/FACEPALM
Amen to that brother. Your whole argument is that since rounding down helps you, that can't be the way to go. Dress it up anyway you want, but you're saying since it doesn't screw us, it's wrong. Wow just saying that out loud makes me giggle a little bit.
"I've never claimed anywhere that you round up, classical straw-man there."
Except by not rounding down, you are rounding up. Unless you can fight a 1.5 HD monster, you can only get it back with a 2 HD monster. You have effectively rounded up. Even so, I'll amend: Since you can't find a single instance where you compare two numbers and don't round down, you come up with something completely irrelevant.
Yes consistency does matter, but you seem to think the devs would rather consistently screw us, than consistently apply the rules exactly the same way every time. Do you get that? You're saying that the more important design rule is to screw the players, and the general rounding down rule is secondary to that. I'll work with that for a second though. In the book it says general rule round down. You show me where it says general rule, make sure you get screwed when you round down, and I'll agree that you have the stronger position.
"No. I do not believe the conversation went that way. That would imply intent, I clearly stated that if anything, Panache/Grits Uniqueness to the general rule was UN-intentional."
This statement right here proves that you know you're wrong. You admit that not rounding would make it unique. You admit there could be some unintentional effects. You have to know that the general rounding rule would take precedence over any "screw the player" rule that may or may not exist. so isn't it more likely that they followed the known general rounding rule, and UN-intentionally helped the players out? I mean you admit it would be unique, and yet there is nothing in the ability that states it would be unique. Nothing was specifically called out in the ability.
CR isn't "truly irrelevant". If you want me to assume that the Devs find screwing players over more important than the general rounding rules, examples of their guiding principals of rule making are entirely relevant.
Let me put emphasis on this one more time: Your entire position is that you shouldn't round down because it doesn't screw you over. If can't read that and not chuckle a little bit, you should read it again.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Er, about your CR comment - while being a bit of a non sequitor, your statement is also wrong.
@ Dr Grecko - So what if the monsters are hindered? They are NPC's so hindering them helps the people actually playing the game. The monsters were screwed when CR became level - 1... which was actually done to give PC's the advantage... Which goes against your "the devs want to screw us" theory.
Lowering the CR of a monster while not changing any other stats makes things easier for the monster and tougher for the PCs. What was a CR 6 threat is now a 5 and worth CR 5 XP, so the players are getting less xp for the same challenge, or the monsters can be in bigger groups because they are classed as "wimpier." In no way does reducing a monster's CR hurt the monster in any way.
If you set a pit fiend at CR2, while changing nothing else, it doesn't suddenly make it an easier fight or fair for 2nd level PCs. It does mean the teen level PCs that could actually beat it are screwed out of XP and treasure.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
..Stuff..
It's clear you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm positive others will understand my position without distorting my words. And re-wording myself, saying it a third time obviously wont help, so I'll just leave you with this as my final thoughts...
RAI trumps RAW. I believe RAI is to not round in this case, bringing it in line with EVERY OTHER ability in the game. Consistency, Amen!
If you say RAW trumps RAI, then I point out that RAW does not say you ABSOLUTELY must round in EVERY case. Quite the opposite. OCCASIONALLY the rules ASK you to round. Therefore I choose not to round in this case, since it does not ASK me to.
Either way, RAW or RAI I find this ability should not be rounded.
If I'm right, it should probably be Errata'd to clear things up.
If I'm wrong, a nice FAQ response would do a world of good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does the ability state that you round?
IF not...what happens if you don't round, and can it operate effectively if you don't round down (since rounding isn't specified and isn't actually required for it).
It means that the effective level for 5th is 2.5...that's the dividing line.
Anything below that is below that...and anything above that, is above that.
Of course, that's just another one of many voices stating that's how they handle it vs. a ton of others who want 2+2 = 5.
Dr Grecko - You could not, and cannot get around the fact that it's always done the way I'm saying it is, so you tried to change the argument. You can't argue against the rule remaining consistent so you're trying to say the rules don't have to remain consistent, the outcome has to remain consistent. If you have to change the rules to get the desired outcome, then that's what you should do.
The Rule is you round down. The outcome is that usually this gives you the raw deal (your opinion, not mine). In this instance if you follow the rule, you get a different outcome, so you want to change the rule to get the same outcome. I don't think the devs designed the game that way. I believe they wanted the rules to remain consistent and let the outcomes fall where they may.
I know, I know "It's clear you don't understand what I'm saying." Except that I do know, and I've stated it plainly. It just doesn't sound like an effective argument when I do that, as you've obviously noted from my last post.
As you've said, you think RAI is to not round (or round up since they have the exact same outcome). Had you just said that: I think RAI is to round up, and the rules can be ambiguous. My only response could have been, "Meh I disagree" and that's really it. There is no argument at that point because we can't know RAI without a Dev response.
@ryric - You misunderstood. A level 7 character fights CR 6 monsters to give the advantage to the PC's
IF not...what happens if you don't round, and can it operate effectively if you don't round down (since rounding isn't specified and isn't actually required for it).
I'm not going to go through the entire argument all over again, you can start around page 8, I think that was the beginning of the last cycle, but for a quick something to think about:
Let's say we have a level 5 monk. is the DC for his stunning fist 14 or 14.5? It doesn't say to round, and if you don't round can it operate effectively? Anything over 14.5 makes it, anything below it doesn't. There's really no difference between this and panache, except the last argument was you don't round until you write it in a stat block, and the current argument is that you don't round unless it hinders you (if I say "screw you over" he get's upset and says I don't understand him so I'll use his word of "hinder").
@Jodokai
Perhaps the disconnect here is I've always been trying to back my position from RAI.
I've made it perfectly clear WHY I think it should be the way it should be. We differ in what we think our priorities should be. I believe that all classes should apply the half level rule consistently based on Outcome as you said. You think the round rule should be applied consistently across all classes regardless of inconsistent outcomes.
To each his own I guess. I feel others have shown examples of inconsistent use of the round rule already up-thread, which makes me respect it a little bit less than you do.
I also feel as though RAW is vague enough on when to round and when not to, leading to the confusion here, which allows the GM to make a judgment call on this ability. I will judge conservatively.
As far as the "Screw you over" comments, they do carry a negative connotation that I feel is unnecessary here. At no point was I ever suggesting that the devs were trying to "screw the players over", and that's the words you were trying to put in my mouth. The rules of the game are always conservative on the half rule... Except Panache for some reason... The one exception I believe was un-intentional
Anyway, done arguing the half rule for now, as I've said my piece.
----
You misunderstood. A level 7 character fights CR 6 monsters to give the advantage to the PC's
On this tangent, isn't a group of L7 PC's fighting a CR-6 considered an "Easy" encounter? L7's should be fighting CR7 for an average encounter. Those CR7's likely have 8HD. Granted, the other aspect is that this doesn't take into account that there are supposed to be multiple encounters per day.
I've made it perfectly clear WHY I think it should be the way it should be. We differ in what we think our priorities should be. I believe that all classes should apply the half level rule consistently based on Outcome as you said. You think the round rule should be applied consistently across all classes regardless of inconsistent outcomes.
That is definitely where we have a major difference of opinion.
To each his own I guess. I feel others have shown examples of inconsistent use of the round rule already up-thread, which makes me respect it a little bit less than you do.
I don't think there have been any examples anywhere of inconsistent rounding rules. I'm pretty sure they've been used exactly the same across the board. There have been some claims that they were inconsistent, but when analyzed, it was pointed out that, in fact, it was always done the same.
I also feel as though RAW is vague enough on when to round and when not to, leading to the confusion here, which allows the GM to make a judgment call on this ability. I will judge conservatively.
I disagree here as well. I think RAW is very clear, if you look at the examplse and apply the rule consistently. I will say that I leave open the possibility that you may be correct regarding RAI, which you and I do agree is the more important of the two.
As far as the "Screw you over" comments, they do carry a negative connotation that I feel is unnecessary here. At no point was I ever suggesting that the devs were trying to "screw the players over", and that's the words you were trying to put in my mouth. The rules of the game are always conservative on the half rule... Except Panache for some reason... The one exception I believe was un-intentional
The word you used was "Hinder". I did use a much more negative phrase, but they equated to the same thing.
On this tangent, isn't a group of L7 PC's fighting a CR-6 considered an "Easy" encounter? L7's should be fighting CR7 for an average encounter. Those CR7's likely have 8HD. Granted, the other aspect is that this doesn't take into account that there are supposed to be multiple encounters per day.
I remember reading that a level 7 PC fighting a CR 6 monster is considered "even" or average, and it was done to give the advantage to the PC's. Looking for it now, I can't find where I read that, so I'm worried that it may have been something I heard and just took at face value, and I've been saying so long that I just assumed it was true. I'm positive I read that somewhere though. I'll have to do more digging.
Except it's not a level 7 PC fighting, the game is built around four (or now 6 in PFS, I believe) PCs fighting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Table: Encounter Design
Difficulty Challenge Rating Equals…
Easy APL –1
Average APL
Challenging APL +1
Hard APL +2
Epic APL +3
In 3.5, CR was equal to PC class levels. In PF, it is PC class levels -1. Instead of a 7th level NPC being a CR7 encounter, it is a CR6 encounter.
A CR6 NPC is, indeed, an "easy" encounter for a party with an APL of 7. So Dr Grecko is correct that reducing CR by one has actually made things a bit more difficult for the parties. In the past, this same encounter would have been CR7, equal to APL, and thus an "average" encounter.