Determining Bonus From GMW, MV
- Thread starter moritheil
- Start date
<mathgeek>
Rounding down and rounding up refer *only* to what happens at X.5.
In other words. If you are 'rounding up', 4.3 becomes 4, 4.5 becomes 5, 4.7 becomes 5
If you are 'rounding down', 4.3 becomes 4, 4.5 becomes 4, 4.7 becomes 5.
If you want 4.9 to become 4, that is not rounding down, that is truncating.
</mathgeek>
On topic, it says 'for every 4 levels" , so you count how many "4 levels" you have. IOW, he is wrong, everyone else here is right
Rounding down and rounding up refer *only* to what happens at X.5.
In other words. If you are 'rounding up', 4.3 becomes 4, 4.5 becomes 5, 4.7 becomes 5
If you are 'rounding down', 4.3 becomes 4, 4.5 becomes 4, 4.7 becomes 5.
If you want 4.9 to become 4, that is not rounding down, that is truncating.
</mathgeek>
On topic, it says 'for every 4 levels" , so you count how many "4 levels" you have. IOW, he is wrong, everyone else here is right
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
pawsplay said:A cleric with Mage Slayer would generate a +0 GMW.
I think a cleric with Mage Slayer would be unable to cast a 3rd level spell unless his modified caster level was at least 5.
The example in the PHB states that a wizard cannot cast a 3rd level spell at a CL lower than 5; we can infer, then, that the minimum caster level is the level at which the Spells Per Day for spells of that level stops being --.
A 6th level cleric with Mage Slayer has a caster level of 2; he is incapable, therefore, of casting the 2nd or 3rd level spells he prepares.
-Hyp.
Dross
Explorer
Coredump said:
By the rules, you round down EVERYTHING, as opposed to what happens normally mathematically. (and "No, I do not have the source of this quote"
)If I was a cruel person I'd say that they used "round down" instead of "truncate" because more people would understand what they meant. :\
Nonlethal Force
First Post
Heh. That's funny. I've taught Math for a number of years now and I define rounding down as truncating. Theyare the same thing. Rounding up means increasing the integer portion of the number 1 number larger.
Thus, making 4.3 a 4 is both rounding down and truncating. If I may be a math geek for a second, I would say that making 4.3 a 4 and a 4.7 a 5 is called "rounding" in general, following the typical rules for rounding. But if you make a 4.3 a 4 or a 4.7 a 4 you are rounding down (or truncating) in both cases. You are not rounding in both cases, however!
Anyway ... Dross I think is correcting. The average person who lacks higher education degees in mathematics education is going to read rounding down as "getting rid of the part that doesn't divide evenly. And that's really all the further we need to go!
Thus, making 4.3 a 4 is both rounding down and truncating. If I may be a math geek for a second, I would say that making 4.3 a 4 and a 4.7 a 5 is called "rounding" in general, following the typical rules for rounding. But if you make a 4.3 a 4 or a 4.7 a 4 you are rounding down (or truncating) in both cases. You are not rounding in both cases, however!
Dross said:By the rules, you round down EVERYTHING, as opposed to what happens normally mathematically. (and "No, I do not have the source of this quote"
If I was a cruel person I'd say that they used "round down" instead of "truncate" because more people would understand what they meant. :\
Anyway ... Dross I think is correcting. The average person who lacks higher education degees in mathematics education is going to read rounding down as "getting rid of the part that doesn't divide evenly. And that's really all the further we need to go!
Nonlethal Force said:
Well, almost.
Coredump said:
One does not get to become a math geek, just by putting the <mathgeek> tags around his text.
I do not know what type of rounding you are talking about. There is "round to even" method that sometimes rounds 0.5 up and sometimes down, but I have never heard of rounding down meaning 0.5 goes down and 0.51 goes up. The method you are suggesting has the same statistical problems of normal rounding (i.e. 0.5 is just as close to 0 as 1, so it skews data upwards to move it up all of the time), only it would have it in the opposite direction (i.e it skews data downwards to move it down all of the time).
Rounding means 0.5 goes to 1, 0.4 goes to 0.
Rounding up means the same thing as rounding and rounding down means the same thing as rounding. The phrase rounding up is only used in statistics when discussing 0.5 to 1 type of cases. You rounded up. If talking about 0.4 for rounding, you rounded down.
Rounding down does not mean truncating. Truncating means truncating. However, this is common usage by many people. Many people think that rounding down means truncating. It does not. It means rounding down (i.e. 0.4 goes to 0) and is a phrase associated with what happens to 0.4 when you round it (i.e. it rounds down).
The "rounding down means truncating" idea will probably (if it has not already) find its way into elementary math textbooks because it is common usage. Even the PHB uses the common usage rounded down terminology. However, it is not correct usage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding
Nonlethal Force
First Post
Nail said:
Hey, now there's an interesting example in real life! ... Not that this thread has totally been diverted on account of the OP's question being answered or anything.
