a major action that turn

AND a minor action for the preparation itself, whatever that might encompass.
If you allready spent your minor action to move, then you only have your major action left to take actions with.

And if you spend it on the prepare action we have the time paradox situation
Like going back in time to kill yourself before you went back in time...You invalidate your actions after the fact that they have been preformed.

No... the price is that you spend a minor action and can't use a major action that turn. The price is NOT a minor action and a major action. Therefore, you can still legally take a minor action that turn, in addition to the Prepare action (according to my interpretation). You end up taking two minor actions on your turn (one of which does nothing that effects the battlefield) and then you have the potential to take a major action sometime later in the round. You might disagree with my interpretation, but it is consistent.

Ultimately this is kind of a pointless exercise. People should apply the rule however they see fit, but know that neither interpretation gives players an unfair advantage.

[Crazydwarf]

Ultimately this is kind of a pointless exercise. People should apply the rule however they see fit, but know that neither interpretation gives players an unfair advantage.

Indeed, I apologize if I seem like I'm itching for an argument.
I'm just a bit bored tonight, and generally love nitpicking about stuff like this.

Now I'm going to do a complete turn-around and say you are correct after all !

Here's from the book: "On your turn you can take a major action and a minor action or two minor actions."
Now where I went wrong (possibly due to some old rule from D&D4e still stuck in my head) is that in my mind this meant you have ONLY a major action, and a minor action...But if you wished you may downgrade your major action to a minor, but it still counts as a major being spent in the process.
But infact there is nothing in DA that supports that notion.

[Loswaith]

The rules as I see it imply you have one major and one minor action a round.
However as a major action you can do major or minor actions, however even if you do a minor action as your major action it counts as a major action.

So you can either do major + minor actions or minor + minor (counts as major) action.

Move + prepare + attack is still a minor + minor + major. In this case you used your two minor actions and cant use a major action anymore as Prepare lets you take a major action, not a bonus major action.

Alternativly as you determine your all actions at once, as soon as you choose to do a prepare your action ends, reguardless of when you choose it in the sequence, so you would effectivly negate any move you could do, prior to it.

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. As in this manner you are still only taking a minor action (the prepare, reguardless that you prepared a major action) and a major action.
Though I'm sure we can all agree that is not the intent to be able to get two major actions in a round.

You are free to rule it differently, however.

[DKH]

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".

[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.

My point was that players do not get additional attacks, movement, or other actions that directly affect the battlefield by using Prepare compared to players who do not use Prepare. That would indeed be an unfair exploit, but it is not the case.

They gain one action (corresponding to the "I assess the situation and get ready to react BEFORE something takes place). Assessing and preparing is minor, action is major. You've got your two actions for your turn, only the major happens after.

If you had a minor action before, it's three actions.

My interpretation of Prepare is that it does technically give you an extra action; however, since the Prepare action itself does not actually affect the battlefield in any way, the result is the same as if you had taken one minor and one major.

Well, I believe GR's designer are not begginers... If I was to create an action giving an extra action, I would clearely write it down because it would be an exception to the rule saying that a character can only make X actions for his turn. Exceptions to the rules are generally clearely stated.

This interpretation is supported by the rules as written if you examine the rule for Prepare closely. Prepare allows you to "pick one major action... to execute... Any time before your next turn..." It does not say anywhere in the rules that you hold onto your existing major action, although that is the ultimate effect of this rule.

It doesn't say that you gain one free major action either...

[DKH]

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.

[Crazydwarf]

The rules as I see it imply you have one major and one minor action a round.
However as a major action you can do major or minor actions, however even if you do a minor action as your major action it counts as a major action.

So you can either do major + minor actions or minor + minor (counts as major) action.

This is what I assumed aswell, but after giving the section a read through and some thought, I realized this is not necessarily the case.
Nowhere is any action trading even mentioned or hinted at. They just simply state A or B.

Does this allow 2 minor and 1 major if you prepare ? Yes.
Is it rules legal ? Also yes

[Admiral Yacob]

Wow, this got a lot of responses. I also feel like we've discussed this before.

Just to throw my two copper in (and I apologize if I am saying something someone said before, I stopped reading 1/2 way down), my group uses it in the way Allensh referenced in the beginning. You have to sacrifice your second action for the prepare. So you can only take the prepare on your initiative and a major now at any time later (after your conditions are met). The benefit is I allow this as an interrupt. It works really well for holding the line/AoO style action.

For example, if my warrior is protecting the mage, he can say that he will prepare to charge anyone who comes within his charge range, heading for the mage. Whenever I have enemy moving up, the warrior can charge and stop them in their tracks, ending their movement and getting the warrior's charge attack in. Then the enemy, now facing the warrior, can take their second action (assuming the movement was the first). This helps with some of the warrior's lack of "stickiness" in my campaign.

The other side is, of course, the same rules apply to their enemies. Which I sometimes use to good effect . Just my thoughts. As many mentioned before, what works for me may not work for you so do not take this as the end all of interpretations or somehow universally "right". Just one DM's interpretation.