Steve Jackson Games Forums - Min ST penalties

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)

- The Fantasy Trip (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=100)

- - Min ST penalties (https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=198753)

Re: Min ST penalties

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck (Post 2533038)

I still have to disagree Bill, because the damage assigned is always 1, 2, 3, etc. -- it's what you're determining (determining last). You can't round down a whole number!

It's the modifier (ST amount you are short divided by 2) that can result in a fraction whenever the ST difference is an odd number.

The text isn't too clear.

Quote:

If your ST is less than that required for the weapon you are using, your DX is -1 for each ST point you lack, and the damage done is -1 for each 2 ST (round damage down) that you lack.

You're right that it says -1 for every 2 ST, which suggests that if you're under-strength by 1, then there is no penalty for the damage.

Bill is reading it as dividing (minST - actualST) by 2 as the penalty, subtracting and rounding down, so being under-strength by 1 results in a 1 penalty to damage. That's how I read it initially, because I focused on the parenthetical rounding down text, which is irrelevant on your reading.

But I guess I can't see a reason to choose one interpretation over the other.

Re: Min ST penalties

Quote:

Originally Posted by phiwum (Post 2533379)

The text isn't too clear.

You're right that it says -1 for every 2 ST, which suggests that if you're under-strength by 1, then there is no penalty for the damage.

Bill is reading it as dividing (minST - actualST) by 2 as the penalty, subtracting and rounding down, so being under-strength by 1 results in a 1 penalty to damage. That's how I read it initially, because I focused on the parenthetical rounding down text, which is irrelevant on your reading.

But I guess I can't see a reason to choose one interpretation over the other.

You guessed correctly about my interpretation. I was focusing on the language in the parentheses. I concur with your assessment that the wording isn't clear. Or, as mathematically clear as it needs to be. The proper way to result in my interpretation would be to state it as, 'The final damage result should be truncated to the nearest integer.' Thus it forces the final result to round down or chop off any fractional value.

That's why I didn't have a problem with Steve's interpretation either as long as it consistently applied. In most cases, we are quibbling over one point of damage. In my normal writings, my audience demands more exact mathematical language.