Rounding APL

[The Fox]

In another thread, there is some discussion about rounding APL when the APL is exactly X.5; more specifically, when the total party level is odd, and the number of players is even. The claim is made that the campaign leadership allows the players to choose which way to round in this case.

I have two questions:
1. Is this indeed the case? I have searched for some time for confirmation, to no avail.

2. Assuming that the answer to Question 1 is YES, what do I tell my players when five of them want to round up, but one wants to round down? (Likewise, when five want to round down, but one wants to round up?)

[CRobledo]

1. Indeed, leadership has said that if it is X.5, and only if it is exactly X.5, can the players then choose.

2. Welcome to how things were before the new guide! There is no official stance or rule about how the GM should adjudicate such a table where some people want to play up and some down.

Some accepted answers:
- Majority rules
- Only play "up" if unanimous decision
- GM suggests players based on scenario difficulty
- Some people switch to pregens to match subtier chosen

Usually, I see some combination of the above. Suggestion: ask around how it is usually handled in your specific region. I have found this to be a very regional topic (down in GA, the usual answer was "up if unanimous only", for example).

[Preston Hudson]

I am not finding this confirmation either. The guide does state that you should round to the nearest whole number (pg 31). It has been my understanding that an APL of 3.5, for example, would go to 4 and 3.4 would be 3. If the APL goes to the higher subtier and there are no players at the table that have a character in that higher subtier, the group then has the choice to play down. If there is a confirmation link, please provide it so I can insure that I am giving the players the rounding option when the APL is x.5. Thanks.

[Jeff Merola]

The quote is here.

It's from before the new rules about determining tiers, but until Mike says something different, it should still be valid.

And going by that ruling is a lot easier than getting into a debate about which of the many "rounding to the nearest number" rules we should use.

[Preston Hudson]

Thanks Jeff.

[Charlie Bell]

I think the question remains whether Mike's previous ruling about rounding .5's still applies under the new, quite different, Guide v5 APL/subtier rule, since his previous .5 rounding ruling predates the current Guide considerably.

[JohnF]

Preston Hudson wrote:

Thanks Jeff.

+0.5 (which I choose to round up to 1)

[Preston Hudson]

Charlie, I would agree that we would need to know if that still applies.

John, I am in total agreement with you. I usually run with .5 being rounded up.

[James Risner]

Preston Hudson wrote:

my understanding that an APL of 3.5, for example, would go to 4

A lot of "common" understanding (as in probably the majority of people) have .5 round up, but in math and biology it isn't always round up.

The problem is that the wording "nearest whole number" is in-specific to which direction to round. A number ending in .5 has neither number (round up or down) nearest.

[Nebten]

PRD wrote:

Rounding: Occasionally the rules ask you to round a result or value. Unless otherwise stated, always round down. For example, if you are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3.

Just in case you wanted a "RAW" interpretation =v)

[The Fox]

That same rule would have you round 3.75 to 3. So a party of four players, with levels 1, 4, 5, 5, would need to play at Subtier 1-2.

[JohnF]

No - the 'unless otherwise stated' clause would prevail, so 3.75 would round 'to the nearest integer', and this round to 4. You could use the PRD rule as the tie-breaker, thus always rounding 0.5 down, but that goes against both common usage (0.5 is generally rounded up) and Mike Brock's earlier suggestion that the players get to choose which way 0.5 rounds.

[The Fox]

Fair enough.