_Ozy_ |

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.

Why do you guys keep doing math using real numbers instead of integers?

Read the simulacrum spell. When you create a simulacrum of a 5HD monster, you create a creature with **half** the HD, which is 2.

This spell tells us what half of 5 is, it's 2, not 2.5. Using floating point arithmetic to support your argument is irrelevant because Pathfinder uses integer math for these types of calculations.

Rounding 'matters' because in pathfinder, you always* round down as part of your calculation (*unless otherwise specified).

I could do **all** of the math in Pathfinder using floating point arithmetic, from knowledge checks, to concentration checks, to even tracking fractions of hit points if I so wanted.

But none of that would be following the rules of Pathfinder.

So, once again, your floating point math, while mathematically accurate, is irrelevant.

fretgod99 |

Avoron wrote: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.

Why do you guys keep doing math using real numbers instead of integers?

Read the simulacrum spell. When you create a simulacrum of a 5HD monster, you create a creature with

halfthe HD, which is 2.This spell tells us what half of 5 is, it's 2, not 2.5. Using floating point arithmetic to support your argument is irrelevant because Pathfinder uses integer math for these types of calculations.

Rounding 'matters' because in pathfinder, you always* round down as part of your calculation (*unless otherwise specified).

I could do

allof the math in Pathfinder using floating point arithmetic, from knowledge checks, to concentration checks, to even tracking fractions of hit points if I so wanted.But none of that would be following the rules of Pathfinder.

So, once again, your floating point math, while mathematically accurate, is irrelevant.

1. Because the purpose isn't necessarily the same in both instances.

2. Whether you always round down in Pathfinder is the entire purpose of this discussion. As has been repeatedly stated, there's no clear rules statement that actually says you always round down. Hence the disagreement.

Jodokai |

First, yes you are effectively rounding up. You're saying a 5th level swashbuckler can only get it back with a 3 HD monster. I don't care how you "really" say it, that is the end result.

Pathfinder has no rules telling you to use division in order to compare one number with another.

You just look at the two numbers and determine which one is higher.

If you aren't using division, what are you using to determining half of a swashbuckler's level?

Malachi Silverclaw |

Imagine a world which is exactly like our own, but with a single difference: every single person's height turns out to be an exact multiple of one inch.

So you can be five feet eight, you can be five foot nine, but it is not possible for any person to be five foot eight *and a half*, because that's not a multiple of one inch.

This doesn't mean that a distance of 5' 8.5'' doesn't exist! It means there can be no person of that height!

So it's entirely possible to go to the fairground and see a bar set at five feet eight and a half inches, and entirely possible there is a sign saying that anyone under this height is not allowed on the ride. The fact that there is no person of exactly that height doesn't make it impossible for the bar to be set at that height.

Just because there are no creatures of exactly two-and-a-half hit dice, that doesn't mean that the game can't direct you to grant or deny something to a creature with **fewer** than two-and-a-half hit dice!

Malachi Silverclaw |

First, yes you are effectively rounding up. You're saying a 5th level swashbuckler can only get it back with a 3 HD monster. I don't care how you "really" say it, that is the end result.

Avoron wrote:Pathfinder has no rules telling you to use division in order to compare one number with another.

You just look at the two numbers and determine which one is higher.If you aren't using division, what are you using to determining half of a swashbuckler's level?

You are not directed or required to express 'half the swashbuckler's hit dice' as a number! You are required to say either 'yes' or 'no' to the question, 'does this creature have fewer than two-and-a-half hit dice?'

You are not required to half a number equal to the swashbuckler's hit dice in order to answer that question. You can double the number of the target creature's hit dice, and compare that to the number of hit dice of the swashbuckler. There are no fractions, there are only integers, and therefore there is no rounding.

_Ozy_ |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I don't understand what you are saying.

You are asked this question, is X < Y.

X and Y are both numbers. X is the HD of the monster, Y is Swashbuckler level / 2.

Just because Y doesn't have a name like 'DC', or 'attack bonus' doesn't give it immunity to the fact that pathfinder tells you to round fractions down.

The question 'does this creature have fewer than two-and-a-half hit dice' is not a Pathfinder question because 'two-and-a-half hit dice' does not exist in Pathfinder.

You might as well ask 'does this creature have fewer than globbart hit dice', neither is defined in the Pathfinder system.

You guys are trying to do floating point math in an integer based system. Does not compute. Furthermore, expressing the equation in words 'two-and-a-half' instead of numbers like 2.5 does not make your argument any less reliant on the actual numbers.

I can express my bonus to damage as 'five-and-a-half', that doesn't mean that value doesn't get rounded down to 5.

fretgod99 |

I'm still waiting to see where PF mandates one must uniformly round everything. As they currently stand, so far as I'm aware, they do not mandate rounding in every situation.

PF tells you *how* to round when you are asked. It has yet to say, "You must always round, no exceptions." Is it possible that's what they mean? Sure, it's possible. But, It's certainly not definite at this point.

Malachi Silverclaw |

The question 'does this creature have fewer than two-and-a-half hit dice' is not a Pathfinder question because 'two-and-a-half hit dice' does not exist in Pathfinder.

Irrelavent. There doesn't need to be any creature with 2.5 hit dice in order to ask if there is a creature with **fewer** than 2.5 hit dice!

Just like there doesn't need to be a ten foot tall human in order to ask if there are any humans **shorter** than ten feet!

_Ozy_ |

_Ozy_ wrote:The question 'does this creature have fewer than two-and-a-half hit dice' is not a Pathfinder question because 'two-and-a-half hit dice' does not exist in Pathfinder.Irrelavent. There doesn't need to be any creature with 2.5 hit dice in order to ask if there is a creature with

fewerthan 2.5 hit dice!Just like there doesn't need to be a ten foot tall human in order to ask if there are any humans

shorterthan ten feet!

Except that 10 feet exists, it is a thing.

2.5HD does not, it is not a thing.

Furthermore, since you are actually comparing numbers (despite your insistence that you are not) those numbers follow the same rules that all such comparison do in Pathfinder.

They get rounded.

_Ozy_ |

I'm still waiting to see where PF mandates one must uniformly round everything. As they currently stand, so far as I'm aware, they do not mandate rounding in every situation.

PF tells you

howto round when you are asked. It has yet to say, "You must always round, no exceptions." Is it possible that's what they mean? Sure, it's possible. But, It's certainly not definite at this point.

You round the result at the end of every calculation. Do you have any counterexample other than the claim regarding the example at hand?

I can't even believe this is still being debated. Nobody questioned rounding the concentration check, even though 'it's not stated anywhere' that you round it. Only one or two people questioned rounding knowledge check DC's, even though, once again, 'it's not stated anywhere' that you round it.

So, why is that all of a sudden required? Why doesn't this follow the rule **that every other calculated result follows**?

Why does it need to specifically tell you to round here, when it doesn't for knowledge checks, concentration checks, or heck 90% of values calculated in the game?

Because it's a general rule. You round fractions, usually down.

Malachi Silverclaw |

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:_Ozy_ wrote:Irrelavent. There doesn't need to be any creature with 2.5 hit dice in order to ask if there is a creature with

fewerthan 2.5 hit dice!Just like there doesn't need to be a ten foot tall human in order to ask if there are any humans

shorterthan ten feet!Except that 10 feet exists, it is a thing.

2.5HD does not, it is not a thing.

**Fewer** than 2.5 hit dice **is** a thing! And *that* is what is being asked.

fretgod99 |

Nobody questioned rounding the concentration check, even though 'it's not stated anywhere' that you round it. Only one or two people questioned rounding knowledge check DC's, even though, once again, 'it's not stated anywhere' that you round it.

Because these two things aren't necessarily serving the same purpose, as has been mentioned.

_Ozy_ |

_Ozy_ wrote:Malachi Silverclaw wrote:_Ozy_ wrote:fewerthan 2.5 hit dice!shorterthan ten feet!Except that 10 feet exists, it is a thing.

2.5HD does not, it is not a thing.

Fewerthan 2.5 hit diceisa thing! Andthatis what is being asked.

Fewer than what? You said 2.5HD, which is not a thing.

Think of it like this. You have 5 lightbulbs. To pass through this door, you have to give me half of the lightbulbs you carry.

How many do you give me?

Avoron |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Or how about: "You have 5 lightbulbs. To pass through this door, you have to give me half of the lightbulbs or more."

How many do you give me?

If your answer is 2, then I hope there wasn't anything important on the other side of the door.

You are not trying to see if there are [fewer than] [2.5 HD].

You are trying to see if there are [fewer than 2.5] [HD].

_Ozy_ |

Or how about: "You have 5 lightbulbs. To pass through this door, you have to give me half of the lightbulbs or more."

How many do you give me?

If your answer is 2, then I hope there wasn't anything important on the other side of the door.

You are not trying to see if there are [fewer than] [2.5 HD].

You are trying to see if there are [fewer than 2.5] [HD].

Answer my question first, then I will answer yours.

I ask for half of your lightbulbs. How many lightbulbs do you give me?

And rearranging the words doesn't mean that 2.5HD actually means something when it does not. It's an incoherent concept, and therefore can't be used to compare against an actual number.

_Ozy_ |

If he gives you two, you got less than half.

If the requirement is that you must get half, then he has to give you three to meet that requirement.

Thanks for defeating your own argument.

Wrong, try again. We're inside Pathfinder here, and Pathfinder tells us exactly how to get half of 5. It's integer math.

How many lightbulbs do you hand me?

Jodokai |

I still realize no one is going to be convinced until someone from Paizo answers it, but I just think it goes against game design to round up (or however you decide to say it). That would mean a 3rd level could only fight 2 HD monsters. Pathfinder likes to stack things in favor of the players (CR = Level -1), and using the decimal point seems counter to that.

Jodokai |

_Ozy_ wrote:Nobody questioned rounding the concentration check, even though 'it's not stated anywhere' that you round it. Only one or two people questioned rounding knowledge check DC's, even though, once again, 'it's not stated anywhere' that you round it.Because these two things aren't necessarily serving the same purpose, as has been mentioned.

This is where I think the biggest disconnect is. Many don't see this as the same thing, and many see it as exactly the same thing. No one is going to convince to other side, just remember to FAQ it everyone!

_Ozy_ |

I'd give you two and a half light bulbs, because I'm a smartass and you didn't say they needed to be functional.

Half a lightbulb isn't a lightbulb. Like levels and HD, they only exist as integer units.

None of these analogies would be necessary if people understood that integer math is not exactly the same as floating point math.

HangarFlying |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

HangarFlying wrote:If he gives you two, you got less than half.

If the requirement is that you must get half, then he has to give you three to meet that requirement.

Thanks for defeating your own argument.

Wrong, try again. We're inside Pathfinder here, and Pathfinder tells us exactly how to get half of 5. It's integer math.

How many lightbulbs do you hand me?

3. Because that's the only way you'd be able to get half of 5 light bulbs. Again.

And the analogous question is "give me fewer than half light bulbs" in which case I would hand you 2. Again.

In this case, we don't need to do interger math because we don't need a concrete result to use in further calculations. We just need comparative numbers. Nothing says that we MUST use interger math in this instance.

HangarFlying |

I still realize no one is going to be convinced until someone from Paizo answers it, but I just think it goes against game design to round up (or however you decide to say it). That would mean a 3rd level could only fight 2 HD monsters. Pathfinder likes to stack things in favor of the players (CR = Level -1), and using the decimal point seems counter to that.

Certainly possible. Either side could be right and be correct within the rules. Which way did the PDT intend for it to be?

_Ozy_ |

The request would be "Give me no fewer than half your light bulbs". That's a different question. 2 light bulbs won't satisfy it. 3 will. Because it's more than half.

Asking for half the light bulbs isn't analogous to the question we're addressing.

It is exactly the same. We are trying to determine 'what is half' when Pathfinder says 'half of the level'.

I mean, Pathfinder already demonstrates this quite explicitly with the simulacrum spell. They don't say that the created simulacrum is 'half or less', they say that it is 'half' the HD of the original creature.

A simulacrum of a 5 HD creature is 2 HD. The spell says that this is half. Because, it's integer math.

2 light bulbs _will_ satisfy the request, assuming that you are using integer math (which Pathfinder is) and that the convention is to round down (which again is the case in Pathfinder).

How do we know this to be true? The Simulacrum spell RAW.

If you are using integer math, then 2 == 5 / 2. Go ahead, type the equation into Python. If you are using Python 2.7, and integer numbers, that equation will evaluate to True, because Python is evaluating the expression with integer math.

Or, instead of recognizing how Pathfinder works, I guess you could keep believing otherwise...because it doesn't 'feel' right. Because, somehow, a 5th level Swashbuckler getting panache from critting a 2HD creature is so beyond the pale that the rules just have to be wrong.

_Ozy_ |

_Ozy_ wrote:HangarFlying wrote:If he gives you two, you got less than half.

If the requirement is that you must get half, then he has to give you three to meet that requirement.

Thanks for defeating your own argument.

Wrong, try again. We're inside Pathfinder here, and Pathfinder tells us exactly how to get half of 5. It's integer math.

How many lightbulbs do you hand me?

3. Because that's the only way you'd be able to get half of 5 light bulbs. Again.

And the analogous question is "give me fewer than half light bulbs" in which case I would hand you 2. Again.

In this case, we don't need to do interger math because we don't need a concrete result to use in further calculations. We just need comparative numbers. Nothing says that we MUST use interger math in this instance.

You're not making any sense. How is 3 light bulbs half of 5? Show your math.

2 < 5 / 2 Evaluates to False.

RAW says you must use integer math in this instance, because you are not specifically told otherwise.

Avoron |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Ozy:

Someone stated:

"The request would be "Give me no fewer than half your light bulbs". That's a different question."

And you responded:

"It is exactly the same."

Someone else stated:

"3. Because that's the only way you'd be able to get half of 5 light bulbs. Again."

And you responded:

"You're not making any sense. How is 3 light bulbs half of 5? Show your math."

Don't those statements of yours seem a little bit contradictory to you? In this case your being asked to kill a creature "with a number of HD no fewer than half your level." This is clearly different than being asked to kill a creature "with a number of HD equal to half your level."

And RAW says literally nothing about integer math. Also, RAW never asks you to divide. At all. They give you two fractions and ask you to compare them, so that's what you must do.

HangarFlying |

You're not making any sense. How is 3 light bulbs half of 5? Show your math.

2 < 5 / 2 Evaluates to False.

RAW says you must use integer math in this instance, because you are not specifically told otherwise.

First of all, "RAW" does not say that we **must** use interger math in this instance. Secondly, RAW is nothing more than an interpretation that has been deemed to be the correct interpretation. "Per RAW", either one of our interpretations may be correct. Which interpretation is the one that the PDT intended to be the correct interpretation? I hope you're able to recognize that if the PDT decides this is something that deserves a ruling.

_Ozy_ |

Ozy:

Someone stated:

"The request would be "Give me no fewer than half your light bulbs". That's a different question."

And you responded:

"It is exactly the same."Someone else stated:

"3. Because that's the only way you'd be able to get half of 5 light bulbs. Again."

And you responded:

"You're not making any sense. How is 3 light bulbs half of 5? Show your math."Don't those statements of yours seem a little bit contradictory to you? In this case your being asked to kill a creature "with a number of HD no fewer than half your level." This is clearly different than being asked to kill a creature "with a number of HD equal to half your level."

And RAW says literally nothing about integer math. Also, RAW never asks you to divide. At all. They give you two fractions and ask you to compare them, so that's what you must do.

Correct, the RAW does not literally say 'integer math' because 90% of the people would have no clue as to what that meant. The present discussion is more than evidence of that.

Instead, the rules **implement** integer math on just about every occasion and give you specific rules on how to deal with fractional results. Evidence: Simulacrum (and 99.99% of all the other rules).

Pathfinder is quite explicit with exceptions to the rules, and there are none regarding this case.

You're right, the questions aren't exactly the same. Give me no fewer than half could also mean that you can give more than half.

However, both statements would be satisfied by receiving 2 light bulbs, as that is half of 5, which is what I meant.

Listen, on one side, my argument, I'm applying the rules exactly as how they are applied, consistently, throughout the Pathfinder system. From rounding down damage, to DCs for knowledge checks, to concentration checks for continuous damage, to simulacrums, to fractional favored class bonuses. **They all** get rounded down, and very few of them explicitly 'ask' you to do it.

On the other side, what you guys are arguing, are things like:

level / 2 isn't really a number

it doesn't explicitly **say** you round down (even though the rules almost never do)

When you make a comparison, you don't have to round.

None of these assertions are actually in the rules, anywhere. They are completely invented solely because a few of you guys seem to think that a 5th level swashbuckler shouldn't be able to get panache from a 2HD creature.

It's frankly ridiculous that you would ignore rule consistency for what is hardly an important, much less game-breaking situation.

What is so important about this ability that it breaks with every single other instance in the rules?

_Ozy_ |

_Ozy_ wrote:First of all, "RAW" does not say that weYou're not making any sense. How is 3 light bulbs half of 5? Show your math.

2 < 5 / 2 Evaluates to False.

RAW says you must use integer math in this instance, because you are not specifically told otherwise.

mustuse interger math in this instance. Secondly, RAW is nothing more than an interpretation that has been deemed to be the correct interpretation. "Per RAW", either one of our interpretations may be correct. Which interpretation is the one that the PDT intended to be the correct interpretation? I hope you're able to recognize that if the PDT decides this is something that deserves a ruling.

RAW says you round down in general. There is nothing specific to say otherwise, just like the Simulacrum spell.

If PDT decides that this is a 'round up' situation, then it becomes one of the few exceptions to the rule. Deciding it on your own seems rather silly to me, given 99.99% of the rules rounding down.

Frankly, there is no justification for declaring, by fiat, that the general rounding rules do not apply, no similar rulings, no similar abilities or spells, nothing.

On the other hand, I can pull out the Simulacrum spell, concentration checks for continuing damage, knowledge DC checks, and I'm sure many, many more where rounding is applied without being specifically 'asked'.

Why do you suppose support for your point of view in the existing rules is so lacking?

Avoron |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

You do not need to round because you do not need to divide. When comparing two numbers, both of which are given to you in the problem itself, in order to see which one is greater, there is no need to use integer math.

2/5X is less than 1/2X.

No rounding is necessary, because the problem is not asking for a number at all. And it definitely isn't asking you to calculate a number of HD.

And don't say I'm using "the wrong kind of math." Pathfinder has no rules for how to compare two numbers and see which one is greater, because that sort of rule is unnecessary.

HangarFlying |

RAW says you round down in general. There is nothing specific to say otherwise, just like the Simulacrum spell.

If PDT decides that this is a 'round up' situation, then it becomes one of the few exceptions to the rule. Deciding it on your own seems rather silly to me, given 99.99% of the rules rounding down.

Frankly, there is no justification for declaring, by fiat, that the general rounding rules do not apply, no similar rulings, no similar abilities or spells, nothing.

On the other hand, I can pull out the Simulacrum spell, concentration checks for continuing damage, knowledge DC checks, and I'm sure many, many more where rounding is applied without being specifically 'asked'.

Why do you suppose support for your point of view in the existing rules is so lacking?

The rules you are using to support your position are different in context than what is being discussed here.

Both of our interpretations are within "RAW". The PDT will tell us which interpretation is correct.

Jodokai |

You do not need to round because you do not need to divide. When comparing two numbers, both of which are given to you in the problem itself, in order to see which one is greater, there is no need to use integer math.

2/5X is less than 1/2X.

No rounding is necessary, because the problem is not asking for a number at all. And it definitely isn't asking you to calculate a number of HD.

And don't say I'm using "the wrong kind of math." Pathfinder has no rules for how to compare two numbers and see which one is greater, because that sort of rule is unnecessary.

Um you do know that little slash line you're putting between the 2 and the 5x and between the 1 and the 2x means divide right?

The problem is asking you to compare two numbers: half of a level, which is a number that can only be reached by dividing, and HD which is a number. You are comparing two numbers, I don't care what you call them.

_Ozy_ |

You do not need to round because you do not need to divide. When comparing two numbers, both of which are given to you in the problem itself, in order to see which one is greater, there is no need to use integer math.

2/5X is less than 1/2X.

No rounding is necessary, because the problem is not asking for a number at all. And it definitely isn't asking you to calculate a number of HD.

And don't say I'm using "the wrong kind of math." Pathfinder has no rules for how to compare two numbers and see which one is greater, because that sort of rule is unnecessary.

I'm flabbergasted how you guys insist that taking half of your level does not result in a number.

What is it, a letter?

_Ozy_ |

_Ozy_ wrote:RAW says you round down in general. There is nothing specific to say otherwise, just like the Simulacrum spell.

If PDT decides that this is a 'round up' situation, then it becomes one of the few exceptions to the rule. Deciding it on your own seems rather silly to me, given 99.99% of the rules rounding down.

Frankly, there is no justification for declaring, by fiat, that the general rounding rules do not apply, no similar rulings, no similar abilities or spells, nothing.

On the other hand, I can pull out the Simulacrum spell, concentration checks for continuing damage, knowledge DC checks, and I'm sure many, many more where rounding is applied without being specifically 'asked'.

Why do you suppose support for your point of view in the existing rules is so lacking?

The rules you are using to support your position are different in context than what is being discussed here.

Both of our interpretations are within "RAW". The PDT will tell us which interpretation is correct.

You keep saying that it's a different context.

So where is the context that supports your interpretation?

I've got multiple examples in the rules that do **exactly** what I am claiming. You handwave them away saying that this is different.

**Where are the rules** that support your claim? Where in the rules does it support ignoring the rounding rule for this particular situation? Yes, specific overrides general, so where is the **specific rule** that you are invoking to override the general rounding rules.

ShoulderPatch |

This is one of the most ridiculous threads, on any subject, that I've ever seen anywhere.

The conviction level of certain people on each side is certainly... noteworthy sounds polite.

I'm just kicking back and waiting to see if a developer corrects anyone.

Word, and Dotting. I think one side might have slightly stronger RAW and one side might have slightly stronger RAI but I wouldn't call either side clear on either, and I definitely don't think it matters enough to get into a knife fight over, so while I know which one I'd lean if I had to make an on-spot ruling I'm otherwise just chalking it up to "expect table variation" until/unless the P-DT weights in.

Malachi Silverclaw |

The rule isn't asking you to produce a 2.5 HD creature.

It's asking if the creature you just killed (or critted) has **fewer** than 2.5 HD! That creature will have a whole number of HD, and that whole number will either be less than 2.5 or *not* less than 2.5.

The fact that there are no creatures with exactly 2.5 HD is not an impediment to accurately answering the question.

HangarFlying |

You keep saying that it's a different context.

So where is the context that supports your interpretation?

I've got multiple examples in the rules that do

exactlywhat I am claiming. You handwave them away saying that this is different.

Where are the rulesthat support your claim? Where in the rules does it support ignoring the rounding rule for this particular situation? Yes, specific overrides general, so where is thespecific rulethat you are invoking to override the general rounding rules.

I know what you are saying, and why you are saying it. I handwave nothing. I disagree with your position. It's not that big of a deal. We are both right from a rules standpoint. It's up to the PDT to determine which one of our interpretations is the intended interpretation.

Malachi Silverclaw |

'Rounding' has no relevance for this question, but on the subject of rounding in PF/3rd ed:-

Rounding is not required at every single stage of a calculation, even if you are required to have an integer result. You are only required to round if the **final** result would be a fraction.

For example, if a DM is statting out a creature, then he uses average hit points. If the creature has 4d8 hit dice, then the average of 1d8 is multiplied by 4. Since the average of 1d8 is 4.5, a creature with 4d8 hit points would have 4.5 x 4 = 18 hit points.

Although there are fractions during the calculation, since the **final** answer has no fractions, then no rounding is required.

If you were to (mistakenly) use rounding every time a fraction reared its ugly head **during** the calculation, then you would get a different hit point total.

In this (mistaken) method, then half of 1d8 is 4.5, but 'there is no such thing as half a hit point' would lead you to say that the average result of 1d8 is only 4, leaving a creature with 4d8 with only 16 hit points.

Let's try an example that actually does use rounding:-

Average hit points of a creature with 5d8 hit dice: average of 1d8=4.5, 5x4.5=22.5.

We can't have half a hit point, therefore we round 22.5 down to 22, in accordance with PF math. This is correct.

Now, the same example using rounding incorrectly:-

Average of 1d8=4.5, can't half half hit points, so half of 1d8=4, therefore a 5d8 HD creature has an average of 20 hit points.

This is not correct, even with 'Pathfinder Math'! You can check this using the stat block of any creature in the game!

So, the correct way to use rounding to answer the question, 'Simulacra have half the HD of the original creature, that creature has 5HD, half of 5=2.5. Since the final answer is a fraction, and since there is no creature with non-integer HD, we must round 2.5 down to 2, and end up with a simulacrum with 2HD. All perfectly correct.

But the question under discussion doesn't ask us to produce a creature with half the HD of the swashbuckler. It's asking if a creature the swashbuckler has just hit has **fewer** HD than half the swashbuckler's HD. If the swashbuckler has 5HD, then we are being asked if the creature he just hit has **fewer** than 2.5HD. 2 is less than 2.5, therefore if the creature has 2 or fewer HD then the answer is 'yes, this creature has fewer than 2.5 HD'. If the creature has 3 or more HD then the answer is, 'no, this creature does not have fewer than 2.5 HD'.

Since the final answer is either 'yes' or 'no', neither answer is a fraction, so no rounding is required.

During this calculation, at no point did any creature with fractional HD exist. Every creature had a whole number of HD.

In this case, '2.5' isn't the number of HD that any creature has, it is simply a number. If the number of HD possessed by a creature is smaller than that number, then the answer is 'yes'. If not, then the answer is 'no'.

Saying that 'there is no creature with fractional HD' is true, but irrelevant since no calculation requires such a creature to exist.

Saying that 'PF math **always** rounds down is untrue.

Saying that 'PF math rounds down unless it specifically says it doesn't' is arguable, but even when PF uses rounding it only uses it when the **final** result, the result that we must use in the game, is a fraction, **not** when fractions occur in the middle of the calculation.

gnomersy |

@Malachi - Actually your assumption that PF in general doesn't care about using fractional values mid calculation on the basis of Hitpoints is inherently flawed because the chart which informs you how to calculate those average hit points expressly states that you round after multiplication not before which means that would be the case for hitpoints regardless of standard convention which is why using hit points doesn't really prove anything whatsoever.

_Ozy_ |

? What a weird argument.

The 'final result of the calculation' is not the result of the comparison, any more than the 'final result' of the knowledge check DC, or the concentration check for continuous damage is the success or failure of the comparison.

The final result of each calculation is the number on each side of the comparator that you use to determine yes or no. One the one side, you use the result of 'creature HD', on the other side you use the result of 'level / 2'.

Each number is rounded as necessary.

Just like:

3rd level caster trying to cast a 1st level spell taking 3 points of continuing damage needs to make a concentration check:

d20 + level + stat bonus = 10 + 3 + 4 = 17

compared to

15 + damage / 2 + spell level = 15 + 1.5 + 1 = 17

Each number is rounded after the calculation and before the comparison, so the caster succeeds.

Using your method, not rounding before the comparison would use the values 17 and 17.5, and the caster would fail.

Which do you think follows the Pathfinder rules?