N N 959 |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

N N 959 wrote:Eh, no. No it's not._Ozy_ wrote:Checkmate.It can't be less than half.

The spell says quite explicitly that the creature has half of the hit dice of the original.Since the original is 5, and the copy is 2, then 2 is half of 5.

It's pathfinder math.

Actually it is. Why?

Because arguing otherwise creates a contradiction in the game.

Swashbuckler is level 5.

Wizard is level 5.

Wizard creates a creature that is "half" of the Wizard's level. The game says "half" not level divided by 2.

Swashbuckler gets panache for killing creature half of the swashbuckler's level.

So what you're trying to assert is this:

Half of Wizard(5) < Half of Swashbuckler(5).

Since both rules use the same word, "half", it can't be two different values using the same operation on the same number. If "half" of 5 is 2 in one instance, it is is the exact same thing in another barring any specific rule to the contrary. Is there such a rule to the contrary? No.

Checkmate.

Prince Yyrkoon |

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:Because my point was never "you never round"?Oh? And pray tell, why not? It does seem rather relevant to your point, given that is an actual, in game application of an average die roll.

Then what is your point, exactly? That you sometimes don't round? Yes, yes you do, but not when dealing with HD, or 1/2 level benefits from classes. Those do, in fact, always round, as can be seen simply by looking at stat blocks, or the simulacrum spell. Is it that die averages include half numbers? Again, you are correct, but as that hp proves, it does, in fact get rounded when actually applied to the game. Your argument doesn't seem particularly relevant, to be entirely honest.

BigDTBone |

N N 959 wrote:It's hard to continue playing chess without your king. :)You think you "won" because you think you're right. That doesn't mean that you actually are.

He thinks he won because he caputured you king. You think you're still playing because you have pieces left on the board.

N N 959 |

Avoron wrote:You know what? This is the smartest point I've seen yet, in my admittedly biased opinion. Don't even involve the integers—just compare the fractions the rules provide. 2/5 is less than one half. Period.Instead of looking at division, what if we look at

ratios?Level 5 Swashbuckler

2 HD creatureHD/Level=2/5

Check:

Is 2/5 less than 1/2?

Yes.

No panache regained.You don't even need to worry about what half of 5 is. And don't you dare start suggesting we round that 2/5 down to 0, because the same would apply to 4/5.

That seems like a much more effective way of looking at it. But honestly, it doesn't matter all that much.

heh. I suppose when a debate goes on this long, people focus on the wrong things.

Nobody is trying to figure out how 5/2 compares with 2. The OP asked what is the method of operation in *Pathfinder* for this type of calculation. Avaron's post is irrelevant because the game does not tell us to compare 2/5 to 1/2. It says we take "half" of the swashbuckler's level. The question is whether that is rounded as part of the Pathfinder general order of operations or not. The question is not whether 2/5 = 1/2.

Avoron |

Fine, throw in an "x" to represent the swashbuckler's level.

Level 5 Swashbuckler

2 HD creature.

HD=2/5X

Check: **Is 2/5X less than 1/2X?**

Yes.

No panache regained.

In this case, you are directly comparing the HD of the creature (which is 2/5 of the swashbuckler's level) with half of the swashbuckler's level.

HangarFlying |

Then what is your point, exactly? That you sometimes don't round? Yes, yes you do, but not when dealing with HD, or 1/2 level benefits from classes. Those do, in fact, always round, as can be seen simply by looking at stat blocks, or the simulacrum spell. Is it that die averages include half numbers? Again, you are correct, but as that hp proves, it does, in fact get rounded when actually applied to the game. Your argument doesn't seem particularly relevant, to be entirely honest.

Well when you take my argument out of context, sure it doesn't make sense. Considering my sole focus on this point was the average die has a half number that doesn't get rounded, not that everything in its entirety doesn't get rounded.

HangarFlying |

heh. I suppose when a debate goes on this long, people focus on the wrong things.

Nobody is trying to figure out how 5/2 compares with 2. The OP asked what is the method of operation in

Pathfinderfor this type of calculation. Avaron's post is irrelevant because the game does not tell us to compare 2/5 to 1/2. It says we take "half" of the swashbuckler's level. The question is whether that is rounded as part of the Pathfinder general order of operations or not. The question is not whether 2/5 = 1/2.

Well, actually, the panache description in the Swashbuckler entry is telling us to compare the target's HD to that character's level. So, yes, his point is entirely relevant and is exactly on point.

Prince Yyrkoon |

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:Well when you take my argument out of context, sure it doesn't make sense. Considering my sole focus on this point was the average die has a half number that doesn't get rounded, not that everything in its entirety doesn't get rounded.Then what is your point, exactly? That you sometimes don't round? Yes, yes you do, but not when dealing with HD, or 1/2 level benefits from classes. Those do, in fact, always round, as can be seen simply by looking at stat blocks, or the simulacrum spell. Is it that die averages include half numbers? Again, you are correct, but as that hp proves, it does, in fact get rounded when actually applied to the game. Your argument doesn't seem particularly relevant, to be entirely honest.

Which is still completely irrelevant to 1/2 level abilities or any class feature outside of HP. Again, what is the point you are trying to prove with that?

HangarFlying |

HangarFlying wrote:Which is still completely irrelevant to 1/2 level abilities or any class feature outside of HP. Again, what is the point you are trying to prove with that?Prince Yyrkoon wrote:Well when you take my argument out of context, sure it doesn't make sense. Considering my sole focus on this point was the average die has a half number that doesn't get rounded, not that everything in its entirety doesn't get rounded.

It was a response to those saying that "you ALWAYS round down".

_Ozy_ |

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:It was a response to those saying that "you ALWAYS round down".HangarFlying wrote:Which is still completely irrelevant to 1/2 level abilities or any class feature outside of HP. Again, what is the point you are trying to prove with that?Prince Yyrkoon wrote:Well when you take my argument out of context, sure it doesn't make sense. Considering my sole focus on this point was the average die has a half number that doesn't get rounded, not that everything in its entirety doesn't get rounded.

How about this. You always round down after the calculation is finished. 5 / 2 = 2, calculation finished, round down.

average: 5.5 + 5.5 + 5.5 = 16, calculation finished, round down.

_Ozy_ |

Fine, throw in an "x" to represent the swashbuckler's level.

Level 5 Swashbuckler

2 HD creature.HD=2/5X

Check:Is 2/5X less than 1/2X?

Yes.

No panache regained.In this case, you are directly comparing the HD of the creature (which is 2/5 of the swashbuckler's level) with half of the swashbuckler's level.

Yup, a perfectly cromulent way to perform a comparison.

Just not the Pathfinder way to perform the comparison.

And since we're all talking about Pathfinder rules here...

Prince Yyrkoon |

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:It was a response to those saying that "you ALWAYS round down".HangarFlying wrote:Which is still completely irrelevant to 1/2 level abilities or any class feature outside of HP. Again, what is the point you are trying to prove with that?Prince Yyrkoon wrote:

And you do ALWAYS round down...when dealing with the abilities or class features relevant to this discussion. There is an implied qualifier there. You might as well have said "You don't round down when making change", to prove that you don't "always" round down as that would have just as much bearing on the conversion.

Malachi Silverclaw |

All this debate about rounding is irrelevant, as rounding only applies to numbers.

The ability in question isn't asking you to find the value of half of any particular number; if it did, then the answer would be a number and you could argue about rounding with some relevance.

The ability we're discussing is asking a yes/no question: is one number less than half of another number? If it is, the answer is 'yes'. If it isn't, the answer is 'no'.

Do you round 'yes' up or down? What about 'no'?

There is no rounding because there is no number required by the ability, therefore there is no number to round.

Bandw2 |

All this debate about rounding is irrelevant, as rounding only applies to numbers.

The ability in question isn't asking you to find the value of half of any particular number; if it did, then the answer would be a number and you could argue about rounding with some relevance.

The ability we're discussing is asking a yes/no question: is one number less than half of another number? If it is, the answer is 'yes'. If it isn't, the answer is 'no'.

Do you round 'yes' up or down? What about 'no'?

There is no rounding because there is no number required by the ability, therefore there is no number to round.

if there's no numbers in that "is one number less than half another number", then you will never be able to declare yes or no(truthfully anyway), as you don't have the required information.

_Ozy_ |

Er, except that 'half of another number' involves rounding in Pathfinder.

Half of 5 HD is 2 HD, that's what the simulacrum spell tells us. 2 is not less than half of 5 HD because half of 5 HD is 2.

I mean, you can abstract any check the same way:

yes/no question, do I 'know' what that creature is. If I roll a d20 and add my knowledge arcana, is that less than 10 + the fractional CR of the creature?

WHy would you round here and not for the determination of gaining panache? And it should be noted that some people apparently think you shouldn't even round for those checks.

But anyways this statement:

There is no rounding because there is no number required by the ability, therefore there is no number to round.

is actually never true. If you don't round down, then you are de facto rounding up.

Pick one, round down or round up, it's always one or the other when you're doing a boolean comparison against integer numbers.

Cuuniyevo |

Just…FAQ the original post and move on. As many other people have said, this is going nowhere and will continue to do the same until Paizo weighs in, and they're probably trying to head out the doors to spend time with their families. Bump once a week if necessary.

N N 959 |

The ability in question isn't asking you to find the value of half of any particular number;.

What?

I've seen several posters take this tact. It's mind-blowing. You *are* asked to find a number. That number is half the swashbuckler's level. That number you just computed....is compared against the HD of the creature the swashbuckler just killed. The rules tell us to do a calculation that involves taking half of something.

Since the game is telling us to compare a given number against a derived number, you automatically round the derived number unless told to do otherwise. That is Pathfinder 101.

Jodokai |

One question, which may have been answered earlier, I skipped a lot of posts when things went insane:

How does "In general" get translated to "Always"?

Kinevon - Can you find an instance when you don't round? Hangerflying was trying to say that because average hit die has a.5 in it, that proves there is instances that you don't round. That doesn't really wash, as has been pointed out, because you don't round each die you round the total. You can have a .5 in the equation, it just can't end in .5. I believe the consensus from the "5/2=2" crowd is that you round unless told not to, or given specific instructions.

Avoron |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Look, there are two ways to compare "1/2X" and "2".

One way is to turn 1/2X into a constant, which in this case is 2.5, which rounds down to 2. But the rounding doesn't really make sense, because you're just trying to compare the **relative** values of the two numbers, and the concept of an integer or a decimal doesn't really apply here. There's no simple answer about how to do the math this way, other than to say "round, because you're supposed to" or "don't round, because it's meaningless". You can't win.

Luckily, there's another way. You can represent 2 in terms of its relationship with X, which in this case is 2/5X. And 2/5X is less than 1/2X. This way is just a straight comparison of ratios, so rounding isn't relevant.

The rules don't tell you to compare these numbers one way or another. So do the math the first way if you want to, but the second way allows us to actually compare the two values as the rule asks us to do.

HangarFlying |

You want the rounding? Fine. The language of the ability, itself, provides an exception to the general rule: "fewer hit dice than half...doesn't recover". So, to see if you don't recover, you round down. To see if you do recover, you round up.

There, the rounding people are now happy, and it still works like I've been saying all along: a 5 HD swashbuckler only recovers if they slay a 3 HD creature.

Jodokai |

Look, there are two ways to compare "1/2X" and "2".

One way is to turn 1/2X into a constant, which in this case is 2.5, which rounds down to 2. But the rounding doesn't really make sense, because you're just trying to compare the

relativevalues of the two numbers, and the concept of an integer or a decimal doesn't really apply here. There's no simple answer about how to do the math this way, other than to say "round, because you're supposed to" or "don't round, because it's meaningless". You can't win.Luckily, there's another way. You can represent 2 in terms of its relationship with X, which in this case is 2/5X. And 2/5X is less than 1/2X. This way is just a straight comparison of ratios, so rounding isn't relevant.

The rules don't tell you to compare these numbers one way or another. So do the math the first way if you want to, but the second way allows us to actually compare the two values as the rule asks us to do.

Either way, the way the game works, you ARE rounding, you just have to decide if you're going to round up, or round down. IF you think it's 2.5 you're rounding up, because you can't have a 2.5 hit die monster, so you're saying it has to be 3 hit dice... rounding up. if you think it's 2, you're rounding down.

Prince Yyrkoon |

You want the rounding? Fine. The language of the ability, itself, provides an exception to the general rule: "fewer hit dice than half...doesn't recover". So, to see if you don't recover, you round down. To see if you do recover, you round up.

There, the rounding people are now happy, and it still works like I've been saying all along: a 5 HD swashbuckler only recovers if they slay a 3 HD creature.

You never round up in Pathfinder.

Avoron |

Jodokai:

Where did I say that I think it's 2.5? I just think that 2/5X is less than 1/2X.

Second of all, if were to say that 5/2 = 2.5, I would not be rounding up at all. It doesn't "effectively" round up, it just is 2.5.

And I definitely have not said it's 3 hit dice. That's just ridiculous. You cannot have a 2.5 hit die monster, but you can have a monster with **less than 5/2 hit dice** or **more than 5/2 hit dice**.

But all that is pointless, because there's no need to treat a simple relative comparison as if it were a division problem.

fretgod99 |

Avoron wrote:Either way, the way the game works, you ARE rounding, you just have to decide if you're going to round up, or round down. IF you think it's 2.5 you're rounding up, because you can't have a 2.5 hit die monster, so you're saying it has to be 3 hit dice... rounding up. if you think it's 2, you're rounding down.Look, there are two ways to compare "1/2X" and "2".

One way is to turn 1/2X into a constant, which in this case is 2.5, which rounds down to 2. But the rounding doesn't really make sense, because you're just trying to compare the

relativevalues of the two numbers, and the concept of an integer or a decimal doesn't really apply here. There's no simple answer about how to do the math this way, other than to say "round, because you're supposed to" or "don't round, because it's meaningless". You can't win.Luckily, there's another way. You can represent 2 in terms of its relationship with X, which in this case is 2/5X. And 2/5X is less than 1/2X. This way is just a straight comparison of ratios, so rounding isn't relevant.

The rules don't tell you to compare these numbers one way or another. So do the math the first way if you want to, but the second way allows us to actually compare the two values as the rule asks us to do.

Saying something has to exceed 2.5 HD isn't rounding up. In effect it works the same, but you're not actually rounding. Whether that's here or there probably doesn't matter much, though.

fretgod99 |

HangarFlying wrote:You never round up in Pathfinder.You want the rounding? Fine. The language of the ability, itself, provides an exception to the general rule: "fewer hit dice than half...doesn't recover". So, to see if you don't recover, you round down. To see if you do recover, you round up.

There, the rounding people are now happy, and it still works like I've been saying all along: a 5 HD swashbuckler only recovers if they slay a 3 HD creature.

You sure about that?

Jumping On or Off a Vehicle: Jumping on a vehicle is a normal jump of its distance assuming the vehicle has a deck or handholds within the character's height from the ground. Increase the DC of the Acrobatics check by 5 for every 30 feet of the vehicle's current speed. If the jumping creature is on a moving vehicle, calculate the increase in the Acrobatics skill check DC by calculating the difference between the current speeds of the two vehicles.For every difference of 30 feet (round up), the DC increases by 5.

One could also argue that the rule for Range Increments contains an implicit request to round up.

Range: Any attack at more than this distance is penalized for range.Beyond this range, the attack takes a cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment (or fraction thereof) of distance to the target.For example, a dagger (with a range of 10 feet) thrown at a target that is 25 feet away would incur a –4 penalty. A thrown weapon has a maximum range of five range increments. A projectile weapon can shoot to 10 range increments.

Then there's determining APL.

Determine APL: Determine the average level of your player characters—this is their Average Party Level (APL for short). You should round this value to the nearest whole number (this is one of the few exceptions to the round down rule).

Rarely? Yes, absolutely. Never? Nope.

Ed Reppert |

This is not going to get settled until Paizo settles it. Further argumentation is futile, and yet people seem to keep posting here (including me, to my chagrin).

I guess it's a case of "welcome to the Internet".

Prince Yyrkoon |

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:HangarFlying wrote:You never round up in Pathfinder.You sure about that?

Jumping On or Off a Vehicle wrote:Jumping On or Off a Vehicle: Jumping on a vehicle is a normal jump of its distance assuming the vehicle has a deck or handholds within the character's height from the ground. Increase the DC of the Acrobatics check by 5 for every 30 feet of the vehicle's current speed. If the jumping creature is on a moving vehicle, calculate the increase in the Acrobatics skill check DC by calculating the difference between the current speeds of the two vehicles.For every difference of 30 feet (round up), the DC increases by 5.One could also argue that the rule for Range Increments contains an implicit request to round up.

Equipment wrote:Range: Any attack at more than this distance is penalized for range.Beyond this range, the attack takes a cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment (or fraction thereof) of distance to the target.For example, a dagger (with a range of 10 feet) thrown at a target that is 25 feet away would incur a –4 penalty. A thrown weapon has a maximum range of five range increments. A projectile weapon can shoot to 10 range increments.Then there's determining APL.

Designing Encounters wrote:Determine APL: Determine the average level of your player characters—this is their Average Party Level (APL for short). You should round this value to the nearest whole number (this is one of the few exceptions to the round down rule).Rarely? Yes, absolutely. Never? Nope.

Fine, you rarely round up, and never when dealing with things actually relevant to this discussion.

HangarFlying |

You never round up in Pathfinder.

The full rules quote for those who are pedantic:

Destroying an unattended object, reducing a helpless or unaware creature to 0 or fewer hit points, or reducing a creature that has fewer Hit Dice than half the swashbuckler's character level to 0 or fewer hit points doesn't restore any panache.

So, you're trying to calculate the Hit Dice that satisfies the statement "fewer Hit Dice than half...**doesn't restore any panache**". Therefore, you divide by 2, and then round down. That is the number of Hit Dice that satisfies the statement "fewer Hit Dice than half...doesn't restore any panache". You need more than that number of Hit Dice **to** restore panache.

Or...you know...you could just round up to determine the number of Hit Dice to restore panache. It's the same thing.

bbangerter |

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:You never round up in Pathfinder.The full rules quote for those who are pedantic:

PRD:ACG:Swashbuckler wrote:Destroying an unattended object, reducing a helpless or unaware creature to 0 or fewer hit points, or reducing a creature that has fewer Hit Dice than half the swashbuckler's character level to 0 or fewer hit points doesn't restore any panache.So, you're trying to calculate the Hit Dice that satisfies the statement "fewer Hit Dice than half...

doesn't restore any panache". Therefore, you divide by 2, and then round down. That is the number of Hit Dice that satisfies the statement "fewer Hit Dice than half...doesn't restore any panache". You need more than that number of Hit Dicetorestore panache.Or...you know...you could just round up to determine the number of Hit Dice to restore panache. It's the same thing.

While I personally believe the RAI is 2 < 2.5 (no rounding needed in this scenario). I most certainly cannot agree that 2 < 2. It does not say less than or equal to (nor does it say 1/2 level is greater than HD), it says **fewer then**.

_Ozy_ |

Jodokai wrote:Saying something has to exceed 2.5 HD isn't rounding up. In effect it works the same, but you're not actually rounding. Whether that's here or there probably doesn't matter much, though.Avoron wrote:Either way, the way the game works, you ARE rounding, you just have to decide if you're going to round up, or round down. IF you think it's 2.5 you're rounding up, because you can't have a 2.5 hit die monster, so you're saying it has to be 3 hit dice... rounding up. if you think it's 2, you're rounding down.Look, there are two ways to compare "1/2X" and "2".

relativevalues of the two numbers, and the concept of an integer or a decimal doesn't really apply here. There's no simple answer about how to do the math this way, other than to say "round, because you're supposed to" or "don't round, because it's meaningless". You can't win.

2.5HD isn't a thing. There is no such thing as 2.5HD, there is only 2HD and 3HD. (see Simulacrum). Does it have to exceed 2HD or 3HD, that is the question.

In Pathfinder, half of 5HD is 2HD.

Prince Yyrkoon |

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:You never round up in Pathfinder.The full rules quote for those who are pedantic:

PRD:ACG:Swashbuckler wrote:Destroying an unattended object, reducing a helpless or unaware creature to 0 or fewer hit points, or reducing a creature that has fewer Hit Dice than half the swashbuckler's character level to 0 or fewer hit points doesn't restore any panache.So, you're trying to calculate the Hit Dice that satisfies the statement "fewer Hit Dice than half...

doesn't restore any panache". Therefore, you divide by 2, and then round down. That is the number of Hit Dice that satisfies the statement "fewer Hit Dice than half...doesn't restore any panache". You need more than that number of Hit Dicetorestore panache.Or...you know...you could just round up to determine the number of Hit Dice to restore panache. It's the same thing.

You divide in half to 2.5. Since .5 of a level doesn't exist, you round down (as per the simulacrum) to 2. Because 2 is not less than 2, 2 satisfies the requirement to restore panache. And since the ability doesn't explicitly say to round up, you round down, as per the general rounding rules of pathfinder.

HangarFlying |

While I personally believe the RAI is 2 < 2.5 (no rounding needed in this scenario). I most certainly cannot agree that 2 < 2. It does not say less than or equal to (nor does it say 1/2 level is greater than HD), it saysfewer then.

That is true, and while it doesn't work so cleanly for even levels, there isn't a debate about even levels. It's a debate about odd levels.

Essentially, the debate boils down to how many HD at what level DOESN'T recover panache, either a)

Level 1,2,3 = 0 HD

Level 4,5 = 1 HD

Level 6,7 = 2 HD

Level 8,9 = 3 HD

Level 10,11 = 4 HD

Level 12,13 = 5 HD

Level 14,15 = 6 HD

Level 16,17 = 7 HD

Level 18,19 = 8 HD

Level 20 = 9 HD

or b)

Level 1,2 = 0 HD

Level 3,4 = 1 HD

Level 5,6 = 2 HD

Level 7,8 = 3 HD

Level 9,10 = 4 HD

Level 11,12 = 5 HD

Level 13,14 = 6 HD

Level 15,16 = 7 HD

Level 17,18 = 8 HD

Level 19,20 = 9 HD

Personally, I'm in the "B" camp. Though, really, in the end, I could care less either way (i.e. I'm not going to freak out if the PDT rules in a way that proves that I'm wrong).

HangarFlying |

You divide in half to 2.5. Since .5 of a level doesn't exist, you round down (as per the simulacrum) to 2. Because 2 is not less than 2, 2 satisfies the requirement to restore panache. And since the ability doesn't explicitly say to round up, you round down, as per the general rounding rules of pathfinder.

What is the calculation you're trying to do? Determine what is less than half HD. What is the result for? Not regaining panache. The end number that you receive in your calculation tells you the HD that doesn't recover your panache.

Granted, we're talking about odd levels here.

Prince Yyrkoon |

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:You divide in half to 2.5. Since .5 of a level doesn't exist, you round down (as per the simulacrum) to 2. Because 2 is not less than 2, 2 satisfies the requirement to restore panache. And since the ability doesn't explicitly say to round up, you round down, as per the general rounding rules of pathfinder.What is the calculation you're trying to do? Determine what is less than half HD. What is the result for? Not regaining panache. The end number that you receive in your calculation tells you the HD that doesn't recover your panache.

Granted, we're talking about odd levels here.

Except that half of 5 is 2 in this case, because level 2.5 does not exist. As shown by the Simulacrum spell which, when creating a simulacrum of a level five wizard creates a level two wizard.

HangarFlying |

HangarFlying wrote:Except that half of 5 is 2 in this case, because level 2.5 does not exist.Prince Yyrkoon wrote:What is the calculation you're trying to do? Determine what is less than half HD. What is the result for? Not regaining panache. The end number that you receive in your calculation tells you the HD that doesn't recover your panache.

Granted, we're talking about odd levels here.

We disagree. Best of luck to you.

Avoron |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Ozy and Prince Yyrkoon:

You're treating the check as "Does the creature have less than [2.5 HD]?"

The check would actually be "Is [the number of HD] less than [2.5]?"

Whether or not you can have [2.5 HD] doesn't matter, because you can clearly have a number of HD that is less than 2.5.

But, as I have said said, that sort of logic is not necessary. You are not being asked to divide the swashbuckler's character level by 2. You are being asked to compare two things: the creatures HD and half of the swashbuckler's character level.

HD=?=1/2L

2/5L=?=1/2L

2/5L is less than 1/2L

The rules don't tell you how to compare them, and this is the comparison that actually makes sense and doesn't involve arbitrary integers in a **relative** comparison.

fretgod99 |

fretgod99 wrote:Jodokai wrote:Saying something has to exceed 2.5 HD isn't rounding up. In effect it works the same, but you're not actually rounding. Whether that's here or there probably doesn't matter much, though.Avoron wrote:Either way, the way the game works, you ARE rounding, you just have to decide if you're going to round up, or round down. IF you think it's 2.5 you're rounding up, because you can't have a 2.5 hit die monster, so you're saying it has to be 3 hit dice... rounding up. if you think it's 2, you're rounding down.Look, there are two ways to compare "1/2X" and "2".

relativevalues of the two numbers, and the concept of an integer or a decimal doesn't really apply here. There's no simple answer about how to do the math this way, other than to say "round, because you're supposed to" or "don't round, because it's meaningless". You can't win.2.5HD isn't a thing. There is no such thing as 2.5HD, there is only 2HD and 3HD. (see Simulacrum). Does it have to exceed 2HD or 3HD, that is the question.

In Pathfinder, half of 5HD is 2HD.

Right. There's no such thing as 2.5 HD. I'm pretty sure we've all established that. I'm pretty sure I've said it myself more than once. So, I'm not sure why you're stating it again. That wasn't in contention.

The rest of what you stated wasn't relevant to what I posted. I'm simply addressing a comment that not rounding down (from 2.5) is tantamount to rounding up. It's not.

fretgod99 |

HangarFlying wrote:Except that half of 5 is 2 in this case, because level 2.5 does not exist. As shown by the Simulacrum spell which, when creating a simulacrum of a level five wizard creates a level two wizard.Prince Yyrkoon wrote:Granted, we're talking about odd levels here.

But you're not trying to determine if a creature with 2.5 HD satisfies the requirement. Saying 2.5 HD creatures don't exist is unhelpful and irrelevant. You're simply creating a bar - does the creature fall under that bar or go over it? If you round the number that sets the bar, then a 2 HD creature goes over; if not, such a creature doesn't. That a 2.5 HD creature does not exist changes absolutely nothing because we're not actually looking for or at a 2.5 HD creature.

Prince Yyrkoon |

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:But you're not trying to determine if a creature with 2.5 HD satisfies the requirement. Saying 2.5 HD creatures don't exist is unhelpful and irrelevant. You're simply creating a bar - does the creature fall under that bar or go over it? If you round the number that sets the bar, then a 2 HD creature goes over; if not, such a creature doesn't. That a 2.5 HD creature does not exist changes absolutely nothing because we're not actually looking for or at a 2.5 HD creature.HangarFlying wrote:Except that half of 5 is 2 in this case, because level 2.5 does not exist. As shown by the Simulacrum spell which, when creating a simulacrum of a level five wizard creates a level two wizard.Prince Yyrkoon wrote:Granted, we're talking about odd levels here.

2.5 levels. Because they don't exist, half of a level five swashbucklers level cannot be 2.5. It must be rounded to a whole number, and because the ability does not explicitly state to round up, you follow the general rule and round down. Making half a level 5 swashbuckler's level 2.

Because to determine if a creature's HD is less than half the Swashbuckler's level, we need to know what half the Swashbuckler's level is.

That is the point I was making. Nothing to do with 2.5 HD creatures.

Avoron |

2 people marked this as a favorite. |

The swashbuckler's level is 5. It is not "5 levels."

Half of the swashbuckler's level is 2.5. It is not "2.5 levels."

The number of hit dice is 2. It is not "2 hit dice."

You can argue that you need to round because the rules say that is the default, and that is definitely a valid point. But what you cannot reasonably argue is that the relative comparison cannot function because your units make it theoretically impossible. You are not comparing units, you just need to look at the ratios.

**Or, you could just ignore the irrelevant integers and decimals and just know that [2/5 of the swashbuckler's character level] is less than [1/2 of the swashbuckler's character level].**

Seriously, there is no point to this argument. None at all. You're comparing two things, and rounding doesn't matter.