Is half your level 2 or 2.5?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 510 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I think the rules make more sense if we're assuming that numbers only get rounded when there would be some confusion over how to apply the unrounded version. In this case half your level is 2.5 and 2 is less than 2.5. There doesn't seem to be reason to apply rounding to get a reasonable result, the calculation works fine without rounding. Basically I think that results should be rounded, not intermediate calculations.


Aaanyway...

Because it hasn't been quoted on this page yet:

Quote:
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.

The swashbuckler rules ask you to halve its levels. They do not ask you to round the result. "More than or equal to 2.5" and "Less than 2.5" are perfectly well defined without rounding.

N N 959 wrote:
You always round in PF [...]

That's... interesting. Where does it say that you always round, and not only when asked, as the rules say?

N N 959 wrote:
Ozy quoted you a rule that says that half of 7 is 3.

The problem is, somehow, the first and last sentence of the rule say different things. The first sentence says "when asked to round" - implying that "being asked to divide" and "being asked to round the result" are different things. The example in the last sentence ignores that.

So, either the rule is misworded (in that case, the rule should be "when you're asked to divide, you always round down"), or the example is misworded (in that case, the example should start with "when asked to take half of 7 and round the result").

I think the example is the wrong one, because that way causes less weird, unrealistic math.


Okay people I think we need to reign it in (believe me I do see the irony in the fact that I'm saying that.

It's obvious that people are seeing things differently and no amount of arguing is going to convince the other side.

Just to weigh in my opinion and my reasoning behind it, I would say that a 2 HD monster does in fact grant panache to a 5th level Swashbuckler, supported by the "7 = 3" and the general feeling that in Pathfinder, err on the side of the players. CR = Level -1 so the players have the advantage. I also think when you have to compare the numbers, HD always being whole numbers, you are implicitly being asked to round.

I'm not saying this to convince anyone, it isn't anything that hasn't been said before, just my personal feelings.

All that said, if ya'll would hit the FAQ button on this thread, maybe we can get the problem solved for us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:


So, a 1st level Swashbuckler, which needs to kill a 1/2 CR creature, could never regain grit, as that 1/2 would round down to 0, if we use your analogy that 2.5 rounds down to 2.

I must be missing something because you're not making any sense.

lvl 1 = 1/2. That's 0 in PF math.

So ANY creature with a fractional CR qualifies. You don't round the CR because the methodology doesn't tell you to divide the creature's CR.

Well, there's also the point that needs to be made that CR has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion and/or ability.

The swashbuckler's panache regain is based on the opponents HD, NOT it's CR. Therefore, the round or don't round argument doesn't change anything until 3rd level at the earliest.

Using RL Math:
1st level vs 1HD: 1 * 0.5 = 0.5; 1(HD) is not < 0.5, so point is regained.
2nd level vs 1HD: 2 * 0.5 = 1; 1(HD) is not < 1, so point is regained.
3rd level vs 1HD: 3 * 0.5 = 1.5; 1(HD) is < 1.5 so point is NOT regained.

Using PF Math (assuming rounding down is mandatory):
1st level vs 1HD: 1 * 0.5 = 0; 1(HD) is not < 0, so point is regained.
2nd level vs 1HD: 2 * 0.5 = 1; 1(HD) is not < 1, so point is regained.
3rd level vs 1HD: 3 * 0.5 = 1; 1(HD) is not < 1, so point is regained.

Personally, I don't see anything REQUIRING the rounding, and the idea that a 3rd level swashbuckler gains cool points (because that's really what grit/panache are) for critting on lowly 1HD creatures make me shy away from the 'PF Math' side of the argument.


N N 959 wrote:
TOZ wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
5 / 2 = 2.5 = 2 in Pathfinder math.
Only when you are asked to round.
You always round in PF and if you can name an instance that you don't, it is the exception and not the rule. Ozy quoted you a rule that says that half of 7 is 3. Seriously people, what is your disconnect?

To be fair, the rule quoted says that when you round, 7/2 is typically 3. It does not make a blanket statement that "7/2 is 3". Context matters.

Now, it certainly could be the intent that any time you divide, you are necessarily supposed to round any remainders. However, that isn't clear from the language used. Either it's a blanket statement, which is confusing based on the context provided by the sentences before the example, or it is an example of how to proceed, but only when you're asked to round a result. That's the crux of the matter: Is rounding uniformly necessary or only required when told.

There aren't rules clarifying that. Thus, I go with what makes the most sense to me. The purpose of the rules replenishing a Swashbuckler's panache is to allow the character to benefit from besting or at least accomplishing some feat against a "worthy opponent" (so to speak). Based off of my inference that typically Pathfinder sets things up to be less advantageous for players (if there are two ways to interpret something, more often than not we're directed to use the interpretation that is less helpful to PCs), it stands to reason (to me, obviously), that it should be a bit more difficult to replenish panache. Using real world math in this context accomplishes that goal better than assuming rounding is ubiquitously necessary.


I also don't see anything directing us when we should round within a situation where we already know we are supposed to round. For instance, if you have an ability that allows you to add 1.5 STR to something, and you gain another situational benefit that allows you to add an additional .5 STR to one strike, is the calculation:

1 STR + .5 STR (rounded down) + .5 STR (rounded down)

or

(1 STR + .5 STR + .5 STR) rounded down

With an odd STR bonus, there will be a difference in the two methods. 16 STR (+3) leads to +5 total in the first instance but +6 in the second. To me, it seems silly to do the first when rounding would ultimately be unnecessary (because there's no remainder after finishing the calculation. Perhaps it's the intent, because after all the quick calculation does seem easier (3/2 = 1, add that twice). And generally, I don't have an issue with PF math. But this is one of those situations that would make the part of me that got an undergraduate degree in math rankle with disgust if we're supposed to use PF math.

So, either 3/2 always = 1 and our calculation for this problem results in +5, or 3/2 = 1 when we're directed to round a remainder and our calculation for this problem results in +6. So the distinction actually does matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
TOZ wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
5 / 2 = 2.5 = 2 in Pathfinder math.
Only when you are asked to round.
You always round in PF and if you can name an instance that you don't, it is the exception and not the rule. Ozy quoted you a rule that says that half of 7 is 3. Seriously people, what is your disconnect?

To be fair, the rule quoted says that when you round, 7/2 is typically 3. It does not make a blanket statement that "7/2 is 3". Context matters.

Um yes, context matters. And in context Pathfinder 'asks' you to round whenever you divide a number and get a fractional result.

The 'half of 7 is 3' does not have the word 'typical' or 'usually' or any qualifier that you are attempting to add. It doesn't say 'when you round', do this. Instead it gives an example that tells you 'when to round'. It is a definitive statement that, in context, says that Pathfinder is 'asking' you to round to get rid of fractional results.

What other evidence do we have to support this interpretation? No other game mechanics comparison for true/false, yes/no, success/failure compares against a fractional number.

So out of the hundreds and hundreds of rules, fractional levels and values adding to abilities, checks, class features, and so on. Out of all of these, it's only the regaining of swashbuckler panache that uses a fractional value for comparison.

And why? Because some people think a 5th level swashbuckler shouldn't get panache from critting a 2HD monster. That's it.

So for every single comparison in Pathfinder you round fractional values...

Except for regaining Swashbuckler panache? Um, no. I tend to think if the devs wanted to make a fractional exception that goes against every other rule in the game they would have probably called it out a bit more explicitly.

If the devs wanted it make sure it was a 'worthy opponent' they would have required that monster HD == Swashbuckler level. Otherwise you're just imposing your particular judgement that a 1HD is worthy for a level 2 Swashbuckler, but not a level 3. And that a 9HD creature is worthy for a level 18 Swashbuckler, but not a level 19.

That's a hell of a lot more assuming and interpreting going on than relying on the fact that Pathfinder just doesn't make comparisons against fractional numbers.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Um yes, context matters. And in context Pathfinder 'asks' you to round whenever you divide a number and get a fractional result.

Sorry, but you've failed to understand the context.

Paraphrasing: "When the rules ask you to round, round down." This is the context for the sentence that comes right after it. "7 / 2 = 3".

Or in the other words, given the context of being asked to round, here is an example showing how that would work.

There is no context of "When dividing by 2". The only context is "when asked to round".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are hundreds of rules that result in fractional value comparisons that don't explicitly say 'round down', e.g. DC knowledge checks for fractional CR creatures. So no, the rules don't 'ask' you to round in any other way than always requiring it when you have fractional values that you are comparing.

Come on guys, other examples of fractional value comparisons? Anyone? Swashbuckler panache is the only 'example'?

How's this, in the beginning of the rules, under 'Getting Started'

Quote:

Rounding Fractions

In general, if you wind up with a fraction, round down, even if the fraction is one-half or larger.

Case closed. (yeah right. ;)


Quote:
What other evidence do we have to support this interpretation? No other game mechanics comparison for true/false, yes/no, success/failure compares against a fractional number.

Dude.

CRB wrote:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR.

DC is by definition a comparison for "success/failure." Knowledge checks call for fractional DC's for any creature with fractional CR. You've been shown this multiple times but you continue to ignore it.


BigDTBone wrote:
Quote:
What other evidence do we have to support this interpretation? No other game mechanics comparison for true/false, yes/no, success/failure compares against a fractional number.

Dude.

CRB wrote:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR.
DC is by definition a comparison for "success/failure." Knowledge checks call for fractional DC's for any creature with fractional CR. You've been shown this multiple times but you continue to ignore it.

Dude, you ROUND the CR for that check. That's the whole friggin' point!

The DC knowledge check for a CR 1/2 creature is 10, not 10.5.

If I roll a 10, I succeed because I need a 10, not a 10.5 or 11.

I am asking for a rules that demonstrates that you actually USE the fractional value for the comparison. That you DO NOT ROUND it. Since you round the DC for knowledge checks, you have failed.


Where does it tell you to round that check?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I've always ruled that, to identify a creature, you need 5/10/15+CR.

In the case of a goblin, a common, low-CR creature, that means a DC of 6.

5 (for being common) plus 1.

Even if the creature being identified is a CR 1/8, fractionally that's .125, and 5 < 5.125

Since the dice can only come up either 5 or 6, and nowhere in between, and 5 doesn't meet the DC, then 6 would be the next logical number.

I'm not going to round down its CR for Knowledge checks in the same way I won't round down for regaining Grit.


Nefreet wrote:

I've always ruled that, to identify a creature, you need 5/10/15+CR.

In the case of a goblin, a common, low-CR creature, that means a DC of 6.

5 (for being common) plus 1.

Even if the creature being identified is a CR 1/8, fractionally that's .125, and 5 < 5.125

Since the dice can only come up either 5 or 6, and nowhere in between, and 5 doesn't meet the DC, then 6 would be the next logical number.

I'm not going to round down its CR for Knowledge checks in the same way I won't round down for regaining Grit.

So I can round up my damage dice for half damage in your games right after all 16.5>16 that just makes sense.

Honestly I don't get what all the hub bub is about whenever you take a fraction you round and you always round down that's pretty much been PF's standard protocol if you want to always round up that's fine too but if you choose to only round up when it benefits you as the GM and force the players to always round down to their detriment it's more like you're just being an a~@&#*@.

As far as running half your level as a hard value, fine but from now on as GM you're obligated to roll on a chart determining the starting XP of every monster after all it just doesn't make sense that every monster starts exactly at a given level and it's only fair that you represent that and keep track of it for every single kobold out of that band of 30 because you made it relevant now.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Dire Care Bear Manager

I've removed some posts and responses to them. Back and forth bickering does not belong on the Paizo messageboards. Both posters involved in the sniping I just removed have been here long enough to know better. If you are unclear on this, please review our Community Guidelines, there is a link to these guidelines underneath each post composing box.

Shadow Lodge

gnomersy wrote:
So I can round up my damage dice for half damage in your games right after all 16.5>16 that just makes sense.

Nah, you deal 16.5 damage, which doesn't do anything different than 16 damage.


gnomersy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I've always ruled that, to identify a creature, you need 5/10/15+CR.

In the case of a goblin, a common, low-CR creature, that means a DC of 6.

5 (for being common) plus 1.

Even if the creature being identified is a CR 1/8, fractionally that's .125, and 5 < 5.125

Since the dice can only come up either 5 or 6, and nowhere in between, and 5 doesn't meet the DC, then 6 would be the next logical number.

I'm not going to round down its CR for Knowledge checks in the same way I won't round down for regaining Grit.

So I can round up my damage dice for half damage in your games right after all 16.5>16 that just makes sense.

Honestly I don't get what all the hub bub is about whenever you take a fraction you round and you always round down that's pretty much been PF's standard protocol if you want to always round up that's fine too but if you choose to only round up when it benefits you as the GM and force the players to always round down to their detriment it's more like you're just being an a%!~~*$.

As far as running half your level as a hard value, fine but from now on as GM you're obligated to roll on a chart determining the starting XP of every monster after all it just doesn't make sense that every monster starts exactly at a given level and it's only fair that you represent that and keep track of it for every single kobold out of that band of 30 because you made it relevant now.

The game is already stacked in favor of the PC's, not adding round rules that don't exist doesn't make you a dick GM.

You have to make the check, the DC is 10.125. You rolled a 10? You fail. You roll an 11? You succeed. There is no rounding there.


Sara Marie wrote:
I've removed some posts and responses to them. Back and forth bickering does not belong on the Paizo messageboards. Both posters involved in the sniping I just removed have been here long enough to know better. If you are unclear on this, please review our Community Guidelines, there is a link to these guidelines underneath each post composing box.

Maybe my post got wiped out as collateral damage but all I said was that sometimes I agree with Ozy and sometimes I dont...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

The game is already stacked in favor of the PC's, not adding round rules that don't exist doesn't make you a dick GM.

You have to make the check, the DC is 10.125. You rolled a 10? You fail. You roll an 11? You succeed. There is no rounding there.

Riiiiight. Sorry I must have missed the part where the PC's have arbitrary control of the entire universe and everything therein. Also as noted in the rounding section it doesn't matter if it asks you directly to round the value "For example, if you are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3." The example clearly indicates that asking you to take half of something is equivalent to asking you to round.

Additionally @Toz It actually matters 2 halves equal one damage and -.5 hp is unconscious and dying while 0 is disabled and a potential threat.

Also worth noting that nothing in the saves section explicitly states that you are expected to round down damage on a save however the examples provided in other sections clearly indicate that is the case which further supports the idea that being asked to take a fraction is equivalent to being told to round and that unless told otherwise you round down.


BigDTBone wrote:
Where does it tell you to round that check?

I already posted where. Right in the beginning of the Pathfinder rules:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/getting-started

Under Getting Started

Quote:

Rounding Fractions

In general, if you wind up with a fraction, round down, even if the fraction is one-half or larger.

Exception: Certain rolls, such as damage and hit points, have a minimum of 1.

So, there you go. You round all fractions unless specifically told otherwise. Since neither knowledge checks nor swashbuckler panache tell you not to round...you round.

Do any of you people who are not rounding the knowledge checks have any specific rules to justify ignoring this general RAW?


Nefreet wrote:

I've always ruled that, to identify a creature, you need 5/10/15+CR.

In the case of a goblin, a common, low-CR creature, that means a DC of 6.

5 (for being common) plus 1.

Even if the creature being identified is a CR 1/8, fractionally that's .125, and 5 < 5.125

Since the dice can only come up either 5 or 6, and nowhere in between, and 5 doesn't meet the DC, then 6 would be the next logical number.

I'm not going to round down its CR for Knowledge checks in the same way I won't round down for regaining Grit.

Your ignoring RAW doesn't make RAW not RAW. Heck this is even RAI, it's right there as Rule 0, you round fractions.

Well, really it was rule 0.5, but then I rounded. ;)


Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
kinevon wrote:

And, the way you people are arguing, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a first level Swashbuckler to recover panache, since there is no minimum 1 addenda.

So, would you rather round down, and screw the first level Swashbuckler, or take the fraction? Your choice.
This doesn't make sense.

It does, and his point is relevant.

If 5/2 = 2, then 1/2 = 0.

So, a 1st level Swashbuckler, which needs to kill a 1/2 CR creature, could never regain grit, as that 1/2 would round down to 0, if we use your analogy that 2.5 rounds down to 2.

Hit Dice not CR people. The ability is based on Hit Dice.

There are no 1/2 HD creatures in Pathfinder.


Prince Yyrkoon wrote:


Hit Dice not CR people. The ability is based on Hit Dice.

There are no 1/2 HD creatures in Pathfinder.

That's right. All the fractional HD creatures were rounded down and subsequently died. Come on people, this isn't Numeria rocket science!


Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
kinevon wrote:

And, the way you people are arguing, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a first level Swashbuckler to recover panache, since there is no minimum 1 addenda.

So, would you rather round down, and screw the first level Swashbuckler, or take the fraction? Your choice.
This doesn't make sense.

It does, and his point is relevant.

If 5/2 = 2, then 1/2 = 0.

So, a 1st level Swashbuckler, which needs to kill a 1/2 CR creature, could never regain grit, as that 1/2 would round down to 0, if we use your analogy that 2.5 rounds down to 2.

Hit Dice not CR people. The ability is based on Hit Dice.

There are no 1/2 HD creatures in Pathfinder.

It's also worth noting that that point is also idiotic because the grit entry states that it can't be any "less" than a 1/2 HD creature since there are no 1/2 HD creature and you would round 1/2 HD to 0 anything with a higher hit dice than zero(aka everything) is a valid target to regain grit from.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Occasionally the rules ask you to round a result or value.

That is the key in my opinion. Whenever you have to apply a bonus, or something similar, we have to have an integer.

In this case, there isn't any need to do that. The rules aren't asking us to get a value and apply it somewhere, the rules are asking us to make a numeric comparison, one which most elementary school students can make easily, even if one of the numbers we are comparing has a fraction in it.

If you aren't getting a number to apply somewhere, the rules don't ask us to round.


Dave:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/getting-started

Under Getting Started

Quote:


Rounding Fractions
In general, if you wind up with a fraction, round down, even if the fraction is one-half or larger.
Exception: Certain rolls, such as damage and hit points, have a minimum of 1.

You are making the same type of comparison as you are with a creature knowledge check, comparing an integer with a fractional number.

And, because in general you round, unless you have specific rules that tell you differently, you round.

You guys are ignoring what the words are saying, focusing on the statement 'Occasionally the rules ask...' and ignoring the rule right at the beginning of the book that says you round in general.

You have been given no specific exception to this rule for either knowledge checks, or swashbuckler panache.


Dave Justus wrote:

Occasionally the rules ask you to round a result or value.

That is the key in my opinion. Whenever you have to apply a bonus, or something similar, we have to have an integer.

In this case, there isn't any need to do that. The rules aren't asking us to get a value and apply it somewhere, the rules are asking us to make a numeric comparison, one which most elementary school students can make easily, even if one of the numbers we are comparing has a fraction in it.

If you aren't getting a number to apply somewhere, the rules don't ask us to round.

It never says that though. And as noted in the example in that very same block of text if it asks you to take half of a value it is telling you to round. The wording makes it pretty damn clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Ozy:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Rounding

I am perfectly aware of what the rule states, both the one you quoted and the one where it seems, to me anyway, to imply that sometimes there isn't a need to do any rounding at all.

The swashbuckler isn't asking us to get a number. It doesn't say something like add panache points equal to 1/2 your level or get some other bonus to 1/2 your level, it is asking us to compare two things.

We don't even really need to know exactly what 1/2 the swashbuckler's level is, we just need to know if a creatures hd is less than that amount or not.

What I am trying to get at, is the equation isn't asking us for a number, it is asking us for a Boolean yes/no value. Given that, I don't see any reason to round while trying to figure it out. The result of our equation isn't even a number (until the next step, in which we regain 1 panache point.

I am curious if there are any other similar abilities in Pathfinder. It didn't seem like it was anything unusual when I first read the gunslinger, but off hand I can't think of any.

(And yes, a knowledge DC would round in exactly the way you say, because getting a DC is getting a number)


And yet, another person above argued that you don't round knowledge DC checks 'because you don't have to' just like you are arguing for the comparison for swashbuckler panache. That result isn't a number either, it's also a 'yes or no' for making the knowledge check.

However, the equation actually IS asking for a number, the equation is:

X < Y, where X is the monster HD and Y is 1/2 of the swashbuckler level. In other situations, X might be a roll and Y might be a DC. It doesn't matter because in both general cases, both X and Y are numbers that you round.

The 'reason' that you are looking for to round is because in the Pathfinder rules, you round in general.

Listen, you made a comment that there is 'no need' to round because anyone can make a comparison with a fraction. That isn't the point. It would be trivial to track fractional damages, adding up to an extra point for every other successful attack. Or maybe my fractional initiative roll goes slightly higher than your integer roll.

And yet we don't. Because we round. Because the rules say you round. And I doubt that swashbuckler panache is really going to be the only exception to this rule, just because people think it should be.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Because the rules say you round

You're ignoring the other side of the argument, though.

One rule says when you round, round down.

The other rule says when asked to round, you round down.

When determining Knowledge DCs, and regaining grit, you are not asked to round.

So, going by your rule, you would be correct.

Going by the other rule, you would be incorrect.

And so this debate can never be settled, without new or further information.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

A DC is a number. You always round a number.

I understand why people would view the gunslinger as requiring you to immediately round as well, I think that is applying the rules mechanistically instead of intelligently, but I understand the case, and I'll admit it isn't without merit.

I also admit that I don't know which way the designers would rule if they were to do so.

All that said, I don't think asking if 2 is less than 1/2 of 5 is asking you to get a number, and I don't think you should round the 1/2 of 5 when determining the answer to the question. It would never occur to me to do so.

Like I said above though, it seems that this phrasing (comparing HD to 1/2 level or something similar is familiar) but I can't think of any example. If there were any, it would be interesting to look at those (if they exist) and see if there is more clarifying information there.


Nefreet wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Because the rules say you round

You're ignoring the other side of the argument, though.

One rule says when you round, round down.

The other rule says when asked to round, you round down.

When determining Knowledge DCs, and regaining grit, you are not asked to round.

So, going by your rule, you would be correct.

Going by the other rule, you would be incorrect.

And so this debate can never be settled, without new or further information.

And yet when providing the example for when you are being asked to round the rule states "For example, if you are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3." This is an example of being asked to round as far as the game is concerned.

The supporting evidence is clear that in the event of damage and the like you are expected to round and it does not explicitly say that any where in the book in fact the vast vast majority of things in the game do not explicitly tell you to round and the ones which do are usually exceptions stating either a minimum value or rounding up rather than down.

Which supports the fact that being told to take a fraction at any point is an example of being told to round.

You can choose to ignore the fairly obvious intent of the rules and do it your own way it's called houserules and there's nothing wrong with it if you're consistent but it's stupid and a headache and as noted most things in the game don't explicitly tell you to round.

51 to 100 of 510 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is half your level 2 or 2.5? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.