Talk:Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Link to XP
Sorry, I've again deleted the link to the "pfconv - Web Interface." Wikipedia is not a link repository. We strive to keep external link lists brief and to the point; limiting ourselves to specific resources about the topic that we can't incorporate directly into the article. There are the general guidelines for external links, showing what we're looking for. If we start linking to random fan tools, Dungeons & Dragons would have been glutted with hundreds of links years ago! — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. This explanation for deleting the link is, while less specific, better justified than the previous explanation. - Apotheon (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No Longer a Stub
I don't think that this article can still be considered a stub, and so I have removed the stub tag.Drilnoth (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Potential references
Here's a few non-Paizo sources you could potentially incorporate: Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC) — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Unclear content
The content of this article assumes knowledge that the reader may not possess. I think it should be rewritten to explain the information to a person who is unfamiliar with D&D. For example, what does 'feat' mean in this context? It is not explained or even wiki-linked.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree completely! Any ideas? Maybe some helpful links to Dungeons & Dragons game mechanics? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unclear content thing removed, it's assumed that people know what it is when they come to this page. Thanks. Xaniseth (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it so assumed? This game is its own complete game, not a D&D supplement. More importantly, this is a general-interest encyclopedia, not the D&D wiki. Not everyone who comes to this article is an experienced gamer who knows what feats are. It's rather asininedly insiderish, frankly, to make any such assumption. This article, by taking that tone, essentially says this game has no independent existence and is for veteran players only, when it's intended to be played by anyone. Therefore, this article fails miserably at being complete. oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2nd sentence specifically states that Pathfinder extends and modifies the 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons, linking to the D&D page. I'm of the opinion that this sentence establishes that further reading assumes and understanding of what "3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons" is. If not, it is assumed a reader will click the link and read about D&D first. Redwullf (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Added?
Classes that get a creature cohort (such as a familiar or animal companion) can choose something else instead; for example druids can choose a nature-themed cleric domain, and wizards can have a focus object that allows them to cast a spell spontaneously. How can something that already exists be "Added"? felinoel (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Droid?
I see reference to droids in the article, is that a typo for druids?

Also, what is a White Knight? Jokem (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like someone was just playing around, so I reverted that. BOZ (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed a huge amount of badly sourced stuff.
I removed a huge amount of stuff that, to me, seemed like extraneous details. Having a list of several of the expansion books seems really problematic, since there are now dozens and dozens of books, and there's no good encyclopedic reason to list all of them. The core rule book and the Bestiary are actually important to playing the game, including the rest of those books is just confusing as hell. If they are really vital to understanding the game, they should be accompanied by secondary sources. The section on the comparison between Pathfinder and D&D3.5 is likewise way, way too detailed. It's incomprehensible to anybody who is not already involved in gaming, and the whole thing was only supported by one primary source anyway. There is a gaming press, and they do write reviews. I found a few articles, but more reliable sources would be very welcome. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could have a list page of PF products? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Without reliable sourcing for the main article spinning off additional unsourced content is problematical at best. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a list article could work (see List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks), but as TRPoD points out, sourcing is going to be difficult. Part of the problem is that D&D has had a much longer time to develop cultural weight, and has had much more written about it. There are plenty of good sources about Pathfinder, and even more about D&D, but for some reason, relatively few of them seem to filter into their Wikipedia articles. The D&D articles are largely a disaster area, one that is far beyond my time/patience limit, but with care and editorial restraint, I think we can grow this topic in a much more positive way. I would suggest that at a bare minimum, any Pathfinder list articles should have solid secondary sources behind them. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources for sales figures.
I rephrased the section on sales figures. As it had been, it was saying that Pathfinder sold better than D&D for 2011-2013, but the sources didn't technically support that. The sources listed different quarters, not years. Q1 of 2011 still seems to have been in D&D's favor, as an example of a problem area, so I'm going to look for something more comprehensive. I think the statement was probably correct, but it needs a little more work to get it up to snuff. Grayfell (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

D&D vs Pathfinder
Damn hard finding commentary on this - I found this but almost unusable as it is not clear what "outstrips the official D&D brand" is supposed to mean.....surely there must be some reliably-sourced discussion/news on this somewhere??? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that just a reference to the PFRPG outselling D&D? 76.232.28.105 (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I couldn't be sure that was the intent of the writer. Not such a problem now as I have found some other material thankfully. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary source tag
I have removed primary tag as the article now only has 2 refs to primary sources (out of 14 total), both to very basic descriptors. One could be replaced (I will look) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cas! I have a good source for PF info (Designers & Dragons), but no time to work with it right now.  BOZ (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling....there's loads I should be doing now :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Separate Pathfinder from D&D 3.5
As of current, Pathfinder is a full RPG system with a considerable prominence and a number of its own (first-party and third-party) supplements independent of the D&D 3.5 system it is based upon. As such, I don't think it's a good idea to keep it as an unreferenced sub-topic of "Dungeons and Dragons" just due to compatibility. Instead, like Dungeons and Dragons, it should get its own category, with each publication of note occupying its own page.

I'm going to make the edits sometime this week; just checking with everyone else beforehand to see if there are any concerns with this.

Remorseless Angel (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is good to keep some early comparisons to 3.5 (since that was how it came about, after all), but otherwise I agree that it is now a fully distinct game. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely. I don't intend to remove 3.5 references from the article; just going to remove the Template:D&D_topics from the end of the page and replace it with a pathfinder version that lists PF books.  Maybe Template:Pathfinder_topics or something.  Remorseless Angel   &#9884;  14:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality of sources
While this article is much better sourced than many of its competitors, it's still relying way too heavily on WP:PRIMARY and WP:UGC sites. Since this Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, any indication that certain specific books or other products are important parts of the game need reliable, independent sources, per WP:RS. Press releases or similar from Paizo's website aren't usable for this. Nobody is denying the books exist, but it needs to be clearly indicated in a non-promotional way why certain books, out of all the Pathfinder products out there, or important enough to mention specifically. Reviews are... better than nothing, but it would be much better to use those reviews to explain why the books are important. One option would be: "According to Ed Grabianowski writing for iO9, Mythic Adventures is Pathfinder's approach to playing the game with high level characters". That's not a great example but it's an example.

If a book is worth mentioning according to reliable sources, it should be at least breifly explained with enough context that someone with only a passing familiarity towards RPGs would be able to make sense of it. Personal blogs and forum posts are not acceptable. The iO9 source is alright, and the Tor one seems usable at a glance, but Neuroglyph Games seems like it's basically just a blog. 5 Minute Workday is a webcomic, and not an especially notable one, not a reputable review site. There is an over-abundance of puff and WP:OR on most RPG articles, so it would be nice to try and keep this one in better shape. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, at least get it to that point, since it really isn't quite there yet. 2601:240:C703:5340:310E:EF69:CCFC:2EF1 (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or that. Compared to some of the more obscure D&D book articles, this one's a gem, but that's setting a very low bar. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have cut the sources back to tor.com and io9, and pulled in a few additional sources - most notably the book Designers & Dragons: The '00s, which covers Paizo's history and publications (among several others). All the sourcebooks I added were mentioned in the latter, save for the Advanced Class Guide (covered in the new web source). JEB215 (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks much better, thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JEB215. I had previously been sprinkling Designers & Dragons liberally around our RPG articles, but I have been on a break from that for a few months to focus on other things. I will return to that eventually, but feel free to take over as much as you like. ;) BOZ (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

HarmonQuest
Should there be a mention that the show HarmonQuest uses Pathfinder? Zizanie13 (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Question
I am new to Wikipedia editing and I was wondering if anyone would like to make a famous role players or well know campaign play through section to help guide people to videos where they can see the applications of the information they are reading or just for entertainment? I think the page would greatly benefit from this addition. Missypoo24 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as there are reliable sources which tell us who plays Pathfinder. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Name of the page
From what i have noticed on the second edition covers, Paizo seems to have moved on from the “Pathfinder Roleplaying Game” branding and uses only “Pathfinder”. Should the name of the article and further references to it be changed to only “Pathfinder”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.73.55.126 (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pathfinder is a disambiguation page, so regardless this article would need to be disambiguated. Per WP:NATDIS, using the longer form of the name is preferable to a parenthetical, so I see no reason to move it. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus, just because the name of the game changed does not mean the name of the article necessarily needs to change. 2601:240:10F:4F35:D503:FB4F:B425:C6D (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It actually kinda would but since the first edition is still "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game" and the copyright stuff for 2e still mentions "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What about changing it to "Pathfinder (roleplaying game)" so it does not link the disambiguation page. Audace1234 (User talk:Audace1234) 14:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.118.42.146 (talk)
 * Please read WP:NATDIS. We prefer a longer title if it means avoiding using parentheticals, which are only used where needed because of a technical limitation of Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)