This is a general question regarding the accuracy of the PRD vs books.
Occassionally, I see an interpretation of something in the PRD that I cannot find in either the books (current updated version) or in any FAQ. I was wondering what the stance on this is and if the PRD should be considered another 'FAQ'.
An example: the PRD section on How Combat Works has the following to say about movement AOOs and combat reflexes:
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
However, I can find nothing to support this in either the FAQ or in the Core Rulebook. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance.
- Gauss
Edit: To clarify Im not trying to challenge the PRD or the information I quoted. I am just trying to confirm its status.
It's on Page 180 of the 5th printing of the core rulebook.
For differences in general, have you checked the errata for your book also, in case you do not own the latest printing? But basically, the actual book + errata document + FAQ always overrule the PRD for what is most official, especially if you are going to play in the Pathfinder Society.
It doesn't address your question, but that text is found on page 180 of the core rulebook.
Thanks Cheapy. I have the 4th printing but checked the update and didnt find it. Perhaps I missed the information.
Jiggy: I did mean Paizo's PRD and I recognize that its theirs. But there have always been different levels of official with other organizations and I was confirming if the PRD is just as official as thier FAQs.
- Gauss
Edit: and I checked my 4th edition copy just now and lo and behold, I did miss the wording there. BAH.
Alas, the way my memory works is that it uses physical location to better remember where rules are. As a result the PRD is good for looking certain things up but not so good for anything else. - Gauss
The text in the PRD is intended to always reflect the most recent printing of the associated book. If the two disagree, the book is correct, and you should let us know about the discrepacy so that it can be corrected.
the PRD does not list monks as being proficient with the Temple Sword. In the Advanced Players Guide, under the weapon description for the Temple Sword it states that monks are proficient with the Temple Sword. Is this an oversight in the PRD or an overruling on the printed material?
The monk class description in the PRD is the same as that in the Core Rulebook. The description of the Temple Sword is the same as the APG.
Similarly, Core Rulebook spells do not list if they are on a Witch or Magus's spell list.
We want the PRD to match the book text as closely as possible to preserve its use as a reference tool without sparking debates over which source is 'more correct'. Making it anything other than that would require a level of effort and editorial oversight that is frankly unacceptable.
Personally I enjoy having a physical book to read (It is part of my enjoyment of the hobby). That having been said I started roleplaying when things like the PRD or the SRD where not even thought up yet. I love having access to the information from both the Offical PRD and the SRD online because it means I dont need to carry even the CRB with me to plan an adventure for my players.