I would like to start a thread with proposed edits to the Guide to Society Organized Play. I am sure Mike and team are hard at work making next year's guide and I would like to make a place to offer some suggestions.
I would prefer if this thread stayed away from controversial issues and focused on edits that seem generally agreeable.
To start us off I propose adding shaman to the religion paragraph on page 10, where it states which divine classes do not need to worship deity.
The paragraph would read:
Clerics, inquisitors, paladins, cavaliers of the
order of the star, and samurai of the order of the star must
choose a deity as all classes in Golarion that receive spells
and abilities from a specific divine source receive their
powers from a deity. Druids, oracles, rangers and shamans are
the exception to this rule. The list is not exhaustive, and
divine spellcasters of any future classes whose sources are
added as additional resources will be required to choose
a deity unless otherwise specified. Otherwise, characters
who do not receive powers from a divine source may
choose to be atheists or to have no deity at all.
Justification:
Neither of the shaman's parent classes (oracle and witch) require a deity and the flavor of the class is such that they do not seem to get their powers from one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They already do not require one per the line "unless otherwise specified" and the fact that the book they come from specifies that they don't need one.
There was a pretty long thread on it a few weeks back where no conclusion was found (and yet everyone agreed that Shaman shouldn't need one) so putting an extra two words in the Guide wouldn't be a terrible idea. Remember that Druids, rangers and oracles are also pretty explicit in their class descriptions, yet are listed in the guide.
My idea:
I think we should add the web enhancement's traits to the guide, so that all available traits for Core mode are in one place (and maybe toss in some of the non-campaign traits from the APG that didn't make it in too).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They already do not require one per the line "unless otherwise specified" and the fact that the book they come from specifies that they don't need one.There was a pretty long thread on it a few weeks back where no conclusion was found (and yet everyone agreed that Shaman shouldn't need one) so putting an extra two words in the Guide wouldn't be a terrible idea. Remember that Druids, rangers and oracles are also pretty explicit in their class descriptions, yet are listed in the guide.
My idea:
I think we should add the web enhancement's traits to the guide, so that all available traits for Core mode are in one place (and maybe toss in some of the non-campaign traits from the APG that didn't make it in too).
We certainly want the guide to be as inclusive as possible. However, at some point, it just has to be accepted that some rules are going to be written for future compatibility, and time can't be taken to constantly update every list that's created.
While this is a singular class, and the task doesn't seem that onerous, it does set the precedent that lists will continue to get longer. Instead, I suggest we train our fellow players how to read the future compatibility into some of these rules.
In this case, I know with 100% certainty, that the Shaman does not require a deity. The future compatibility of the rule (which I helped write by the way) is fairly clear. The shaman class itself states otherwise quite clearly.
|
The shaman class itself states otherwise quite clearly.
For those wondering where that is stated, as far as I can tell it's covered here:
Shaman
While some heroes speak to gods or consort with otherworldly muses, shamans commune with the spirits of the world and the energies that exist in every living thing.
It's pretty close to the treatment that Oracles received as far as their deity rules.
Oracle
Although the gods work through many agents, perhaps none is more mysterious than the oracle. These divine vessels are granted power without their choice, selected by providence to wield powers that even they do not fully understand. Unlike a cleric, who draws her magic through devotion to a deity, oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals. Instead of worshiping a single source, oracles tend to venerate all of the gods that share their beliefs. While some see the powers of the oracle as a gift, others view them as a curse, changing the life of the chosen in unforeseen ways.
Druid is a touch more explicit with the possibility of not having a deity in the alignment and spell casting rules.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A druid can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.
So yes, it is explicitly stated that Shamans do not need to worship a deity, so the existing wording of the document does handle this case. Though I think the worship rules are easy to miss because they are only covered in the introductory text. I wonder if there's an eloquent way to point people towards reading that too? It's commonly considered fluff and ignored.
Also, for the sake of improvement, the existing wording of the rule would not cover the case where a new divine caster like the ranger is added. The ranger rules have absolutely no mention of deities, so that might be a source of confusion too.
|
|
Druid is a touch more explicit with the possibility of not having a deity in the alignment and spell casting rules.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A druid can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.So yes, it is explicitly stated that Shamans do not need to worship a deity, so the existing wording of the document does handle this case. Though I think the worship rules are easy to miss because they are only covered in the introductory text. I wonder if there's an eloquent way to point people towards reading that too? It's commonly considered fluff and ignored.
Cleric has the exact same line. The Core Rulebook is written to accommodate the possibility of divine magic without deities in other campaign settings, but Golarion is not other campaign settings. Statements to that effect in the Core Rulebook do not apply.
|
|
Cleric has the exact same line. The Core Rulebook is written to accommodate the possibility of divine magic without deities in other campaign settings, but Golarion is not other campaign settings. Statements to that effect in the Core Rulebook do not apply.
I'm unsure what conclusion I should be drawing from your statement.
If you're getting at that line alone is not what dictates whether a divine caster class can opt to not have a deity in PFS I would agree, it is covered in the Druid class role. I opted to not quote it because it's also kind of a fluff field.
Role: While some druids might keep to the fringe of battle, allowing companions and summoned creatures to fight while they confound foes with the powers of nature, others transform into deadly beasts and savagely wade into combat. Druids worship personifications of elemental forces, natural powers, or nature itself. Typically this means devotion to a nature deity, though druids are just as likely to revere vague spirits, animalistic demigods, or even specific awe-inspiring natural wonders.
I was trying to showcase an actual rule source that discusses the option to not choose a god.
Cleric also says this:
As their powers are influenced by their faith, all clerics must focus their worship upon a divine source. While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)
So the counter argument might be equally moot because it doesn't apply after the PFS rule that is designed to sidestep "GM Discretion."
|
|
Cleric has the exact same line. The Core Rulebook is written to accommodate the possibility of divine magic without deities in other campaign settings, but Golarion is not other campaign settings. Statements to that effect in the Core Rulebook do not apply.I'm unsure what conclusion I should be drawing from your statement.
I thought it was pretty obvious; you can't draw Golarion-specific (and therefore PFS-specific) conclusions about how a class (particularly a divine caster) works in Golarion based on statements in the Pathfinder RPG line, which is written to be generic. The source for which divine casters do and do not have to worship a deity to gain power in PFS is the Guide to Organized Play.
|
|
Well, politely, its not obvious because the logic seems rather counter intuitive given that PFS is supposed to be a RAW campaign based directly off rules in the book. Totally agreed that the cleric ruling goes against what is allowed in the CRB (because CRB says to use GM discretion, and PFS typically avoids those sorts of rules), but then you're saying that not a single conclusion about deity worship can be drawn from the rule books at all.
That seems blatantly incorrect because the GtOP rule in question says to draw from the books to find exceptions outside of what is explicitly stated.
The list is not exhaustive, and
divine spellcasters of any future classes whose sources are
added as additional resources will be required to choose
a deity unless otherwise specified.
I guess I was mostly tripped up though by the assumption that this was a golarion specific rule. I don't think this discussion is about what is allowed in Golarion specific settings, nor about allowances made in home games, but what constitutes "otherwise specified" per the rule in the GtOP for the purposes of PFS:
So I'm still confused about what you're actually getting at. Do you think the rules should be elaborated or modified?
|
|
What I'm getting at is that you cited the Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells section of the druid rules as the reason that druids do not have to worship a deity when clerics have an identically named section with identical wording and yet do have to worship a deity, so that can't actually be the reason. This is bloody obvious.
|
|
What I'm getting at is that you cited the Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells section of the druid rules as the reason that druids do not have to worship a deity when clerics have an identically named section with identical wording and yet do have to worship a deity, so that can't actually be the reason. This is bloody obvious.
You quoted a post where I elaborated my position (admittedly in an edit) to eliminate the exact misunderstanding you are having. But I guess you couldn't be bothered to read beyond the line you quoted.
But all the same, don't talk down to me for losing track of your train of thought.
|
|
What I'm getting at is that you cited the Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells section of the druid rules as the reason that druids do not have to worship a deity when clerics have an identically named section with identical wording and yet do have to worship a deity, so that can't actually be the reason. This is bloody obvious.You quoted a post where I elaborated my position (admittedly in an edit) to eliminate the exact misunderstanding you are having. But I guess you couldn't be bothered to read beyond the line you quoted.
But all the same, don't talk down to me for losing track of your train of thought.
The Pathfinder Society campaign is set in Golarion and uses the rules and base assumptions of that setting, which includes all non-nature based divine casters requiring a deity to draw power from (with the Green Faith available to druids, rangers, and their ilk, and oracles an exception because their power is inflicted on them by an outside source rather than sought - but that source is still deific whether the oracle worships or not). That is the reasoning behind the rule on the subject in the Guide to Organized Play. If you want to know why this is what it is, the Inner Sea World Guide is the book to look to, not the Core Rulebook. That aside, the point is that nothing in the Core Rulebook or Advanced Class Guide directly informs what goes on in Golarion since they are not written as books for that setting. If shamans are to be an exception in the same line as druids for the purposes of PFS, that needs to be spelled out in the Guide to Organized Play - because, as you point out, we try to cut down on table variation and leaving that open will lead to that very thing.
Also, the posts pursuant to my first one were answers to your questioning of my original statement. Things you said later don't affect the answer to that question, since I can't see the future and know what you're going to post. That you afterward changed to citing the Role entry does not change what you were meant to take away from my first post.
|
Hopefully PFS will just ditch that whole thing. It really doesn't add any flavor to anything and is a constant source of confusion.
Simply let players choose what they want and go with it. 99% of the Clerics in the setting, as well as the vat majority of non-Clerics have at least one patron deity. Heck, most Oracles do too. Pathfinders are supposed to be special, so we get Monks that have been self-taught and never stepping in a monastery, and Wizards that have begun to master the art of magi at age 10 and Fighters that just picked up weapons and practiced in the fields when not doing their chores. We are pretty far passed the "must have a patron deity" thing at this point, unless PFS/Golarion is going to start forcing Fighters to choose a "fighting school" and dictate their Bonus Feats.
|
|
Things you said later don't affect the answer to that question, since I can't see the future and know what you're going to post. That you afterward changed to citing the Role entry does not change what you were meant to take away from my first post.
Forgive me, the assumption I had was that if I acknowledged your concern that there would be no reason to belabor the argument and derail the thread. I'm glad that it's resolved now.
If shamans are to be an exception in the same line as druids for the purposes of PFS, that needs to be spelled out in the Guide to Organized Play - because, as you point out, we try to cut down on table variation and leaving that open will lead to that very thing.
Technically speaking, it is explicitly said in the ACG that shamans don't worship Gods, but I do think its easy to miss, and the current rules don't cover cases like Rangers where there are literally no deity rules, or clerics where some of the rules in the book aren't used.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I proposed a change to the slow track / fast track rule a while ago, the discussion unfortunately devolved into arguing about boons, but I still stand by my suggestion:
Proposed change to the slow track / fast track rule
Other than that, the only thing that seems to annoy a lot of people is the differences in language regarding the use of pregens between the scenario use and the use in modules.
Oh and I don't know if I have just missed it in the guide, but a clickable link (in the PFS) to the Pathfinder Society FAQ page would be a nice idea.
And maybe mention the ability to create events/ print PFS numbers, I think the option is not quite as well known as it could be, and forcing players to register at paizo.com at/before their first time playing... is hardly ideal.
EDIT: I started PFS with season 6 and at the beginning some areas (such a applying a higher level chronicle to a level 1 character were quite confusing, but something like this might be an appropriate subject for something like a "You have just finished your first PFS game and received your PFS number, what now ? " handout. Of course ideally your GM should explain it to you, and I do so every time I introduce a new player.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to suggest consolidating and clarifying the rules on when you can use a pregen, what level pregen to use, and at what tiers. As a couple of recent threads have pointed out, there is much table variation over what is meant by an "appropriate level" pregen. Some believe that means you use the pregen that fits closest into the subtier. Others believe you can use any pregen that is legal for the scenario (for example, a level 4 pregen in a tier 1-2).
Also, there continues to be confusion about whether or not you may use a pregen if you have your own character that is legal to play in the scenario. That confusion seems to come as a result of the pregen rules in the section on Modules being different from the rules on pregens for scenarios.
Unless it is intentional that you not be able to run a pregen in a module if you have a legal character of your own, but that you are allowed to do so in a scenario, my suggestion would be to have a single section in the guide on when a pregen is allowed, and to spell out, with examples, what level pregen is legal for what subtier.
Finally, there is also table variation on whether or not the pregens are counted when calculating the APL for a table. This affects whether or not a pregen may be selected to help push a table up or down. A 5 player table [edit: plus a 6th player using a pregen] that would otherwise be at APL 2.4 would play up with a 4th level pregen or down with a 1st level pregen. Some GMs feel it is legal for a table to make that choice, while others feel an otherwise APL 2.4 table may only have a 1st level pregen join.
For reference, here is the most recent (somewhat combative at times) thread on the topic.
Note: I am not requesting any answer over another. I'm just suggesting that a single, consolidated, clear rule might be in order to eliminate the kind of table variation seen in that thread.
|
|
Thoughts on 7.0
1. Include information on the CORE campaign in the next Guide.
2. In Chapter 5, Step 3, maybe clarify what items would require a listing on a chronicle sheet vs being able to be purchased when you reach a certain level of Fame in this section rather than later in the Always available/Item Value sections. (Maybe some of my confusion is a hold over from LG/LFR)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Second suggestion: In the Determining Subtier section, clarify whether the line "In the fringe case where there are no players that are high enough to have reached the subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the group may decide to play down to the lower subtier." applies to all seasons or only seasons 0-3.
Since that line appears after the section on season 0-3 scenarios, many GMs interpret it as not applying to seasons 4-6, while others believe that it applies to all seasons. Put another way, if a 6 player table APL 2.6 in a season 4-6 scenario does not have a 4th or 5th level character in the group, must they still play the 4-5 tier with the 4 player adjustment, or do they have the choice to play 1-2 with no adjustment?
LINK to a relevant discussion.
|
Honestly I'd like to see the fame/purchase limit revisted, or perhaps have items given on a chronicle sheet offered at a discounted (perhaps craft cost?) price. With the exception of reduced charge wands at higher CL, boons or unique named magic items I have yet to receive access to a magical item that I would not be able to but outright by having a high enough fame score by the time I save up enough to but it from the chronicle sheet.
Also it has always bothered me that I risked injury and death to retrieve said items and then turned them over to my faction to then turn around to have them say "pay us full retail if you'd like to keep it"
Just my 2 cents on that topic. I think having the regular magic items at craft cost would make all scenarios more rewarding.
|
|
Third suggestion: Clarify the language around when a rebuild is allowed after a change in rules. The language in the guide can currently be interpreted two ways.
"If a class, prestige class or class feature-dependent ability score is altered" can legitimately be parsed as "if a class is altered" or as "if a class feature-dependent ability score is altered". English is ambiguous that way.
Some read it that if a class changes or if a prestige class changes or if a class feature dependent ability scores changes, while others read it as if an ability score changes on which a class, prestige class, or class feature is dependent.
LINK to a recent discussion around the change to Sound Striker Bards which points out the table variation in how that rule is read. Clarifying the rule would eliminate the need to answer a specific issue like the Sound Striker Bard.
|
|
A clarifying line on whether rolls can or cannot be rerolled more than once on a single dice roll if a player has a t-shirt/folio, as well as a source from their character abilities.
|
|
The wording in the Table Variance is a little restrictive.
- We know in a certain season 0 scenario that 3.5's spiked chains are used, and there's a concensus that GMs are okay to swap them out to an appropriate weapon.
- We know that if a rule isn't clear, players can suggest what their interpretation is, and the GM can make a call on how it will be ruled, and players should respect that ruling in that game (and to ask the GM before the game about any strange rules they know about in advance).
This section is a prime opportunity to compare Pathfinder to Pathfinder Society and put to rest those quibbles that some players and GMs have that Society play is too restrictive and there's things they think they can't do - it's because this section could be made clearer. (example 1) (example 2) (example 3) (example 4)
Use dot points on what is okay, what isn't okay, what should be encouraged, and importantly, how far GMs can go in making exceptions to all of the above.
|
|
An extra line in Determining Subtiers on whether a GM can make a choice as to whether or not to include or exclude the level of pregens at the table for the purposes of determining a subtier if it doesn't work out in the table's favour.
Possibly also (or only?) giving the table to option to play down if everyone wants to do that, even if they're meant to be playing up (but not vice versa) due to unusual circumstances.
|
|
Examples in Creative Solutions that better illustrate when players should still receive rewards, and whether or not a GM should err in the player's favour if they're on the fence.
- when gold should and shouldn't be subtracted
- when prestige should and shouldn't be subtracted
- when items should be crossed off the sheet
This shouldn't be an exclusive list, but more dot point examples will help to understand the spirit of the rule.
An example that's been debated over in the past is whether an item hidden in a pit that requires a Perception check is missed - should that item be crossed off, or should they find the item elsewhere since they solved the encounter that included it where it was intended as reward?
There's something similar about this in step 7 of Filling Out a Chronicle Sheet.
|
|
Under Always Available Items, this line:
Beyond the gear noted above, your character is restricted to purchasing additional items from his accumulated Chronicle sheets, ...
...has regular thrown newbies off-course.
Rephrasing it as another final dot point to the list above it to just say "any item listed on accumulated Chronicle sheets" (is an Always-Available item) is crystal clear.
The final sentence needs to be adjusted after that to explain that they need enough fame for those not-always-available items.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If time runs out in a time-limited slot, such as a convention slot (and assuming the game can't be continued later), do the rules for having to complete at least 3 encounters or else receiving reduced credit still apply, or should the remainder of the game be quickly storyboarded and the players given credit as if they completed the remainder successfully?
I don't think this has ever been covered, and I've seen variation from being as punishing as possible (no primary prestige, no secondary prestige if it was in the missed encounter, subtracted gold from the missed encounters, items crossed off) to being as lenient as possible (full credit, except for a secondary success condition that was clearly no longer achievable).
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd consider relocating (or replicating) the fame, day job, prestige rewards, spell casting, etc charts to a single sheet in the back that could be printed off and kept handy for game days.
Include all the traits needed for Core play as an addendum to the guide, so literally all anyone needs to play Core is the CRB and Guide.
Include a map of the Inner Sea with regions and capitals in the Guide for reference.
|
I'd consider relocating (or replicating) the fame, day job, prestige rewards, spell casting, etc charts to a single sheet in the back that could be printed off and kept handy for game days.
Include all the traits needed for Core play as an addendum to the guide, so literally all anyone needs to play Core is the CRB and Guide.
Include a map of the Inner Sea with regions and capitals in the Guide for reference.
Also include that map of Absolom.
|
|
The language to allow that was added in the current version of the guide, so no need to add that in an update.I'd love it if I were able to apply a GM chronicle to a lvl 1 character, same as with a pregen. I don't like "holding" chronicles for characters and I'd appreciate making the two "credit" systems work the same way just for consistency's sake.
:-)
I would be very pleased to find out that this is true, but looking through the guide again I'm not finding that language. Here's what I see:
Page 6, on pregenerated characters:
If you play a non-1st-level pregenerated character, you apply the credit to your character as soon as she reaches the level of the pregenerated character played … You may also opt instead to apply the Chronicle sheets earned with a non-1st-level pregenerated character to a 1st-level character …
Page 38, on GM rewards:
The subtier for which a GM’s character receives credit depends on the character’s level. If a GM with a 1st-level rogue runs a Tier 1–5 scenario using Subtier 1–2, she takes a Subtier 1–2 Chronicle sheet for her 1st-level rogue. If she instead runs a Tier 1–5 scenario using Subtier 4–5, she still takes a Subtier 1–2 Chronicle sheet, as her PC clearly falls within the lower subtier.
If the GM with a low-level character runs any higher tier scenarios that don’t include a subtier for her 1st-level rogue, she takes the lowest subtier Chronicle sheet from that scenario and holds it for her PC. Then, once her PC achieves the appropriate level for that Chronicle sheet, it is immediately applied. For example, if a GM with a 1st-level rogue runs a Tier 5–9 scenario, she would take a Subtier 5–6 Chronicle sheet (the lowest subtier for that tier) for running the scenario and set it aside. Once her rogue reaches 5th level, she can immediately apply the Chronicle sheet to her character. This means that GMs’ characters can potentially level up in bursts.
The "you may also" that's said of pregenerated characters is not mentioned in the GM section as far as I can find.
If I'm missing something and it is currently allowed to apply GM credit to a 1st level character (with the delayed access to boons and equipment etc. as for pregenerated character credit), that would be great! In which case, I'd change my request to—"please make it more obvious that a GM can do that!" Because I've looked at the guide several times this season about this question and each time came to the conclusion, looking at page 38, that it wasn't allowed by the rules as they stand.
:-)
|
|
From page 38:
A GM may apply credit for running a scenario, module, or Adventure Path in any of the same ways a player can, and must follow the same rules as a player when applying credit to a character.
I can see the argument there, but it's at least not obvious to me that this language licenses applying GM credit down to a level 1.
But we shouldn't derail the thread. I take it my request is worth registering either way the rules currently stand: It would be great if the rules allowed this (I'm under the impression that they don't); if it is allowed by the rules as they stand, it would be great if it were made obvious (so that folks don't get confused as I might have been all season long!).
:-)
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd consider relocating (or replicating) the fame, day job, prestige rewards, spell casting, etc charts to a single sheet in the back that could be printed off and kept handy for game days.
Include all the traits needed for Core play as an addendum to the guide, so literally all anyone needs to play Core is the CRB and Guide.
Include a map of the Inner Sea with regions and capitals in the Guide for reference.
Repeating all the fame, day job etc. tables in a fancy looking page at the end would be a lovely idea.
|
|
They already do not require one per the line "unless otherwise specified" and the fact that the book they come from specifies that they don't need one.There was a pretty long thread on it a few weeks back where no conclusion was found (and yet everyone agreed that Shaman shouldn't need one) so putting an extra two words in the Guide wouldn't be a terrible idea. Remember that Druids, rangers and oracles are also pretty explicit in their class descriptions, yet are listed in the guide.
My idea:
I think we should add the web enhancement's traits to the guide, so that all available traits for Core mode are in one place (and maybe toss in some of the non-campaign traits from the APG that didn't make it in too).
There was a conclusion found. The guy that wrote it said "this is what these words mean." There were just other people that for some reason didn't want to believe him.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a conclusion found. The guy that wrote it said "this is what these words mean." There were just other people that for some reason didn't want to believe him.They already do not require one per the line "unless otherwise specified" and the fact that the book they come from specifies that they don't need one.There was a pretty long thread on it a few weeks back where no conclusion was found (and yet everyone agreed that Shaman shouldn't need one) so putting an extra two words in the Guide wouldn't be a terrible idea. Remember that Druids, rangers and oracles are also pretty explicit in their class descriptions, yet are listed in the guide.
My idea:
I think we should add the web enhancement's traits to the guide, so that all available traits for Core mode are in one place (and maybe toss in some of the non-campaign traits from the APG that didn't make it in too).
Sometimes changing a complicated document, is the preferable option, if it means, that we never have to have certain discussions ever again.
|
|
@Nefreet, Jeff. I'm not going to continue the discussion here—registering the way I've been reading the rules and the (potential) problem is enough for this thread (let's avoid the type of derail seen at the start of the thread). I've flagged a (potential) problem, Mike can decide if he thinks it's worth addressing in Guide 7.0.
So I'm not going to answer your posts here, but I'm happy to continue the discussion of how we should interpret the language of Guide 6.0 in a different setting. Here, it's enough to make the general contention: that the mere fact that we have to have that discussion is a sign enough that the language could be clarified (if the intent is to allow applying credit down; if that's not the intent I think, again, that the rules should allow that).
:-)