Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-27-2024, 04:05 PM   #21
phiwum
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
Default Re: Min ST penalties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck View Post
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.
phiwum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2024, 01:26 PM   #22
Bill_in_IN
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Indiana
Default Re: Min ST penalties

Quote:
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
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.
Bill_in_IN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.