What is the most official, the most up to date, the most accurate?

[Ravingdork]

The books, the PDFs, the PRD, or the PFSRD? Surely one stands above the rest.

[Tempestorm]

It is a 3rd party asset.

So, by default it is not the "most official". That would be reserved for the official published material.

Nor can it be the most up to date as they cannot update it until Paizo releases something... hence it will always come after the fact.

Most accurate? This MIGHT be feasible as I beleive they tend to update their site with most of the FAQ/Errata material that won't be in the published products until a new printing is done.

[Ravingdork]

Which one(s) are you talking about Tempestorm?

[Tempestorm]

Oh, my apologies. It seems I had edited my post a bit as I was writting it and removed a bit of clarity.

I was refering to the PFSRD.

[Claxon]

The most official and up to date would be the PRD with all the accompanying FAQs...too bad the FAQ's aren't linked to in the PRD.

[Ravingdork]

I heard a claim that the PDFs were the most up to date source, and was shown evidence to that effect in the form of corrosive bolt from Ultimate Magic's words of power section. In the PRD its duration is listed as 1 round/level, whereas in the PDFs it is listed as 2 rounds. A revelation that surprised me as I thought the PRD was coded in such a way as to get its information directly from the PDF files in the Paizo database (thus changing ANYTHING in the PDFs would mirror the changes in the PRD). Was I misinformed? I recall that it was one of the developers who told me that.

Does anyone know of any other examples that might help to support or refute the claim that the PDFs are the most up to date?

[Claxon]

I hadn't heard of any such thing, though it does seem possible. I would be innterested in knowing what the "best" source is for greatest accuracy.

[Tempestorm]

I just go with whatever is printed in the book I have. I don't scrounge for FAQ's (though I do learn about a few of them in discussions that I vew here on the boards) nor do I rush off to print page after page of Errata and shove into my books or download new versions of the PDF's to make sure they are up to date.

Whats printed in them works just fine for me. I paid good money for them as they were published. I find it irksome to either print errata pages and then have to reference them or to buy a new edition of the book I already have.

For example, my paladins in my games still add double damage from smite to evil outsiders, undead, and dragons because that is how it is printed in my book. My son's copy, however, has the new line that says, "only on the first successful attack" or something like that.

I find it counter intuitive and annoying for changes like that because it breeds confusion. One person references a rule out of their book and someone else references the same (but different!) rule from their book. Now the group has to decide how to move forward. Do we use the original writing? The new? Why did they change it? Do we agree with the change?

If I am running I simply make a decision and we move on. If I am a player, however, I have to now rely on the person behind the screen to do the same... make a ruling and move one. Else it digresses into a debate. I hate digressing into debates while playing.

Hell, it's bad enough that I still remember rules from older editions and try to inject them into the game without realizing it. How many times are you playing and go, "Crap, that was 2nd/3rd/3.5 edition... it doesn't work that way in Pathfinder!" I do it often... but then I go, "Oh well." make a ruling and move on. Errata just breeds the same sort of confusion, "Oh, it doesn't work like that anymore. They changed it." I can't be bothered with such unfun notions.

So, unless Paizo starts sending me a new hard cover edition everytime they do an update (and no, I am not asking them to) then I will continue to use the copy I have with the fine words printed there in.

For others, I understand, this is not the case and they WILL research every bit of Errata and ensure that they are using the most up to date information to play. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. Just not my cup of tea.

I know this is off topic from your question about which is the most accurate and up to date RD, but I found this soapbox just laying here and thought it would be a nice place to stand. Next thing I knew I was rambling on and on and on and on.... ;)

[Jiggy]

The "most official" is the books (with eratta) and PDFs, as that's the primary source material. It doesn't come from somewhere else, it simply is. Thus, you can't get any more official than that. Aside from modifications in the FAQ, if something disagrees with the books/PDFs, then that something is wrong, because the books/PDFs literally define what the rule actually is.

The PRD is almost as official, since it's maintained by Paizo and takes its text from the PDFs. However, it's still a source based on another source, and can therefore have (rare) transcription errors.

The SRD is very thorough, since it contains more than just OGL. However, there are issues: for one, they can't use setting-specific names, so they have to change some things. (The "dervish of dawn" is not a Paizo archetype, but the "dawnflower dervish" is.) They also typically include FAQs and messageboard clarifications right there next to the text, which is convenient. However, they also have a bad habit of writing their own material and citing it as being from Paizo.
For instance, there was some feat or item or something I encountered once where they took a sentence of its description, pulled out one adjective from the sentence, wrote a new sentence around that adjective, and italicized the sentence they wrote (to make it "flavor text") while separating it from what was left of the sentence Paizo actually published. They cited the entire thing (the remainder of Paizo's sentence, and their own creation) as being published by Paizo.
Even worse, on a different occasion they actually had an entire paragraph on how combat maneuvers work that never appears in a Paizo product but was cited as being Core rules. When I pointed this out to some people, they thought I was crazy (didn't actually check their CRBs or the PRD to see if the text was there, they just trusted that the SRD was faithfully representing Pathfinder rules - which it wasn't).

In short, the SRD is a great resource most of the time, but sometimes they just straight-up lie, so you can't really rely on them if you really need to know for sure what the rules are.

[Ravingdork]

I NEVER rely on the SRD for exactly those reasons unless I have to for lack of access to the source material.

[Chris Lambertz]

Ravingdork wrote:

A revelation that surprised me as I thought the PRD was coded in such a way as to get its information directly from the PDF files in the Paizo database (thus changing ANYTHING in the PDFs would mirror the changes in the PRD). Was I misinformed? I recall that it was one of the developers who told me that.

This is not the case. If you notice any discrepancies, please let us know in this thread.

[N. Jolly]

So you guys aren't counting the Archives of Nethys in here? While doing my Alchemist guide, I found them to be a rather useful source of information. Also the fact that they list what is PFS legal is pretty nice too (not really a concern for me, but still), and they use the actual names. I'll admit I like the SRD's organization better, but it seems like the AON have a very good handle on information, and very quickly add things...although I don't know if either they or the SRD has mythic rules up yet...

[Ravingdork]

Sorry, the Arhives of Nethys skipped my mind.

I don't visit them often, so I can't really comment on their quality, but I do have their site bookmarked for reference purposes. I also love their creative site design.

[CWheezy]

pfsrd is the most up to date for me, they even link to developer posts when errata comes out, and to specific faqs for spells and whatnot.

[Ravingdork]

Convenience does not necessarily mean correct, CWheezy.

[Kthulhu]

Most official would be the most recent printing of the book, or the updated PDF. Most up to date would be between the updated PDF and the PRD (same info, but the PDF of a brand-new book usually exists for at least a couple of weeks before the information is added to the PRD).

[Ravingdork]

And I think that answers my question to my satisfaction.

[d20pfsrd.com]

@CWheezy: Thanks for noticing.

@Jiggy: "Straight up Lie" You never quit do you? I'd really love to meet you face-to-face sometime so we could discuss this in more detail.

@RavingDork: If d20pfsrd.com is not good enough for you why even include it in your list?

@All: There seem to have been some posts edited or deleted since I read this thread earlier today via phone. I had meant to respond thanking someone for the positive comments but now can't find them so whomever said whatever nice stuff it was, thanks.

[Ravingdork]

As far as I know, no posts have been deleted.

I never said it wasn't good enough. I'm just wary of it for the reasons Jiggy mentioned. It's not just your site either, I tend to avoid non-official sources for the very reason that they are non-official. Don't feel like you're site is being specifically targeted. It does provide a valubale resource, and even I find myself using it from time to time (though only sparingly).

And I HAVE seen evidence of some of the things Jiggy mentioned.

[ZanThrax]

It'd be nice if the official PRD was up to date with all errata, but it isn't. The d20pfsrd can be really handy when they reference FAQs and message board postings that haven't (and sometimes won't) make it into actual errata, but is cluttered with layout-breaking ads and 3rd party content. Checking the physical book or the current .pdf is inconvenient. Unfortunately, I think it's necessary to check at least two when possible.

[Karui Kage]

N. Jolly wrote:

So you guys aren't counting the Archives of Nethys in here? While doing my Alchemist guide, I found them to be a rather useful source of information. Also the fact that they list what is PFS legal is pretty nice too (not really a concern for me, but still), and they use the actual names. I'll admit I like the SRD's organization better, but it seems like the AON have a very good handle on information, and very quickly add things...although I don't know if either they or the SRD has mythic rules up yet...

Everything else from this month has been added to the Archives, but no, I haven't gotten around to the Mythic rules yet. Work has been keeping me a bit busier than usual, and due to the new rules I need to add a few different tables/sections to the site. A bit more time consuming than just some new feats or items.

I am working on it though. Thanks for plugging the site! :) It's just me that works on it, and I do try to keep it up to date and accurate.

[Jiggy]

d20pfsrd.com wrote:

@Jiggy: "Straight up Lie" You never quit do you? I'd really love to meet you face-to-face sometime so we could discuss this in more detail.

First, let it be known that I don't blame the SRD as a whole or its leadership. I imagine there are one or more volunteers who aren't doing "due diligence" in faithfully representing published material as-printed instead of as-interpreted-by-them (probably innocently thinking they're being helpful in clarifying rather than unhelpful by misrepresenting), and the differences simply aren't caught (understandable given the volume!). I don't think d20pfsrd.com is bad; in fact, it's a super-handy resource. It's just that if you need to interpret something carefully and the wording matters, you can't rely on its text being an accurate representation of what's published. For issues not requiring that level of precision, however, it's fantastic. I even use it myself, just not for "rulesy" stuff. :)

Second, regarding the the term "lie", my word choice was perhaps a bit harsh, and for that I apologize. Even so, when someone writes something themselves and attributes it to Paizo, it is indeed a falsehood.

Third, if you mean what you said about further discussion, feel free to PM me.

[Matt Thomason]

Going to have to go with the latest edition of the printed rulebook, and therefore also the PDF of it, due to the fact you can't really get any more official than the actual rulebook. Obviously also counting any official errata in here too.

However, if being official doesn't matter, then the online references are certainly more convenient.

Personally I tend towards using the books and PDFs, although I may use an online reference to find out if something exists in order that I know whether it's worth searching the books for the official version.

[Marc Radle]

I would always go with the most recent edition of the actual books. For an online rules resource I always rely on Paizo's official PRD. The various non official sites might be handy on occassion but the chance for non official or otherwise inaccurate info to sneak in here and there just makes them not as valuable to me personally.