11
\$\begingroup\$

For answers to Pathfinder questions is either a more preferred source for citations and references?

Is either of them treated with more authority by members of this stack exchange site?

Links the the websites in question:
http://paizo.com/prd/
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

\$\endgroup\$
21
\$\begingroup\$

No, use either.

I personally prefer d20pfsrd for everyday use because it's organized better and includes FAQs and relevant dev threads and stuff, but that's not an official declaration.

PRD

  • It's dumped there by Paizo, so it's "official" (given that they don't really spend a lot of money on editing it for obvious reasons). People report errors in the PRD on the Paizo forums with some regularity, being put out by Paizo doesn't make it perfect.
  • It's organized by book.
  • It only includes content from Paizo hardbacks.
  • It has Paizo IP stripped out.

d20PFSRD

  • It's maintained by the community.
  • It's organized by content - for example, under "Cleric" are all the clerical templates and powers and stuff, which is much more useful for most real play scenarios.
  • It contains content from all Paizo books including softcovers, and some third party publishers as well.
  • FAQ items, dev threads, etc. are linked in context so you can get more/better information around a confusing/contentious topic.
  • It has Paizo IP stripped out, but often links over to http://www.pathfindercommunity.net/ for definitions and also embeds the real terms in their search (so you can search on "Champion of Irori" and up comes the bowdlerized "Champion of the Enlightened").
  • It has started using excessive ads and weird popups that cause performance and loading problems. 13 banner ads on the home page? Come on guy, ask for donations or something, that's ridiculous.

See also Is there any objective reason to favour d20PFSRD over the Paizo PRD? on the main site.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'd agree with "Use either", but only so long as the poster doesn't attempt to cite d20pfsrd as the official source. It's a great site, and I use it all the time myself, but it's very easy to accidentally link to something third-party without realizing it, and anything that's Golarian specific gets renamed - False priest instead of the official Razmiran priest, for instance. \$\endgroup\$ – Bobson Jan 28 '14 at 0:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Bobson it's that way in Paizo's SRD too, because of OGL limitations. d20pfsrd is as correct as the prd, and usually has more and more up to date content. It has all the Player's Companion and Campaign Setting stuff, for example, while the PRD doesn't. IMO d20pfsrd is way better. It has some errors but they get corrected; the PRD is usually a one-time dump. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Jan 28 '14 at 1:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ So very much agreed about the performance issues on PFSRD. Not all of them are because of the (very much) excessive ads, though. It's a good site in terms of content and organization, but its coding and design are very poor, which is a part of the problem that you're seeing. Then a ton of ads were put on top. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 19 '14 at 18:24
6
\$\begingroup\$

The Paizo site is more accurate, but d20PFSRD is easier to navigate and search.

For example, there's this word salad on d20PFSRD:

An alchemist can create three special types of magical items—extracts, bombs, and mutagens are transformative elixirs that the alchemist drinks to enhance his physical abilities—both of these are detailed in their own sections below.

Cross-referencing with Paizo's site, this is how the same paragraph reads there:

An alchemist can create three special types of magical items—extracts, bombs, and mutagens. Bombs are explosive splash weapons, and mutagens are transformative elixirs that the alchemist drinks to enhance his physical abilities—both of these are detailed in their own sections below.

Yes, it looks like a case of the d20PFSRD transcriber omitting a line, but that line's still missing, and that missing line hampers understanding. Thus if it's important go with Paizo for accuracy.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Or just double-check that d20PFSRD matches Paizo’s text. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jan 23 '14 at 14:31
1
\$\begingroup\$

Personally I'd say go with the PRD as the definitive source, due to the fact both sites are constantly in flux. There is no guarantee that either will say tomorrow what they say at the time you link them, and the publishers of the game obviously take precedence in the event of any differences or revisions. There's also the more academic correctness of citing a primary source when you have one available as opposed to the secondary ("citing something that's citing something else") - and I mean that purely in terms of the academic terminology referring to sources and in no way as a slight to d20pfsrd.

I use both for everyday use, but I use d20pfsrd more as a useful tool to locate what I'm looking for, then switch to the PRD to get the official text and to provide links.

In the event of d20pfsrd actually providing a more detailed answer to a question, I'd be tempted to actually cite both. That way you have a link to what you're referencing to back up your answer plus a link to the official version for reference by future readers.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

Of course, the PFSRD often has the errata'd version, while PRD has the original, such as the case for Double Barreled guns.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .