Min ST penalties

[Steve Plambeck]

I beg to disagree with Henry. What is called for (in determining the damage penalty) is taking the number of ST points you are short (say 3) dividing it by 2 (resulting in 1.5), and rounding that result down (dropping the .5) resulting in this case for a penalty of 1.

A better way all such rules could be worded is to say "For every 2 whole entire points you are short (or ahead), apply a penalty (or bonus) of 1." Use of the word "round" can be ambiguous depending on sentence structure, but to say "for every 2 whole points" or "for every 3 whole points" is always clear.

[pzmcgwire]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

I beg to disagree with Henry. What is called for (in determining the damage penalty) is taking the number of ST points you are short (say 3) dividing it by 2 (resulting in 1.5), and rounding that result down (dropping the .5) resulting in this case for a penalty of

So a character with 1 ST below the minimum would have no damage penalty then if we round down.

I agree that this rule could have been worded more precisely.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by pzmcgwire

So a character with 1 ST below the minimum would have no damage penalty then if we round down.

That is correct!

[hcobb]

At ITL 107 it is the damage and not the modifier that is rounded down so lacking 1 ST means -1 to the damage the weapon does.

[Bill_in_IN]

I agree with Henry.

Per ITL, the resultant damage is rounded down. The modifier is not rounded down that would result in a little more damage. At least, that's what the logic of the verbiage used indicates.

Now, if one thinks that this is too draconian of an interpretation, GMs can house rule it the direction that Steve stated. I don't think that it would disrupt the balance of the TFT universe provided that it is applied consistently.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

I agree with Henry.

Per ITL, the resultant damage is rounded down. The modifier is not rounded down that would result in a little more damage. At least, that's what the logic of the verbiage used indicates.

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.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

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.

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.

[pzmcgwire]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

Per ITL, the resultant damage is rounded down.

When do you ever round damage down since damage rolls usually results in integer numbers?

The only time damage is halved is when "pulling" blows for non-lethal combat.

I guess I don't understand why that verbiage "(round damage down)" is even there unless it refers to the rounding the lack of ST's damage effect per what Steve said.

[hcobb]

It's 2d minus one half, rounded down. Which is simply 2d-1