07-27-2024, 04:05 PM | #21 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Min ST penalties
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
08-03-2024, 01:26 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Indiana
|
Re: Min ST penalties
Quote:
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|