D&D 5E Round Down Quirks

[Sir Brennen]

So, noticed a couple of oddities with the Round Down rule (page 4 of the Basic Rules).

There’s one more general rule you need to know at the outset. Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater.

Fair enough. Helps keeps things consistent.

At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points. The character also regains spent Hit Dice, up to a number of dice equal to half of the character’s total number of them.

So, answer me this: how many spent Hit Dice can a 1st level character regain at the end of a long rest? By the RAW... none. If a 1st level character uses his Hit Dice during a short rest to heal up, he'll never be able to do it again until 2nd level. Feature, or bug? House rule a minimum of one HD regained during a long rest? Or 1st level characters regain their HD every other long rest?

To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails.

So, by the Round Down logic, it's easier for a party of three characters to sneak into a goblin camp than two , because, in both cases, only one character needs to succeed on a group Stealth check. My thought is, for an odd numbered party's group rolls, round required successes up, but if the needed successes are short by one, one (and only one) roll that failed by less than 5 can be counted as a success, allowing the party to squeak by. (I'm also thinking of counting natural 1s and 20s as counting as two failures or successes, respectively.)

Anyone else notice other quirks the Round Down rule introduces?

 

[Emka]

I'd round up in both cases, exactly because of the problems you describe.

half party success was in 4E as well, and I always rounded up when counting heads then. works great.

 

[Iry]

So, answer me this: how many spent Hit Dice can a 1st level character regain at the end of a long rest? By the RAW... none. If a 1st level character uses his Hit Dice during a short rest to heal up, he'll never be able to do it again until 2nd level. Feature, or bug? House rule a minimum of one HD regained during a long rest? Or 1st level characters regain their HD every other long rest?

Seems like a glitch. Good catch!

So, by the Round Down logic, it's easier for a party of three characters to sneak into a goblin camp than two , because, in both cases, only one character needs to succeed on a group Stealth check. My thought is, for an odd numbered party's group rolls, round required successes up, but if the needed successes are short by one, one (and only one) roll that failed by less than 5 can be counted as a success, allowing the party to squeak by. (I'm also thinking of counting natural 1s and 20s as counting as two failures or successes, respectively.)

Specific trumps general, so no issue here.

 

[evilbob]

I noticed the same thing. First thing I thought was: well, this means that you have to wait until you hit level 2 to get any healing surges back... The "group check" thing was a good catch, too.

It seems like something that will eventually be clarified, but in the meantime I think it's safe to round up in those two situations.

 

[Umbran]

I think getting Hit Dice back isn't so much a "round up" as a "minimum 1" error.

As for the other - I think the "at least" actually covers the issue, so that three people would need two successes, not one.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I think getting Hit Dice back isn't so much a "round up" as a "minimum 1" error.

This is what Mearls indicated on twitter.

@nperkins they get it back - believe it should be minimum 1 with long rest

Thaumaturge.

 

[evilbob]

This is what Mearls indicated on twitter.

Thank you for that clarification! That also seems a bit more consistent, I agree.

 

[Olfan]

I think getting Hit Dice back isn't so much a "round up" as a "minimum 1" error.

As for the other - I think the "at least" actually covers the issue, so that three people would need two successes, not one.

I agree on both. Minimum 1 isn't stated anywhere explicitly but it's assumed in most things in previous editions. Probably just an oversight. Also the "at least" covers it because one is not at least half, but two is.