Is half your level 2 or 2.5?

Rules Questions

 101 to 150 of 510 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2<(5/2). That is pretty much all there is to it. No mention of rounding, no need for rounding, no reason to even bring rounding into the situation.
"In general, if you wind up with a fraction, round down, even if the fraction is one-half or larger. " is under the heading of "rounding fractions" and that is where it is relevant. When rounding fraction, follow this general rule. Not when using fractions... when rounding fractions. No need to round anything here.

Well of course, I mean despite the fact that Pathfinder says that you round in general, there's no need to actually follow what the rules say, eh?

I mean, if you can go ahead and make the argument that you're not 'using' a fraction when you're using it to compare against monster HD, I guess you can pretty much justify ignoring any rule you want.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Well of course, I mean despite the fact that Pathfinder says that you round in general,

It doesn't. Where does it say that? That line you quoted is under the heading "rounding fractions". Why would you think it applies when you aren't told to round fractions?

noretoc wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Well of course, I mean despite the fact that Pathfinder says that you round in general,
It doesn't. Where does it say that? That line you quoted is under the heading "rounding fractions". Why would you think it applies when you aren't told to round fractions?

Because the example provided explicitly doesn't tell you to round and one very common occurrence where we know we are expected to round also doesn't tell you to round however uses the same wording?

I'll just stop there instead of rehashing everything. I agree with everyone who said 2 is less than half of five. There is no point going any further with this.

_Ozy_, where in the PRD's Getting Started section does it have any entries under "Rounding Fractions"?

d20PFSRD is not the PRD. Next time, you should quote the official rules source.

For your benefit, here are all the mentions of rounding numbers which appear in the Getting Started section of the official source:

PRD wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.
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.

Note that both of these lines indicate that the rounding occurs when you are directed to round a number, and not necessarily as a matter of course simply because you're dividing.

Is there somewhere else in the official document that this line you're citing appears?

Also, range increments are another instance in which fractions matter. Rounding is never mentioned. If the distance shot results in a non-integer fraction, you are not told to round. Arguably, one could claim that you are implicitly told to round up. But that's never actually stated. We're simply told that range increments count for any portion thereof. No rounding down.

fretgod99 wrote:

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.

Also, I'm still waiting for a response to this question. At what point are we supposed to round? One position being espoused is simply that a call for division at any time mandates rounding. Whether it was inspired by my question or not, a thread was started by someone asking for clarity on that very issue. Where in the rules does it specifically answer that question?

fretgod99 wrote:

PRD wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.
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.

Note that both of these lines indicate that the rounding occurs when you are directed to round a number, and not necessarily as a matter of course simply because you're dividing.

Is there somewhere else in the official document that this line you're citing appears?

Actually that's not true.

Due to the independence of the statements in the Rounding: section as noted by the use of periods each of those statements are separate "Occasionally the rules ask you to round ..." "Unless otherwise stated, always round down." and "For example, if you are asked to, 'Take half of 7, the result would be 3.'" are all independent of one another if they weren't the structure of the sentence would be different.

Which is why the rule is clear that taking half of something or dividing in general is an example of being told to round. As I noted nothing in the fireball, spell, or saves entries tells you to round damage and yet examples of damage dealt by spells clearly indicates you were meant to round. Why? Because it told you divide the damage.

gnomersy wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

PRD wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.
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.

Note that both of these lines indicate that the rounding occurs when you are directed to round a number, and not necessarily as a matter of course simply because you're dividing.

Is there somewhere else in the official document that this line you're citing appears?

Actually that's not true.

Due to the independence of the statements in the Rounding: section as noted by the use of periods each of those statements are separate "Occasionally the rules ask you to round ..." "Unless otherwise stated, always round down." and "For example, if you are asked to, 'Take half of 7, the result would be 3.'" are all independent of one another if they weren't the structure of the sentence would be different.

Which is why the rule is clear that taking half of something or dividing in general is an example of being told to round. As I noted nothing in the fireball, spell, or saves entries tells you to round damage and yet examples of damage dealt by spells clearly indicates you were meant to round. Why? Because it told you divide the damage.

Umm, no. Just because you create a new sentence doesn't mean that qualifier is lost. You don't have to re-qualify every subject and predicate in every sentence you write.

The simple fact that the example part of the entry is indicated by literally using the words "for example" is a pretty glaring indication that that particular statement is directly related to the one before it, the one for which it is standing as an example. That entry does not contain two separate rules, unless you're arguing that the only fraction that has a mandatory rounding provision is 7/2.

BigDTBone wrote:

Umm, no. Just because you create a new sentence doesn't mean that qualifier is lost. You don't have to re-qualify every subject and predicate in every sentence you write.

The qualifier isn't lost however you can't assume that everything in the same paragraph is qualified. If it were to be you should explicitly refer to the qualifier in a qualified statement. For example, if rounding half of 7, the answer is 3. Would be a better wording in the event that they wanted it to be qualified. And what I am asserting is that any event in which you are told to take a fraction is the equivalent of being told to round.

@Fretgod99 - Also the fact that they FAQ'd the post in which you commented earlier and the FAQ explicitly changed the language of the feat from +1/2xdmg to use 2x for Dragon Style implies there is a functional difference which means you would have to round, but the rules don't say that, it's implied within the game system.

Yes, that 'For example' is providing the example of when you are asked to round. You are asked to round when you divide 7 by 2.

90% of the time, you are not explicitly 'asked' to round results, like you seem to think is required to activate the 'rounding' rule. Do we really need to fill up this thread with examples before you recognize that in general you round all fractions down?

gnomersy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Umm, no. Just because you create a new sentence doesn't mean that qualifier is lost. You don't have to re-qualify every subject and predicate in every sentence you write.

The qualifier isn't lost however you can't assume that everything in the same paragraph is qualified. If it were to be you should explicitly refer to the qualifier in a qualified statement. For example, if rounding half of 7, the answer is 3. Would be a better wording in the event that they wanted it to be qualified. And what I am asserting is that any event in which you are told to take a fraction is the equivalent of being told to round.

@Fretgod99 - Also the fact that they FAQ'd the post in which you commented earlier and the FAQ explicitly changed the language of the feat from +1/2xdmg to use 2x for Dragon Style implies there is a functional difference which means you would have to round, but the rules don't say that, it's implied within the game system.

That or it means it was unclear and people thought division = forced rounding and this clarified the intent.

STR + .5 STR (rounded down) + .5 STR (rounded down) is patently silly. But people got confused, so they made the wording clearer. That doesn't really resolve our question one way or the other.

gnomersy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Umm, no. Just because you create a new sentence doesn't mean that qualifier is lost. You don't have to re-qualify every subject and predicate in every sentence you write.

The qualifier isn't lost however you can't assume that everything in the same paragraph is qualified. If it were to be you should explicitly refer to the qualifier in a qualified statement. For example, if rounding half of 7, the answer is 3. Would be a better wording in the event that they wanted it to be qualified. And what I am asserting is that any event in which you are told to take a fraction is the equivalent of being told to round.

@Fretgod99 - Also the fact that they FAQ'd the post in which you commented earlier and the FAQ explicitly changed the language of the feat from +1/2xdmg to use 2x for Dragon Style implies there is a functional difference which means you would have to round, but the rules don't say that, it's implied within the game system.

So while you don't agree that the sentence directly preceding your "ah-ha!" sentence qualifies your "ah-ha!" sentence, you want us to use your "ah-ha!" sentence to qualify the entire rest of the CRB and every subsequent rules document?

gnomersy wrote:
And what I am asserting is that any event in which you are told to take a fraction is the equivalent of being told to round.

Everybody is aware that this is your assertion. But as I mentioned earlier with another poster, you're begging the question. You're relying on your assertion to be true, then demonstrating why that assertion dictates that your position on rounding is uniformly correct. But you never actually go back and support your assertion. There is nothing in the rules that actually supports the position that division mandates rounding.

To be fair, there is nothing explicitly in the rules that says division does not mandate rounding. Hence the disagreement.

You're not going to find your support in the rules on the page. It's not there. Certainly the PDT could come out and say the presumption is division = rounding for the sake of uniformity. If so, we'd have a definitive answer. But as of yet, there's nothing of that effect in existence, so far as I am aware. So until then, I'm not going to eschew my experience with real world math simply because one line in the CRB might support it when divorced from context.

fretgod99 wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
And what I am asserting is that any event in which you are told to take a fraction is the equivalent of being told to round.

Everybody is aware that this is your assertion. But as I mentioned earlier with another poster, you're begging the question. You're relying on your assertion to be true, then demonstrating why that assertion dictates that your position on rounding is uniformly correct. But you never actually go back and support your assertion. There is nothing in the rules that actually supports the position that division mandates rounding.

To be fair, there is nothing explicitly in the rules that says division does not mandate rounding. Hence the disagreement.

You're not going to find your support in the rules on the page. It's not there. Certainly the PDT could come out and say the presumption is division = rounding for the sake of uniformity. If so, we'd have a definitive answer. But as of yet, there's nothing of that effect in existence, so far as I am aware. So until then, I'm not going to eschew my experience with real world math simply because one line in the CRB might support it when divorced from context.

You're right but you're not going to find your rules support on the page either.

In fact looking through the rules on dealing damage it never explicitly states that you should be dealing rounded down damage when using two hands on a weapon but the stat blocks and examples provided throughout the rest of the game do so.

I'm making my assertion based on the fact that the rest of the game rules already in use only make sense if you assume that my assertion is true. Otherwise we should all be calculating half damages on spells and weapons, half hit points, half experience monsters for half levels, half squares for reach weapons, half squares for range increments etc.

The game never tells you to do any of that not even circuitously like my supposed "ah-ha" sentence does.

When in doubt use the least nonsensical answer if they release a FAQ that says otherwise then sure I'll play it that way but until they do so the way I've suggested simply makes more sense.

Half of level 5 is 2.5. .5 levels do not exist. Therefore, half of level 5 is 2. This is borne out by every other ability relying on half your level rounding half of 5 to 2.

fretgod99 wrote:

_Ozy_, where in the PRD's Getting Started section does it have any entries under "Rounding Fractions"?

d20PFSRD is not the PRD. Next time, you should quote the official rules source.

For your benefit, here are all the mentions of rounding numbers which appear in the Getting Started section of the official source:

PRD wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.
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.

Note that both of these lines indicate that the rounding occurs when you are directed to round a number, and not necessarily as a matter of course simply because you're dividing.

Is there somewhere else in the official document that this line you're citing appears?

So, when you play a bard and use "Bardic Knowledge" You add the 1/2 levels neat!

Quote:
Bardic Knowledge (Ex): A bard adds half his class level (minimum 1) on all Knowledge skill checks and may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained.

No where does it say to round at all for that ability. Just that they get a minimum of 1.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

If only 25.5 got you more on a knowledge check than 25. :(

Happler wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

_Ozy_, where in the PRD's Getting Started section does it have any entries under "Rounding Fractions"?

d20PFSRD is not the PRD. Next time, you should quote the official rules source.

For your benefit, here are all the mentions of rounding numbers which appear in the Getting Started section of the official source:

PRD wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.
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.

Note that both of these lines indicate that the rounding occurs when you are directed to round a number, and not necessarily as a matter of course simply because you're dividing.

Is there somewhere else in the official document that this line you're citing appears?

So, when you play a bard and use "Bardic Knowledge" You add the 1/2 levels neat!

Quote:
Bardic Knowledge (Ex): A bard adds half his class level (minimum 1) on all Knowledge skill checks and may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained.
No where does it say to round at all for that ability. Just that they get a minimum of 1.

So a level 3 bard adds 1.5! No, no they do not. They round down to 1.

TOZ wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
The game authors make it up as they see fit.
It's kind of their job to do that.

You've completely missed my point.

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Happler wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

_Ozy_, where in the PRD's Getting Started section does it have any entries under "Rounding Fractions"?

d20PFSRD is not the PRD. Next time, you should quote the official rules source.

For your benefit, here are all the mentions of rounding numbers which appear in the Getting Started section of the official source:

PRD wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.
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.

Note that both of these lines indicate that the rounding occurs when you are directed to round a number, and not necessarily as a matter of course simply because you're dividing.

Is there somewhere else in the official document that this line you're citing appears?

So, when you play a bard and use "Bardic Knowledge" You add the 1/2 levels neat!

Quote:
Bardic Knowledge (Ex): A bard adds half his class level (minimum 1) on all Knowledge skill checks and may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained.
No where does it say to round at all for that ability. Just that they get a minimum of 1.
So a level 3 bard adds 1.5! No, no they do not. They round down to 1.

Please point to me in that skill where is asks you to round.

Note, that I agree with you on this but people seem to be held up with the idea that you only round when the skill specifically asks for a rounded result. Bardic knowledge does not ask for a rounded result.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
If only 25.5 got you more on a knowledge check than 25. :(

It might if the creature in question has a CR of 5.5 and you also don't round that! Which is why I said it's not an issue if you're consistent but if you inconsistently use the rules only to benefit yourself you're just being arbitrary and that is the most unpleasant kind of DM imo.

Dave Justus wrote:
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.

Was reading through this thread thinking this exact thing, and was glad to see Dave posted it.

There is no numerical value being calculated here, just a simple boolean value. In nearly every other case, there is a numerical result that one is looking for... Bardic Knowledge bonuses, Hitpoints of a familiar.

In this case, the result is a simple yes/no. There is absolutely no reason to round in this case.

IMO of course.

gnomersy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If only 25.5 got you more on a knowledge check than 25. :(
It might if the creature in question has a CR of 5.5 and you also don't round that! Which is why I said it's not an issue if you're consistent but if you inconsistently use the rules only to benefit yourself you're just being arbitrary and that is the most unpleasant kind of DM imo.

Okay, how about the trapfinding ability:

Quote:
Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.

So a level 5 rogue adds 2.5 to their perception skill? Being consistent here. It does not ask for rounding anything.

N N 959 wrote:
TOZ wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
The game authors make it up as they see fit.
It's kind of their job to do that.
You've completely missed my point.

Again?

Happler wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Happler wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

_Ozy_, where in the PRD's Getting Started section does it have any entries under "Rounding Fractions"?

d20PFSRD is not the PRD. Next time, you should quote the official rules source.

For your benefit, here are all the mentions of rounding numbers which appear in the Getting Started section of the official source:

PRD wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.
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.

Note that both of these lines indicate that the rounding occurs when you are directed to round a number, and not necessarily as a matter of course simply because you're dividing.

Is there somewhere else in the official document that this line you're citing appears?

So, when you play a bard and use "Bardic Knowledge" You add the 1/2 levels neat!

Quote:
Bardic Knowledge (Ex): A bard adds half his class level (minimum 1) on all Knowledge skill checks and may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained.
No where does it say to round at all for that ability. Just that they get a minimum of 1.
So a level 3 bard adds 1.5! No, no they do not. They round down to 1.

Please point to me in that skill where is asks you to round.

Note, that I agree with you on this but people seem to be held up with the idea that you only round when the skill specifically asks for a rounded result. Bardic knowledge does not ask for a rounded result.

My bad, I thought you were saying the opposite of what you were. In complete agreement. The skill doesn't need to say it, because it's implied.

Happler wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If only 25.5 got you more on a knowledge check than 25. :(
It might if the creature in question has a CR of 5.5 and you also don't round that! Which is why I said it's not an issue if you're consistent but if you inconsistently use the rules only to benefit yourself you're just being arbitrary and that is the most unpleasant kind of DM imo.

Okay, how about the trapfinding ability:

Quote:
Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.
So a level 5 rogue adds 2.5 to their perception skill? Being consistent here. It does not ask for rounding anything.

Indeed they ought to if you were to use that janky opinion on rules. I personally don't believe it's the right one based on the evidence I have seen but I'm not the game devs so I can't tell you for certain.

For a further example of rounding without it ever being stated to do so. "Magic traps permit a saving throw in order to avoid the effect (DC 10 + spell level × 1.5)" ... "Fireball Trap: ... DC 14 Reflex save ..."

Spell level for a fireball is 3, 3x1.5 = 4.5, DC =/= 14.5 clearly rounded down but never told that you should.

gnomersy wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
And what I am asserting is that any event in which you are told to take a fraction is the equivalent of being told to round.

Everybody is aware that this is your assertion. But as I mentioned earlier with another poster, you're begging the question. You're relying on your assertion to be true, then demonstrating why that assertion dictates that your position on rounding is uniformly correct. But you never actually go back and support your assertion. There is nothing in the rules that actually supports the position that division mandates rounding.

To be fair, there is nothing explicitly in the rules that says division does not mandate rounding. Hence the disagreement.

You're not going to find your support in the rules on the page. It's not there. Certainly the PDT could come out and say the presumption is division = rounding for the sake of uniformity. If so, we'd have a definitive answer. But as of yet, there's nothing of that effect in existence, so far as I am aware. So until then, I'm not going to eschew my experience with real world math simply because one line in the CRB might support it when divorced from context.

You're right but you're not going to find your rules support on the page either.

Correct. I noted that.

fretgod99 wrote:
To be fair, there is nothing explicitly in the rules that says division does not mandate rounding. Hence the disagreement.

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Happler wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

_Ozy_, where in the PRD's Getting Started section does it have any entries under "Rounding Fractions"?

d20PFSRD is not the PRD. Next time, you should quote the official rules source.

For your benefit, here are all the mentions of rounding numbers which appear in the Getting Started section of the official source:

PRD wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.
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.

Note that both of these lines indicate that the rounding occurs when you are directed to round a number, and not necessarily as a matter of course simply because you're dividing.

Is there somewhere else in the official document that this line you're citing appears?

So, when you play a bard and use "Bardic Knowledge" You add the 1/2 levels neat!

Quote:
Bardic Knowledge (Ex): A bard adds half his class level (minimum 1) on all Knowledge skill checks and may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained.
No where does it say to round at all for that ability. Just that they get a minimum of 1.
So a level 3 bard adds 1.5! No, no they do not. They round down to 1.

No, they'd add 1.5, but that extra .5 typically isn't going to amount to anything. So why worry about it?

Happler wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If only 25.5 got you more on a knowledge check than 25. :(
It might if the creature in question has a CR of 5.5 and you also don't round that! Which is why I said it's not an issue if you're consistent but if you inconsistently use the rules only to benefit yourself you're just being arbitrary and that is the most unpleasant kind of DM imo.

Okay, how about the trapfinding ability:

Quote:
Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.
So a level 5 rogue adds 2.5 to their perception skill? Being consistent here. It does not ask for rounding anything.

Why not? Is a perception check of 13.5 going to find something that a perception check of 13 isn't? Generally not. So why worry about the extra .5?

Okay, so to move this conversation along, I believe that the the rounding issue has been put to bed, you don't need to be told to round you just do it when you need to. I think the next thing we need to figure out is what Dave Justus wrote. Are we actually comparing numbers or just getting a Boolean value of yes/no?

I would argue against that logic because it would be the only times that I know of that would work like that. In every other instance you round, then compare.

fretgod99 wrote:
Happler wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If only 25.5 got you more on a knowledge check than 25. :(
It might if the creature in question has a CR of 5.5 and you also don't round that! Which is why I said it's not an issue if you're consistent but if you inconsistently use the rules only to benefit yourself you're just being arbitrary and that is the most unpleasant kind of DM imo.

Okay, how about the trapfinding ability:

Quote:
Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.
So a level 5 rogue adds 2.5 to their perception skill? Being consistent here. It does not ask for rounding anything.
Why not? Is a perception check of 13.5 going to find something that a perception check of 13 isn't? Generally not. So why worry about the extra .5?

No, you get 1. As evidenced by no official bard stat block ever having a knowledge skill with a .5 You round.

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Happler wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If only 25.5 got you more on a knowledge check than 25. :(
It might if the creature in question has a CR of 5.5 and you also don't round that! Which is why I said it's not an issue if you're consistent but if you inconsistently use the rules only to benefit yourself you're just being arbitrary and that is the most unpleasant kind of DM imo.

Okay, how about the trapfinding ability:

Quote:
Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.
So a level 5 rogue adds 2.5 to their perception skill? Being consistent here. It does not ask for rounding anything.
Why not? Is a perception check of 13.5 going to find something that a perception check of 13 isn't? Generally not. So why worry about the extra .5?
No, you get 1. As evidenced by no official bard stat block ever having a knowledge skill with a .5 You round.

*shrug*

fretgod99 wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Happler wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If only 25.5 got you more on a knowledge check than 25. :(
It might if the creature in question has a CR of 5.5 and you also don't round that! Which is why I said it's not an issue if you're consistent but if you inconsistently use the rules only to benefit yourself you're just being arbitrary and that is the most unpleasant kind of DM imo.

Okay, how about the trapfinding ability:

Quote:
Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.
So a level 5 rogue adds 2.5 to their perception skill? Being consistent here. It does not ask for rounding anything.
Why not? Is a perception check of 13.5 going to find something that a perception check of 13 isn't? Generally not. So why worry about the extra .5?
No, you get 1. As evidenced by no official bard stat block ever having a knowledge skill with a .5 You round.
*shrug*

A shrug is not an argument.

Did you miss the bolding?

Besides, you're skipping over the point alluded to in a few other posts that even if rounding is standard practice when establishing a DC for X ability or a bonus to Y skill (because an extra .5 doesn't change the outcome if comparing to an integer), that doesn't mean division = round, which is the point argued.

So again, *shrug*

TriOmegaZero wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
TOZ wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
The game authors make it up as they see fit.
It's kind of their job to do that.
You've completely missed my point.
Again?

No, it's the same time from before. Why Sara keep deleting my post is beyond me. Why I am not allowed to point out that someone has failed to understand my post is beyond me?

N N 959 wrote:
No, it's the same time from before. Why Sara keep deleting my post is beyond me. Why I am not allowed to point out that someone has failed to understand my post is beyond me?

"Breaks Other Guidelines" I imagine. Like not reposting things that moderators have deleted.

{Moderation decisions should be discussed in the Website Feedback forum, not the thread in which they were made.)

The second time I posted it said something different.

N N 959 wrote:
The second time I posted it said something different.

You need to ignore him. Every 3-4k posts TOZ goes on a trolling spree. It will last a few days. Oh, and he is masterful.

Eh. He's not that bad. Plus, I often post in a way that I ask for it.

fretgod99 wrote:

Did you miss the bolding?

Besides, you're skipping over the point alluded to in a few other posts that even if rounding is standard practice when establishing a DC for X ability or a bonus to Y skill (because an extra .5 doesn't change the outcome if comparing to an integer), that doesn't mean division = round, which is the point argued.

So again, *shrug*

Uhhhhh establishing DCs is incredibly relevant because it's the equivalent of adding one to the DCs because the person rolling wins on tie so 14.5 if used as a fraction is DC 15 if they can only use integer numbers on their saves.

fretgod99 wrote:

Did you miss the bolding?

Besides, you're skipping over the point alluded to in a few other posts that even if rounding is standard practice when establishing a DC for X ability or a bonus to Y skill (because an extra .5 doesn't change the outcome if comparing to an integer), that doesn't mean division = round, which is the point argued.

So again, *shrug*

So, your argument is that when dealing with a .5 you do everything that would do when rounding down, except rounding down, because it does not explicitly say to round down, even though common sense says that if you are acting exactly like you're rounding down, you're rounding down. You're offering an incredibly pedantic reading of the rules, and I am responding in kind: RAW no bard gets a .5 due to bardic knowledge and thus must be rounding down.

As for the other point, the only places in pathfinder where half numbers are used, are CR and certain measurements (height, weight, ect.) Never class features. Not in any other case. While the ability in question is slightly different, in all other cases of a class ability half of five is treated as 2. Consistency argues that the same underlying principle is at play here.

Jodokai wrote:

Okay, so to move this conversation along, I believe that the the rounding issue has been put to bed, you don't need to be told to round you just do it when you need to. I think the next thing we need to figure out is what Dave Justus wrote. Are we actually comparing numbers or just getting a Boolean value of yes/no?

I would argue against that logic because it would be the only times that I know of that would work like that. In every other instance you round, then compare.

I've been trying to think of other instances of comparing X to 1/2 of Y in the rules. Anyone have any examples?

Dave Justus wrote:
Jodokai wrote:

Okay, so to move this conversation along, I believe that the the rounding issue has been put to bed, you don't need to be told to round you just do it when you need to. I think the next thing we need to figure out is what Dave Justus wrote. Are we actually comparing numbers or just getting a Boolean value of yes/no?

I would argue against that logic because it would be the only times that I know of that would work like that. In every other instance you round, then compare.

I've been trying to think of other instances of comparing X to 1/2 of Y in the rules. Anyone have any examples?

Yes, continuing damage when trying to cast a spell.

DC is 15 + 1/2 damage that round + spell level

So, you take 3 points continuing damage casting a 1st level spell, need a concentration check of 17 if you round down, 18 if you don't.

Note, nowhere does it 'ask' you to round that DC. And this is a boolean yes/no, succeed/fail result.

I'm pretty sure there are other 1/2 your level additions to other DC comparison checks as well.

Someone give me the average for 8d10. If you've been one to say that you always round down and come up with 44, you're a hypocrite. If you come up with 40, you're wrong.

EDIT: better example.

Dave Justus wrote:
I've been trying to think of other instances of comparing X to 1/2 of Y in the rules. Anyone have any examples?

Wouldn't the skill DC be an example? You have to compare the DC to your Roll... Then again that's not really Boolean...

The more I think about it, I think it is the same. I mean you either beat the DC or you didn't right?

HangarFlying wrote:

Someone give me the average for 8d10. If you've been one to say that you always round down and come up with 44, you're a hypocrite. If you come up with 40, you're wrong.

EDIT: better example.

When does the game ask you to average dice values?

 101 to 150 of 510 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>