|
actually, with rounding at the end you would be able to show that 2+2=5. because, 2.4 +2.4 =4.8 rounding to 5.
rounding before addition gives you 2.4+2.4 = 2 + 2 = 4.
;)
I use this example a lot as well. But, to show that 2+2=5, you're not just rounding at the end; you're prematurely rounding the intermediate numbers (2.4).
If you start with 2.4+2.4, the right answer to one digit is 5, not 4. You get the wrong answer (4) if you round off too soon. If you mix your rounding all up, you get 2+2=5. The mistake is not the 5, it's reporting the first two numbers as 2.
|
Lol, ok. Here is your reference, or if you like you can go to page 1 and read it as well. I would also advise you to read the topic, because you are right you don't get a choice to play up or down, but you do get a choice on how to round if it is exactly .5
|
Lol, ok. Here is your reference, or if you like you can go to page 1 and read it as well. I would also advise you to read the topic, because you are right you don't get a choice to play up or down, but you do get a choice on how to round if it is exactly .5
There actually is one choice situation written into the rules.
For scenarios written in Seasons 0 to 3, when the APL is
in between subtiers, a party of six or seven characters must
play the higher subtier. Parties with four or five characters
must play the lower subtier. In the fringe case where there
are no players that are high enough to have reached the
subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the
group may decide to play down to the lower subtier.
So if you have a Season 0-3 tier 1-5 scenario and there are 3 2nd level and 3 3rd level characters, they could decide to round up to 3 and then still choose to play at subtier 1-2. I guess that would give them two choices actually. :)
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Lol, ok. Here is your reference, or if you like you can go to page 1 and read it as well. I would also advise you to read the topic, because you are right you don't get a choice to play up or down, but you do get a choice on how to round if it is exactly .5
Yes, I read that post already on this thread. The problem is that is was a 2012 ruling made before choice was removed from the equation and thus may no longer apply.
|
|
Lol, ok. Here is your reference, or if you like you can go to page 1 and read it as well. I would also advise you to read the topic, because you are right you don't get a choice to play up or down, but you do get a choice on how to round if it is exactly .5Yes, I read that post already on this thread. The problem is that is was a 2012 ruling made before choice was removed from the equation and thus may no longer apply.
Nothing has been posted to contradict it or change it since then, so its still the rule.
No, I will not cite a reference, because there is none. That's the point. :P
|
|
Lol, ok. Here is your reference, or if you like you can go to page 1 and read it as well. I would also advise you to read the topic, because you are right you don't get a choice to play up or down, but you do get a choice on how to round if it is exactly .5Yes, I read that post already on this thread. The problem is that is was a 2012 ruling made before choice was removed from the equation and thus may no longer apply.
Since which way you round can matter, and no retraction has happened, we have to assume to post is still valid until one of two things happen.
An official retraction, or a rule is created that invalidates it.
Neither has happened.
|
|
Cire- your right, I should have said you almost always get no choice. I have had some tables that ended up at 2.5 which basically means you could end up with a choice of high or low subtier.
Lol, ok. Here is your reference, or if you like you can go to page 1 and read it as well. I would also advise you to read the topic, because you are right you don't get a choice to play up or down, but you do get a choice on how to round if it is exactly .5Yes, I read that post already on this thread. The problem is that is was a 2012 ruling made before choice was removed from the equation and thus may no longer apply.
Not quite sure how you can confuse "do I get to round .5 up or down" to "do we get to decide what subtier we play in." They are 2 different things, but I am glad it was cleared up for you.
|
|
I have found this to be another instance of YMMV. It very much depends on the judge at the table and the VOs at the event.
IMHO it shouldn't. Mr. Brock has made a ruling, but it is only found on the boards, and ... yeah. YMMV.
My suggestion is to print out the page with the ruling on it and bring it with you. If the VOs in the area arent willing to back that up, then talk to your local VOs about it. IF they arent willing to do anything or dont side with the ruling, then email Mike.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Cire- your right, I should have said you almost always get no choice. I have had some tables that ended up at 2.5 which basically means you could end up with a choice of high or low subtier.
Not quite sure how you can confuse "do I get to round .5 up or down" to "do we get to decide what subtier we play in." They are 2 different things, but I am glad it was cleared up for you.Lol, ok. Here is your reference, or if you like you can go to page 1 and read it as well. I would also advise you to read the topic, because you are right you don't get a choice to play up or down, but you do get a choice on how to round if it is exactly .5Yes, I read that post already on this thread. The problem is that is was a 2012 ruling made before choice was removed from the equation and thus may no longer apply.
There is no confusion. The two are integral to each other. If you are playing a 3-7 mod and the APL is 4.5 then giving players the choice to round the APL down to 4 or up to 5 can then give them a choice as to which tier to play depending on the year of the mod and the number of players at the table. I personally don't have a problem with that if that is the intent, but I am not positive it is the intent as put forth in the latest version of the guide. Which is why I asked even after seeing Mike's post because intent has obviously changed since then.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
From the current guide:
"Determining Subtiers
In order to determine which subtier a mixed-level group
of PCs must play in, calculate the group’s average party
level (APL). Divide the total number of character levels by
the number of characters in the party. You should always
round to the nearest whole number."
So, at this point, if the APL is x.5, the group gets to decide if that number is rounded up or down. Nothing of which I am aware has changed Mike's original post, no matter how far back it was posted. Until that happens, his statement that the players choose to round up or down remains the policy.
Starting with Season 4, scenarios are designed for six
characters and contain instructions on how to adjust the
scenario for four-character parties. When the APL of a table
is between two subtiers (like APL 3 for a Tier 1–5 scenario),
a party of four characters must play the lower tier without
any adjustments for party size. A party of five to seven
characters whose APL is between two subtiers must play
the higher tier with the four-character adjustment.
For scenarios written in Seasons 0 to 3, when the APL is
in between subtiers, a party of six or seven characters must
play the higher subtier. Parties with four or five characters
must play the lower subtier. In the fringe case where there
are no players that are high enough to have reached the
subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the
group may decide to play down to the lower subtier.
So, let's say the APL for a 3-7 scenario had been 4.5. Let us assume the party chose to round up to 5. Now, the party is between the two subtiers (if they rounded down, the APL would have been 4, so not between two subtiers.)
For Season 4 through current, under the example I am putting forth (where the tier, based on the group's choice to round, is between subtiers), a group of 4 characters would be required to play the lower tier without adjustment; a party of 5 to seven wold have top lay the higher tier with adjustment.
For Seasons 0-3, under the example I am putting forth, a party of 6 or 7 characters must play the higher subtier, while a party with 4 or 5 characters must play the lower subtier.
So, they make the choice to round up or down as part of determine the calculation. Then, once the decision is made, the rules determine whether they play high or low tier based on two factors:
1. The final APL
2. The number of characters (if the APL is between two subtiers.)
Now, I think that's right, unless I completely don't understand these rules and how they all sort of fit together.
Mark
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Now, I think that's right, unless I completely don't understand these rules and how they all sort of fit together.
Mark, that was a very nice explanation and how I understand it as well. The only thing I was questioning was the current validity of Mike's ruling based on the apparent change of intent in the guide since 2012. It appears, barring a new ruling, that Mike's 2012 ruling should be grandfathered in.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have found this to be another instance of YMMV. It very much depends on the judge at the table and the VOs at the event.
IMHO it shouldn't. Mr. Brock has made a ruling, but it is only found on the boards, and ... yeah. YMMV.
I don't relent on this. VOs do not have any input into this situation. It has been ruled on by Mr. Brock. The mileage DOES NOT vary on this. It's straight math.
|
|
We have to stick with RAW and it clearly says (c/p of the same part, a bit expanded) p.25:
"Within each tier, PCs should play in the
subtier in which they fall whenever possible, but they may
be allowed to play up or down, based on the average party
level at the table, as outlined below. Some scenarios or
special events offer more than two subtiers. In these cases,
no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her
character level."
This rule has no bearing on a character level 1-2 playing in tier 4-5 in a level 1-5 scenario.
It is specificly for some of the older level 1-7 scenarios and multi level special events like seige of the diamond city.
In those cases a level 1-2 player can not play in tier 6-7 because it is more then one step away (the "step" being tier 3-4).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't relent on this. VOs do not have any input into this situation. It has been ruled on by Mr. Brock. The mileage DOES NOT vary on this. It's straight math.I have found this to be another instance of YMMV. It very much depends on the judge at the table and the VOs at the event.
IMHO it shouldn't. Mr. Brock has made a ruling, but it is only found on the boards, and ... yeah. YMMV.
Here's the situation.
My VC is the judge. We have an APL of 2.5. He says this rounds up, and when asked about the post from Mr. Brock, the VC says "that's an old post that does not apply now that we are in season 5".
(In this case it didn't matter, as one of the players left the table, so we only had 4 PCs and the rules pushed us back into "play down" at APL 3.)
So Mr. Bowles, your suggestion would be to what? leave the table? Threaten the VC (a great guy, who is doing a wonderful job and is after all an overworked Volenteer)? Or just play the game? We did the best we could. The player who wasn't comfortable playing up went home. And the rest of us played at sub-tier 1-2 (where we had planned to play from the beginning).
I don't feel comfortable argueing with the judge at the table. Even less when the judge is a VO. Even less when he's a great judge and MY VC. Afterword, if we have time, I'll try to talk (privately) with him and discuss it. But argue at the table, with 3 other players waiting to start a game that we are burning game time for? no, not often. If it's something I can't live with, I'll opt to do what my friend did and bow out.
Table variation (a.k.a. YMMV) only applies when the rule is not clear.
The rule is clear. V-Os are as prone to being human or make mistakes as the next guy. Just because a VO was wrong doesn't mean table variation applies. It just means he was mistaken.
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the ruling Mike Brock made on this subject, it is cut and dry. Until that post made in 2012 is updated in the guide and/or an FAQ update is made, the party is allowed to decide how .5 is rounded per the post and the following from Page 5 of the Guide:
The Pathfinder Society Community
You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership, including the campaign coordinator and campaign developer, on the paizo.com messageboards. GMs are not required to read every post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications or rulings. If it is a significant clarification, it will be updated in the FAQ, and later in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play if necessary.
Note: The quote from Kolby Sample is on page 31 of the current guide if anyone is trying to locate the text.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, nosig, are you saying that every rule that a judge might possibly misunderstand or misapply is "table variation"? I concur with other posters here who don't think that the term means what you claim.
Does Pathfinder Society use the Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks? The correct answer is not "table variation."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
So, nosig, are you saying that every rule that a judge might possibly misunderstand or misapply is "table variation"? I concur with other posters here who don't think that the term means what you claim.
Does Pathfinder Society use the Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks? The correct answer is not "table variation."
I think it is fair to say that there are commonly or easily misunderstood rules that DO cause table variation even when they shouldn't. I have seen entire regions running something the wrong way because that's how the local VO told everyone to do it. What do you think happens when everyone from that region all decide to go to GenCon and some of them even GM? Most people just take their VO's word for it. Only a small percentage come to these forums to verify.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
nosig,
I understand your situation.
But I think you're using the term "table variation" to mean "some GMs do run this according to the rules, and others don't." I don't think that's what most people mean by "table variation". Most people mean something along the order of "Your character concept depends on a gray area of the rules. Some GMs rule this way, and others rule that way. You should expect that, at some tables, that trick won't work."
You're getting flak because people aren't using the same terminology as you are.
I've run into great GMs who use the Critical Hit and Fumble decks, or who re-roll Initiative every round, or who take other liberties with the PFS rules. Heck, I had a guy come to my table at Gen Con 2013 with his synthecist. (I was not his favorite GM that day.) I suspect that every rule in the game has been broken by one PFS judge or another.
|
|
" is after all an overworked Volenteer"
If someone like myself who frequents the boards regularly just to *prevent this kind of problem* can not be trusted to report a ruling by Mr. Brock and assure that it is indeed still current, I'm not sure what to say to that. Just because they are volunteers does give them fiat in matters such as this. I wouldn't be rude, but I felt that it were unduly dangerous, I wouldn't play that table.
|
|
Call it whatever. I just would find it annoying if I told someone, "Hey, I saw on the boards that this ruling is still relevant, and we should abide by it.", and then just acted like I didn't say anything.
What I meant is that I'm very tired and leery of mistakes by judges in PFS. In fact, I've caught some judges making "mistakes" that were 100% intentional in order to make things harder on the PCs.
There's mistakes, and then there's "I'm going to play it X way even though there is a ruling stating play it Y way that has never been invalidated or contradicted."
" Like all the flak I took with "Take 10" ... and now with perception and diplomacy..."
You shouldn't have had to take flak over that.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
At the end of the day, whoever is running that game is going to make the call, even if he or she is wrong. If a VO is present, or is the one running the game, her or she can still make the wrong call. Now, whether that is a result of believing they are actually making the right call, or an issue of them disagreeing with the rule and doing what they want, it doesn't matter - there isn't anyway to change that person's mind.
So, if respectfully discussing it and (if possible) presenting them with Mike's post still doesn't get them to change their mind, then the choices are either play under the misapplied rule or leave.
In any event, campaign leadership should be notified where the VO is deliberately acting in contravention to the rule when the rule has been pointed out to them. Of course, without any such evidence, I would understand a VO saying, "unless you have something in writing, this is how this rule is going to be applied."
|
|
Call it whatever. I just would find it annoying if I told someone, "Hey, I saw on the boards that this ruling is still relevant, and we should abide by it.", and then just acted like I didn't say anything.
I can understand why this might be annoying, but how wouldyou feel if someone sat down and just said 'Hey I saw a ruling that said Power Attack is illegal now in PFS.' Would you give it any merit? Probably not. Now Im sure the stuff you point out at your tables, David, are true rulings that apply in the given situation, but unless you have proof of them (did you bring a print out or offer to pull it up on your laptop/cellphone/tablet?), its likely to get the same reaction unless your reminder jars the GMs memory that theyve seen that too.
Im not saying it shouldnt be annoying, but Im sure you can see a difference between someone just quoting a rule on the boards, and someone having proof of it.
And for clarification, it has (or shouldnt have, anyway) any bearing on the fact that you have 1 star opposed to 5-stars or if you are a VO or not.
What I meant is that I'm very tired and leery of mistakes by judges in PFS. In fact, I've caught some judges making "mistakes" that were 100% intentional in order to make things harder on the PCs.
I suggest you make some robot GMs, then. :P
And stop playing under the jerks who are cheating you intentionally.
|
|
You are correct. The "no players high enough" special rule is in the Seasons 0-3 paragraph, so in your case you should still have played up, with the 4 player adjustment. (The reason that special rule is there is in part because there is no 4 player adjustment in those seasons.)
You are also correct in your list of ways you could have altered the situation to play down.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
You are correct. The "no players high enough" special rule is in the Seasons 0-3 paragraph, so in your case you should still have played up, with the 4 player adjustment. (The reason that special rule is there is in part because there is no 4 player adjustment in those seasons.)
You are also correct in your list of ways you could have altered the situation to play down.
how about the following...
3b) added in another player with a 4th level PC, so with 6 players our APL would be 4.5, which we could round down to 4...
Would that be allowed?
Yes. The party would have been at 4.5, and could choose to round that down to 4. Therefore, the APL would be 4, which is in Tier 3-4, and NOT between subtiers.
Using the same math, had the party rounded up to 5, it would have then been between subtiers, and with six players, would have been required to play the higher subtier, with the adjustment made for 4 players.
|
|
It does seem strange that adding a character, making the party that much stronger, can serve to reduce the APL and allow for easier encounters.
It's an artifact of the mathematical calculation. We had this come up during Way of the Kirin back when you could choose. Way played up that day, even though we'd be playing down today.