Avoron |

Jodokai, you said:

"You are **comparing two numbers**,

**I don't care what you call them**."

Just before that, I said:

"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**."

Good, we agree. Now, since you don't care whether I call it 1/2X or 2.5, we can just compare 1/2X with 2/5X without actually dividing out the variable to find a specific integer.

Ozy:

In the example you just gave, the rules ask you to determine the DC as an individual number. They also ask you to determine your bonus as an individual number. They then ask you to compare them

In the situation at hand, the rules just tell you to compare two numbers that you already have.

The rules don't ask you "what is half of your level, expressed as an integer?"

They ask you to compare half your level to the number of HD.

The latter does not call for the former. You do not need to use division and express numbers as integers in order to simply compare them.

gnomersy |

You know this assumption that just because you're comparing you don't need to follow the associated math baffles me.

I'm not saying you're wrong but if I ask you what is larger 2 or the complex value i you still need to evaluate the values realize that something does not exist in the same sphere of math as the other and then your calculation collapses because you're comparing nonsense to a number.

_Ozy_ |

Ozy:

In the example you just gave, the rules ask you to determine the DC as an individual number. They also ask you to determine your bonus as an individual number. They then ask you to compare themIn the situation at hand, the rules just tell you to compare two numbers that you already have.

The rules don't ask you "what is half of your level, expressed as an integer?"

They ask you to compare half your level to the number of HD.

The latter does not call for the former. You do not need to use division and express numbers as integers in order to simply compare them.

It doesn't 'ask' you to do anything that explicitly, it just assumes that you will follow the general Pathfinder rules. Round down if you have a fraction.

Just like the Simulacrum spell assumes you will follow the general Pathfinder rules. Round down if you have a fraction.

Just like the panache recovery ability assumes you will follow the general Pathfinder rules. Round down if you have a fraction.

'Half your level' has a specific meaning in Pathfinder. It means you take your level, divide by two **and round down** if you have a fraction. How do we know this? Because you do this **every single other time** you are asked for 'half your level' in anything.

The phrase 'individual number' is no where to be found in the rules. Rather, it is your assertion that there is some qualitative difference between these 'individual numbers' and the quantity used to compare in the panache ability. This assertion is supported by nothing. All it does is break with how Pathfinder treats 'half your level' in every single other situation in the rulebooks.

For no good reason.

Jodokai |

Good, we agree. Now, since you don't care whether I call it 1/2X or 2.5, we can just compare 1/2X with 2/5X without actually dividing out the variable to find a specific integer.

Except you are again missing the fact that the slash **means** division. The real question the Ozy has been repeatedly asking, that no one can answer, is: What is the reason you think this is the only instance in all of Pathfinder that works like this? What evidence is there that this one particular part of the rules works this way when nothing else in the entire game does?

Let me clarify that I have no idea what the Devs will say about this (if they say anything), they may agree with you, but even if they do, it doesn't change the fact that this will be the only mechanic in the entire game that works that way.

Kysune |

Has it been mentioned whether you add a 1 to the DC for things such as Domain powers or Channel resistance?

Example: DC for Channel Resistance is 10 + Charisma modifier + 1/2 Cleric level. So is a level 1 Cleric's Channel DC with a +3 Charisma mod a DC 13 or 14?

I'm curious because I've seen some PFS GM's say I should have added a +1 for 1/2 Cleric level when I've played a level 1 Cleric but when reading the description it doesn't say minimum 1.

Malachi Silverclaw |

I'm not saying you're wrong but if I ask you what is larger 2 or the complex value i you still need to evaluate the values realize that something does not exist in the same sphere of math as the other and then your calculation collapses because you're comparing nonsense to a number.

Absolute b++&&**s!

What is the value of Pi? Well...it's *around* 3.14159...but we cannot express the precise value.

According to you, this inability to have a precise figure makes it impossible to say if the integer '3' is smaller or larger than 'Pi'. According to you, if I try, 'then your calculation collapses because you're comparing nonsense to a number'.

The number '3' is less than the value of 'Pi', and we know this for certain *even though we don't know the value of Pi for certain.*

The number '2.5' is not an imaginary number! The value of 'i' is 'root minus one', and that number isn't on the number line. But '2.5' does exist on the number line, and '2.5' is larger than '2'.

This ability doesn't require you to have a creature with 2.5 HD; it asks if a particular creature's number of HD is fewer than 2.5.

The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'. Which don't need to be rounded.

gnomersy |

gnomersy wrote:I'm not saying you're wrong but if I ask you what is larger 2 or the complex value i you still need to evaluate the values realize that something does not exist in the same sphere of math as the other and then your calculation collapses because you're comparing nonsense to a number.Absolute b#@%+%&s!

What is the value of Pi? Well...it's

around3.14159...but we cannot express the precise value.According to you, this inability to have a precise figure makes it impossible to say if the integer '3' is smaller or larger than 'Pi'. According to you, if I try, 'then your calculation collapses because you're comparing nonsense to a number'.

The number '3' is less than the value of 'Pi', and we know this for certain

even though we don't know the value of Pi for certain.The number '2.5' is not an imaginary number! The value of 'i' is 'root minus one', and that number isn't on the number line. But '2.5' does exist on the number line, and '2.5' is larger than '2'.

This ability doesn't require you to have a creature with 2.5 HD; it asks if a particular creature's number of HD is fewer than 2.5.

The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'. Which don't need to be rounded.

Except pi isn't nonsense in normal mathematics it is a value a real value. In pathfinder 2.5 is not real it does not exist nothing in the game functions at 2.5 it is as real as "i" is in normal math, just because it exists on a number line outside of the game doesn't mean that it exists in the game. Why do you assume you're allowed to use .5 when nothing else in the game tells you you can? Am I allowed to take .5 levels because nothing tells me I can't? How about .5 skill points again nothing says I can't? Or how about .5 DC's on saves nothing says I round those before people make their saves?

If you want to ignore the rounding rules go ahead just stop rounding everything else instead and accept that you just wanted to make the game a pain in the ass.

Malachi Silverclaw |

If you want to ignore the rounding rules go ahead just stop rounding everything else instead and accept that you just wanted to make the game a pain in the ass.

There are no rounding rules to ignore in this case, because there is no fractional result involved. The results are 'yes', 'no', 'less than', and 'not less than'.

None of those words need rounding, therefore no rounding rules apply.

It's like asking why someone isn't obeying the laws about requiring a driving license, when they aren't even attempting to interact with a vehicle. I'm not saying the law doesn't exist, I'm saying that this law is not involved in this situation.

gnomersy |

gnomersy wrote:If you want to ignore the rounding rules go ahead just stop rounding everything else instead and accept that you just wanted to make the game a pain in the ass.There are no rounding rules to ignore in this case, because there is no fractional result involved. The results are 'yes', 'no', 'less than', and 'not less than'.

None of those words need rounding, therefore no rounding rules apply.

You do know that less than and greater than are math functions, yes?

X>Y is expressed as X-Y>0 or in this case X/2>Y => X/2 - Y >0 oh but that math is simple so you ignore that you're doing math and use a "yes" "no" system. Yes but you're determining that using math. If using math you need values if you're using fractional values you must round down unless told otherwise sooooo yeah not seeing it.

David knott 242 |

How did this question not come up soon after Ultimate Combat was first published? The issue should have come up as soon as you had a 3rd level Gunslinger kill or score a critical hit against a foe with a single hit die. The lack of earlier debate on this issue suggests to me that there was a commonly accepted way to adjudicate that situation. Does anyone happen to recall what that way was?

I know that my group avoided the question because we did not allow the Gonslinger class -- but with a new campaign starting up and one player intent on playing a Swashbuckler, we may need a ruling as early as March.

NikolaiJuno |

In pathfinder 2.5 is not real it does not exist nothing in the game functions at 2.5 it is as real as "i" is in normal math, just because it exists on a number line outside of the game doesn't mean that it exists in the game.

I just have one question. If 2.5 does not exist in the game then how do you know how to do anything with it, much less round it?

_Ozy_ |

2.5 exists in a temporary sense, 2.5HD does not. We know what to do with the intermediate fractional numbers because Pathfinder tells us to round them down unless specified otherwise.

So, 2.5 is the temporary calculated result of 5 / 2 which then activates the Pathfinder 'round down' action for the integer final result.

Fractions do not exist as the results of calculations, only as intermediate values before rounding.

But then, I'm pretty sure you actually knew all that.

_Ozy_ |

*sigh*

Let's change the wording, just slightly to see how this works.

Instead of using a 'less than' comparison operator, let's use an 'equals' comparison operator.

The swashbuckler gets back panache for critting a creature with HD **equal** to half his level.

What HD creature does a swashbuckler have to crit to get back panache?

According to all of you people, you don't round until **after** the comparison, so according to all of you, the above would say that the swashbuckler must crit a creature with 2.5HD.

Is this correct?

_Ozy_ |

You cannot have a number of HD that is equal to 2.5.

You can have a number of HD that is less than 2.5."2.5 HD" is a completely different concept, one that the question doesn't ask for.

I'm trying to apply consistent reason and logic, therefore I altered the comparison operator implicit in the question to examine the implications of your argument

You guys have insisted that no rounding occurs before the comparison operator is applied, so I'm trying to explore that logic.

What HD would the swashbuckler need to hit if the ability said 'equal to' instead of 'less than'. Seems like a pretty simple question to me.

According to your logic, the swashbuckler would never get panache because he could never crit a creature with 2.5HD. So either your logic is wrong with regard to rounding, or the rules would never use an equality comparator to any fractional value.

But, of course, we know that the rules do this all of the time. From various DC checks, concentration checks, and simulacrum spell, and plenty of other areas where 'level / 2' shows up for comparison.

So that leaves us with the only conclusion that your insistence that fractions do not get rounded before comparison is wrong.

BigDTBone |

_Ozy_ wrote:What HD would the swashbuckler need to hit if the ability said 'equal to' instead of 'less than'. Seems like a pretty simple question to me.An irrelevant one, too.

Not really, the ability to read the rules with consistent logic is a very useful tool for establishing fairness in your game. Exploring variations in possible methods is entirely relevant.

Plus, I thought you had decided that this thread wasn't helping and showed contempt for the participants. Hard to maintain your aloof superiority when you criticize logical examinations which are in opposition to your chosen reading.

_Ozy_ |

_Ozy_ wrote:What HD would the swashbuckler need to hit if the ability said 'equal to' instead of 'less than'. Seems like a pretty simple question to me.An irrelevant one, too.

Gee, how helpful. You're right, trying to use logic to figure out how the rules work is completely irrelevant. *roll eyes*

Either you round before a comparison, or you don't.

On the one hand, we have a simple rule:

round after the completion of each calculation

and on the other hand we have a collection of rules:

round when the resulting number from a calculation has a speicific label 'DC', 'bonus', 'HD', etc... but don't round before a comparison, unless that comparison is an 'is equal to'.

Why on earth would you not just use the simple rule is beyond me.

N N 959 |

"2.5 HD" is a completely different concept, one that the question doesn't ask for.

No it isn't. Ozy is asking what method of operations would you use if the ability said "equal to half the swashbuckler level." When the swashbuckler's level is even, your logic works fine. But when the level is odd, suddenly you have an inoperable method. Ozy's question exposes the gap in logical consistency and why, per the rules, your approach is incorrect.

What you and others are trying to assert is that because in this instance we can actually use the fractional part of the number, we don't discard it. Others of you claim the nature of what you are using it for allows us to retain it. Except....none of those positions is supported by the rules. Not in example nor in letter.

As Ozy has repeatedly asked and no one, not a single one of you has done, is shown where Pathfinder retains a decimal and uses that in a calculation to decide an outcome. The perfect example is an odd modifier STR damage that should result in a decimal. We can certainly argue that if two attackers do 1.5 damage each to a target that has 2 hit point, that .5 means the target has -1 hit points and is dying and should be unconscious. That's as important an outcome as any in the game. Yet Pathfinder does not care what the number is doing or how it is applied, it's rounded down. So arguments about the usefulness of that decimal fall flat on their face.

As I said earlier, this is a depressing thread. The rationalizations employed to avoid the obvious are unfortunate. It's certainly possible that the PDT could tell us we round up. If so, that would be a decision that would be about fairness, not about rules. But ask yourselves, what's the likelihood the PDT will tell us that in this one instance in all of Pathfinder, *we retain the decimal in the comparison*? Ask yourselves, is that good for the game? Is it better for the rules to be consistent (round down unless told to round up) or is there some tremendous game balance issue that absolutely cannot round down or up, and that we must compare the creature against the factional result?

I'd say the probability we round down is about 95%. I'm giving 5% to the likelihood that the PDT wants us to round up. I'm giving 0% chance that we're suppose to actually compare 2 to 2.5.

TriOmegaZero |

TriOmegaZero wrote:Gee, how helpful. You're right, trying to use logic to figure out how the rules work is completely irrelevant. *roll eyes*_Ozy_ wrote:

Good thing that wasn't what I was saying was irrelevant.

_Ozy_ |

_Ozy_ wrote:Good thing that wasn't what I was saying was irrelevant.TriOmegaZero wrote:Gee, how helpful. You're right, trying to use logic to figure out how the rules work is completely irrelevant. *roll eyes*_Ozy_ wrote:

Yes, good thing!

bbangerter |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

*sigh*

Let's change the wording, just slightly to see how this works.

Instead of using a 'less than' comparison operator, let's use an 'equals' comparison operator.

The swashbuckler gets back panache for critting a creature with HD

equalto half his level.What HD creature does a swashbuckler have to crit to get back panache?

According to all of you people, you don't round until

afterthe comparison, so according to all of you, the above would say that the swashbuckler must crit a creature with 2.5HD.Is this correct?

This is a complete altering of the equation. There are zero abilities in game that function on exactly half of something in the type of manner you are giving(1). The opposite of "less than" mathematically, is "greater than or equal to".

1) Yes, there are abilities that give uses per day at half your level, but there are no abilities that compare half your level to something else and expect equality only. They all want less than or greater than half your level(a).

a) There may actually be such an ability, though I'm not aware of any.

From a RAW perspective, I personally think you have somewhat stronger ground to stand on then those arguing against it. But, I can see either interpretation, and believe the RAI is against what you are arguing. I'm curious if you think your stance is also the RAI? The only value in arguing RAW is so you can get to the RAI, then accept that or house rule it differently if you don't like it.

N N 959 |

There are zero abilities in game that function on exactly half of something in the type of manner you are giving(1).

If you are correct, which I think you are, then it is nonsensical for Pathfinder to expect the player to compare anything to 2.5 or 3.5 or 4.5, in this one instance. In fact, Ozy quoted the rules which state that "half of 7 is 3." Yet, we have a small army of people ignore the the rules and the context of how the rules are used, and insist we are supposed to actually compare fractional amounts, despite the the fact that, how did you put it, "there are zerio abilities that function on exactly half of something."

RAI? what leads you to believe that the game authors expects us to compare 2 to 2.5 is RAI when you yourself admit there is no place in the that we'd use a value such as 2.5? If the goal is to make sure that a 3rd swashbuckler does not get panache back from a 1st level creature, then wouldn't they have told us to round up? What in the context of the *rules* makes you think it's RAI that this is the one instance in all of Pathfinder we are supposed to retain the decimal and use it in the comparison? I'm really curious to hear the answer for this.

Jodokai |

I'm curious if you think your stance is also the RAI? The only value in arguing RAW is so you can get to the RAI, then accept that or house rule it differently if you don't like it.

My stance is almost exclusively from RAI. Given the general feel of Pathfinder, it seems like the Devs (I don't know what PDT means) want the heroes to have the advantage. It's been stated that CR = Level - 1 because of this very reason. I get the general impression, that when possible, you err in favor of the players. When I first posted the question, I was thinking 5th level, which is the difference between level 2 and level 3 enemies. At 5th level it's not really much of a difference. Then I considered level 3. When you're 3rd level you'd only get panache back with a level 2 monster. That doesn't seem in favor of the player at all. This is what has me convinced that RAI is to round down. I don't **know** that's the case, but I believe it is.

The fact that the rules completely support that position helps.

TriOmegaZero |

When you're 3rd level you'd only get panache back with a level 2 monster. That doesn't seem in favor of the player at all. This is what has me convinced that RAI is to round down. I don'tknowthat's the case, but I believe it is.

Now that is a compelling point.

Malachi Silverclaw |

Actually, the devs have *already* chosen which way to 'round' in this case, and it says so in the ability itself!

Consider the main problem with the 'greater than/less than' paradigm: parity.

If you want to say that those people over 6-feet tall can be, say, marines, but those under 6-feet cannot, you come up with a problem as soon as a candidate turns up who is exactly 6-feet tall. Is he allowed to be a marine or not? He is neither 'greater than' or 'less than', he is 'equal to'.

So a choice needs to be made! It's either:

• less than = no, greater than OR equal to = yes

OR

• less than OR equal to = no, greater than = yes

As soon as this decision is made, they have effectively chosen to 'round' 6-feet *up* to 'greater than' 6-feet, or *down* to 'less than' 6-feet. They are not saying that they use a different kind of maths to the rest of us, where 6-feet does not equal six feet! They are simply deciding whether to allow a person in or out of the marines!

For Pathfinder, an odd number of levels isn't the problem! This is perfect for ascertaining whether any creature has greater than or less than half the HD of the swashbuckler. The problem actually comes when the swashbuckler has an even number of levels, because this creates the possibility of a creature that has neither more than or less than half the HD of the swashbuckler. The devs have to decide whether 'equal to' should count as 'more than' or 'less than' for this purpose.

As an example, take a swashbuckler with 6 HD: we know that creatures with 2 or fewer HD are 'less than', and we know that creatures with 4 or more HD are 'more than'. But what about a creature with exactly 3 HD? The ability absolutely requires the answer to be one or the other; it must award a point of panache or it doesn't it can't be both and it can't be neither!

So the devs absolutely had to decide to round 'equal to half' either up to 'more than half' and worth a point of panache or round it down to 'less than half' so it doesn't.

For a 6 HD swashbuckler, if they chose one way then a 3 HD target is worth a point of panache, and that would mean that 'equal to half' had been rounded up to 'more than half'. If they had chosen the other way, then a 3 HD target would not be worth a point of panache, and they would have effectively 'rounded' 3HD down to 'less than half'.

Like it or not, the devs have chosen the rounding already, simply by choosing which side 'equal to half' lies: 'more than half' or 'less than half'.

It should be pointed out that a swashbuckler with an odd number of HD poses no problem at all! There can be no target with a number of HD 'equal to half', so no problem!

It should also be mentioned that 'Pathfinder math' does **not** say that half of seven equals three! If that were true, then double three would equal seven! If I have two +3 modifiers, can I get +7 from them?

Of course not! Pathfinder division works in exactly the same way as normal division. What is different is not their division but their rounding, and rounding is a different thing to division.

If PF math results in a non-integer, and that result must be used as a modifier or DC, then because we need an integer then we must round one way or the other. And when we need to round, PF wants us to round down.

But when the result isn't directly needed, no rounding is required. In fact, as a bar to determine if an integer is above or below that bar, then a non-integer is better!

Jodokai |

Actually, the devs havealreadychosen which way to 'round' in this case, and it says so in the ability itself!

That was a long post that is completely wrong. Look at what is written:

has fewer Hit Dice than half the swashbuckler's character level

Is 3 fewer than half of 6? No. You get panache.

It should also be mentioned that 'Pathfinder math' does not say that half of seven equals three!

The rule book actually says **exactly** that word for freakin' word.

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.

Phasics |

Phasics wrote:How is this thread still going ? .....Really? This is the thread that amazes you? Haven't been on the boards long I guess. There are still arguments going on that the devs have already given an answer to. This is mild by comparison to most arguments.

Yeah still pretty new only been here since 2008

Malachi Silverclaw |

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:Quote:has fewer Hit Dice than half the swashbuckler's character levelIs 3 fewer than half of 6? No. You get panache.

Since we agree on this, what point are you making here?

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:It should also be mentioned that 'Pathfinder math' does not say that half of seven equals three!The rule book actually says

exactlythat word for freakin' word.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.

You should have read further. It's not that Pathfinder *division* results in half of seven equalling three! PF still gets 3.5.

It's Pathfinder **rounding** that takes the result of that division (3.5) and rounds it down (to 3). That's why two 3s are still six in PF, not 7.

How can you quote the section called **'Rounding'** and not understand that it's talking about 'rounding'? Not 'division'!

Jodokai |

Okay let's try it this way:

So what rules are you citing as an example that works the way you're saying panache works? Give me **one** example anywhere in the Pathfinder rules that suggests that this is even a possibility. Can you come up with a single example? Or is it just your contention that you think the devs wanted this one example to be the complete opposite of everything else in the entire rule book? They didn't clarify that you should round up (which, again, despite what you're trying to say, you are effectively rounding up) but you think the devs wanted us to just assume that in this specific instance that is the way it should work?

You see you can talk about math all you want, you're not going to convince anyone because **every** example in the rules says it **does not** work that way.

Malachi Silverclaw |

Okay let's try it this way:

So what rules are you citing as an example that works the way you're saying panache works? Give meoneexample anywhere in the Pathfinder rules that suggests that this is even a possibility. Can you come up with a single example? Or is it just your contention that you think the devs wanted this one example to be the complete opposite of everything else in the entire rule book? They didn't clarify that you should round up (which, again, despite what you're trying to say, you are effectively rounding up) but you think the devs wanted us to just assume that in this specific instance that is the way it should work?You see you can talk about math all you want, you're not going to convince anyone because

everyexample in the rules says itdoes notwork that way.

There's nothing wrong with asking the question about other examples: if there were it could be very helpful.

The trouble is, I know of no other place where they use 'half of X' as a measuring bar, above which one thing happens and below which the opposite happens.

But being the first of its kind doesn't make it wrong. It really isn't a difficult thing to ask: 'Is this value less than half of another value?'

Rounding isn't required for the fractional result here. It's actually *better* than an integer result, because there is no decision to be made about where to put 'equal to half'.

There is no doubt that Paizo half rounded up 'equal to half' to the 'greater than half' section, and it's a sound decision. But make no mistake; they could just as easily have ruled the other way and put 'equal to half' in the 'less than half' camp.

Jodokai |

The trouble is, I know of no other place where they use 'half of X' as a measuring bar, above which one thing happens and below which the opposite happens.

Except it's not the only time it happens. It happens everywhere. Look at Stunning Fist. The Save DC is 10 + WIS + half your monk level. A 5th level monk with a 10 WIS would have a 12.5 DC. Using your logic, that is acceptable because you can roll less than 12.5, so there's no need to round at all. If you make your save you're not stunned, if you don't, the opposite happens.

_Ozy_ |

A list of fractional comparisons was given earlier:

continuing damage for making concentration checks: need to beat 10 + SL + 1/2 continuous damage

knowledge checks for monsters below CR 1: need to beat 10 + monster CR

DCs on tons of character abilities are 10 + ability mod + 1/2 class level

And, as stated before, any time you make a comparison between an integer and a fractional number, if you don't round down you are 'de facto' rounding up.

The idea that you don't round before comparing results is preposterous. It happens literally nowhere else in the game rules.

Malachi Silverclaw |

A list of fractional comparisons was given earlier:

continuing damage for making concentration checks: need to beat 10 + SL + 1/2 continuous damage

knowledge checks for monsters below CR 1: need to beat 10 + monster CR

DCs on tons of character abilities are 10 + ability mod + 1/2 class level

And, as stated before, any time you make a comparison between an integer and a fractional number, if you don't round down you are 'de facto' rounding up.

The idea that you don't round before comparing results is preposterous. It happens literally nowhere else in the game rules.

Your examples are misleading. All of these require rounding, because the result of 'half of (whatever)' is used as a modifier or DC, which must be an integer.

But the actual rule in question doesn't require the result of 'half swashbuckler's level' to be an integer. It's not a modifier or a DC, it's not a number that is going to be used in the game. It's just an 'over/under' bar, the result of which will be 'yes' or 'no'.

Pathfinder doesn't have any strange *division* rules, it has a specific *rounding* rule. It goes like this:

'**If** the *result* of a division is a non-integer, AND **if** an integer is required, **then** round down (unless told otherwise).'

This does *not* mean that every non-integer result **must** be rounded! You only round when you need to round.

There is no need to round in this case. A non-integer result is actually better, conceptually, for an 'over/under' bar.

_Ozy_ |

My examples are required to be integers exactly as much as the example in the thread.

For all of those examples, if the result of the roll is less than the calculated value, you fail, otherwise you succeed. These are all over/under situations that you claim are better with fractional results. You can compare against fractional values just as easily as integer values, as you seem to insist. So no, these examples are 100% on point.

However, you are just plain incorrect. Every non-integer result is rounded unless specified otherwise. You've been challenged to find any contrary example to this and consistently failed to do so.

This should tell you something.

Malachi Silverclaw |

My examples are required to be integers exactly as much as the example in the thread.

For all of those examples, if the result of the roll is less than the calculated value, you fail, otherwise you succeed. These are all over/under situations that you claim are better with fractional results. You can compare against fractional values just as easily as integer values, as you seem to insist. So no, these examples are 100% on point.

However, you are just plain incorrect.

Every non-integer result is rounded unless specified otherwise. You've been challenged to find any contrary example to this and consistently failed to do so.This should tell you something.

Where does it say that? It doesn't. It's an assumption you made, totally unsupported by the rules.

Bandw2 |

So, I think this has actually been boiled down to a debate on the SPECIFIC order of operations that pathfinder uses.

you either do <,>,=<,=>, or == before rounding or you don't. just try to answer that question and you're on the right track.

personally I think comparative operators should be the last thing to happen. If you round after the operation is doesn't effectively happen, which I feel necessitates that the general rounding rule applies before an operation is resolved.

of course i suppose you could claim that the rule would try to round a Boolean yes/no, but then rounding would never happen(in other normal operations). meaning it still necessitates it happens before hand, as it can be seen to occur in the rules.

_Ozy_ |

_Ozy_ wrote:Where does it say that? It doesn't. It's an assumption you made, totally unsupported by the rules.My examples are required to be integers exactly as much as the example in the thread.

For all of those examples, if the result of the roll is less than the calculated value, you fail, otherwise you succeed. These are all over/under situations that you claim are better with fractional results. You can compare against fractional values just as easily as integer values, as you seem to insist. So no, these examples are 100% on point.

However, you are just plain incorrect.

Every non-integer result is rounded unless specified otherwise. You've been challenged to find any contrary example to this and consistently failed to do so.This should tell you something.

It says it when it gives the example of when rounding is asked for 'Half of 7 is 3.' This interpretation is supported by the fact that **nowhere else in the rules** do you compare an integer to a fractional value. A point that you have ignored over and over again.

It's not an assumption, it an interpretation of the RAW text supported by the lack of fractional comparisons anywhere else.

Matthew Downie |

As a programmer, I have to deal with integer rounding all the time. I would normally try to minimise the rounding errors. For example, if I was checking if X was greater than or equal to half Y, I would make the comparison by doubling X rather than halving Y - that way, no rounding is needed. That's the normal mathematical way of doing it, but I'm not sure it's the Pathfinder way of doing it.

There's no reason Save DCs need to be in whole numbers - you're just comparing them to another number. But it's established that you do round them down. Saying that 15 (on a saving throw) is greater than or equal to (10 + 5/2 + 3) (a save DC) is just as mathematically inaccurate as saying one is at least half of three, it's just that we don't notice it so much.