Round up or round down or round off?

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:11 pm

Hi all-

Is there an official rule on whether one is supposed to round up or down when calculating values dependent on level or HD?

For example, a rogue's BtH is essentially 1/3 his level. At 2nd level, he is +1 to hit. 2/3 = 0.66. This means the value is rounded up. At 4th level, he's still +1 to hit. 4/3 = 1.33. This means the value is rounded down.

So, this suggests that fractions are rounded off.

But a wizard is +1 at 2nd level also, and his BtH increases every 4 levels. This seems to indicate that one should round up. (Unless the wizard's BtH progression is actually meant to be (level+1)/4 ).

Thoughts?

-Fizz

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:16 pm

Yeah... BtH is not a fraction. Its an incremental allotment by level, given in a chart which may, or may not, correlate to a perfect mathematical pattern.

Other instances, say, dividing damage sustained by a successful save, is rounded down.

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:34 pm

serleran wrote:
Yeah... BtH is not a fraction. Its an incremental allotment by level, given in a chart which may, or may not, correlate to a perfect mathematical pattern.

Other instances, say, dividing damage sustained by a successful save, is rounded down.

OK, round down is the general rule then.

I do like formulae- means i don't have to look at a table every time. If we always round down, then the formulae for BtH are:

= level fighter

= level - 1 warrior types

= level / 2 cleric

= ( level + 1 ) / 3 rogue

= ( level + 2 ) / 4 wizard

Thanks!

-Fizz

Metathiax · Post by **Metathiax** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:26 pm

Quote:
Is there an official rule on whether one is supposed to round up or down when calculating values dependent on level or HD?

Actually, there is an official rule about rounding values on p.6 of the PHB (under "Dice").

Quote:
Always drop the fraction unless the rules specify otherwise. [...] Exceptions to this are rare and are noted in the rules. One common exception, for example, is that certain rules have a minimum result of 1.

_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

simontmn · Post by **simontmn** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:41 am

Apart from Fighters, BTH starts at 0, but then goes up +1 every 2, 3 or 4 levels.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:47 pm

Wow. Antonio's post was so head-hurtingly mathematical that it simply ceased to exist....

The promximila hoobimabob-wha?

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:31 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Wow. Antonio's post was so head-hurtingly mathematical that it simply ceased to exist....

The promximila hoobimabob-wha?

Yeah, I deleted it by accident Oh well, it is not such a great loss, The Great Old Ones must have had an hand in it

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:34 pm

Ahhh damnit. I wanted to see the nifty math symbols! Come on, Antonio, give us a proof that 1+1 = 2

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:48 pm

serleran wrote:
Ahhh damnit. I wanted to see the nifty math symbols! Come on, Antonio, give us a proof that 1+1 = 2

Are you sure you want to know it?
Oh well, you asked, so...

1) A "cardinal number" is defined as the common property of all sets which can be put in one-to-one correspondence with a given set.

2) A "natural number" is the cardinal number of a finite set.

3) The "sum" of two natural numbers m and n (denoted by m+n) is the natural number of the set A U B (A union B), A and B being two disjoint sets of cardinality m and n, respectively. It can be shown that the value of m+n does not depend on the particular sets chosen to represent m and n.

That's all

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:46 pm

rabindranath72 wrote:
Are you sure you want to know it?
Oh well, you asked, so...

Pete's very non mathmactical brain just made a sound like Q-bert dying in the video game... *weeeooo weeeoooo weeeeooo... blurt*
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Jason Vey · Post by **Jason Vey** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:49 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
Pete's very non mathmactical brain just made a sound like Q-bert dying in the video game... *weeeooo weeeoooo weeeeooo... blurt*

That's Pac Man. Q-bert made that vaguely profane sounding series of buzzes, accompanied by a speech bubble that said "@!$%#" or something similar.

I only know because I still play Pac Man, Ms. Pac Man, Q-bert, Dig-dug, Popeye, Burger Tyme, and Donkey Kong on a regular basis

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:37 pm

The Grey Elf wrote:
That's Pac Man. Q-bert made that vaguely profane sounding series of buzzes, accompanied by a speech bubble that said "@!$%#" or something similar.

I only know because I still play Pac Man, Ms. Pac Man, Q-bert, Dig-dug, Popeye, Burger Tyme, and Donkey Kong on a regular basis

best games EVER! I still play with them when I have time

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:26 pm

The Grey Elf wrote:
I only know because I still play Pac Man, Ms. Pac Man

Ms. Pac Man is HAWT!

/drool

Orpheus · Post by **Orpheus** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:31 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Ms. Pac Man is HAWT!

/drool

I think that she's now MRS. Pac Man. Thou shalt not covet.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:40 pm

Orpheus wrote:
I think that she's now MRS. Pac Man. Thou shalt not covet.

*Heads off to the local assassin's guild to get an estimate on getting rid of a certain round and yellow husband.*

And with him out of the picture...she'll need someone to console her.

*rubs hands together evilly*

Mwuahahahahahahahaha!

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:44 am

The Grey Elf wrote:
That's Pac Man. Q-bert made that vaguely profane sounding series of buzzes, accompanied by a speech bubble that said "@!$%#" or something similar.

Nah. Pac-man is more of a wakka-wakka-wakka-wakka...

-Fizz

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:11 am

No, that's Fonzie the Bear.

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:48 am

serleran wrote:
No, that's Fonzie the Bear.

Well, Fozzie would stop at three wakkas.

Maybe "wonga-wonga-wonga-wonga" is better for Pac-Man. Be sure to say it through your nose.
-Fizz