21

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 ...


20

Add the tag to questions which are about the ruleset Adding and/or correcting the tags of old questions is useful. The only caveat is to not flood the homepage with such edits. There's no hard rules for what constitutes flooding, but spaced out clusters of half-a-dozen should be safe. But a question mentioning "Path of War" doesn't always make it ...


20

Yes, rename it! But we don’t want the edition-less synonym confusing things. pathfinder should be renamed but without leaving it as a synonym. We should just not have a Pathfinder tag without an edition marker. All that keeping a synonym pathfinder→pathfinder-1e would do is give us a bunch of new 2e questions accidentally tagged 1e as well, which we would ...


19

Yes, we should. To avoid confusion on the part of both question askers and question answerers. The use of edition tags has generally been very helpful for this site.


16

The system is utterly clear and we should add it András has been asking PF2e questions lately, and this question even links to material from that system. This is extremely similar to questions linking to D&D Beyond. The system is undeniably clear and András clearly knows how the site works and just forgot to add the tag (I have done this myself as well ...


15

Per that previously linked question, we do not have an “official” source. Use what you prefer as a question or answer author or editor. Nethys, d20pfsrd, something else. Also, as the links are not broken, you should not go on a pogrom of editing a thousand preexisting questions to change the links. Use new ones going forward.


8

Tags should always be adjusted to suit the question actually asked. When someone tags with both and it's not 100% clear why from the text of the question, we'll comment to ask them to clarify what they were thinking when they added that tag. In general, don't edit the question to reflect the tags until it's clarified whether they are actually part of the ...


6

If an answer is wrong, downvote it. If you have constructive advice for improving it, such as a link to correct information showing how it is wrong, comment with that. If the question lacks a correct answer, write your own. This is how the website works. Don’t edit incorrect answers to correct them; that is not what editing is for. Do not edit answers that ...


6

I'm not an active member of RPG.SE, but in general operations like these are encouraged on Stack Exchange sites, but you should be careful not to flood the homepage with bumped old questions. If you do the retagging at a pace of, say, 4 questions a day, it doesn't cause too much noise and is still finished in a week or so. That also gives you the opportunity ...


6

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 ...


5

Yes, with a caveat: We should use a similar system to how we organize the D&D tags. We would need to rename the existing pathfinder tag to pathfinder-1e, as proposed, but create a new, generic pathfinder tag for questions about the topic of Pathfinder that do not necessarily pertain to a particular edition, exactly how the dungeons-and-dragons tag is ...


4

Use what you prefer in your own answers. Otherwise mind your own business - there is no reason for people to be trying to force each other to use reference sources they prefer. RPG.SE will accept any legal links as support for answers. If you believe something actually incorrect is being used from one of those links, feel free and add a comment or your own ...


4

Generally speaking, playing “3.PF” is extremely common, and initially, at least, Paizo touted “backwards compatibility” as a major feature of Pathfinder – that you could play 3.PF. Now, the backwards compatibility isn’t as complete as it might be (they didn’t simply write new 3.5 feats/classes/spells/etc., they rewrote a number of the base rules and thus ...


1

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


1

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 ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible