Should Pathfinder have its own board?

[Raven777]

I was wondering if the discussion on the possibility of Pathfinder getting a separate forum from 3.0/3.5 had ever taken place. Though in theory Pathfinder was intended as a 3.5 compatible product, in practice many people seem to prefer not mixing them. Surely, I am not the only one slightly ticked off every time someone brings up Shapesand or Dread Necromancers in a [PF] thread or Summoner in a [3.5] one. Over the last couple years Pathfinder has really grown into its own with a bevy of its own classes and systems, including its own high quality dedicated 3rd party material. In my eyes, this gives Pathfinder legitimacy as a unique system on par with 4e or 5e, which get to have their own separate boards. What are the community's thoughts on giving Pathfinder its own space on the forums?

[Anlashok]

It's still a d20 game, still has the same basic chassis, still has the same compatibility.. and we have forum tags now.

So... no.

[ranagrande]

I think separating the two is an excellent idea.

[zimmerwald1915]

It's still a d20 game...
...and this is the d20 board, not just the 3e board. The Pathfinder threads are right where they belong.

[The Grue]

...and this is the d20 board, not just the 3e board. The Pathfinder threads are right where they belong.

So then why don't we merge 4e and 5e into this board, as they are both also d20 systems?

[Raven777]

So then why don't we merge 4e and 5e into this board, as they are both also d20 systems?

Exactly. If 4e and 5e are different enough to deserve their own space, over the years, so's became Pathfinder.

[Anlashok]

So then why don't we merge 4e and 5e into this board, as they are both also d20 systems?

They aren't. Both use a d20, but they aren't on the d20 system. Y'know, the one with the OGL and all that.


Exactly. If 4e and 5e are different enough to deserve their own space, over the years, so's became Pathfinder.

Except, y'know, one of them is built on the same engine and designed to be compatible with the others, and two of them aren't.

[zimmerwald1915]

So then why don't we merge 4e and 5e into this board, as they are both also d20 systems?
"The d20 System" does not refer to any system whose core mechanic involves rolling a d20. It is a term of art for the parts of Third [and a half] Edition "used as the root of the System Reference Document (SRD)," and is also used more or less interchangeably to mean the parts of that system the use of which is licensed by the OGL.

EDIT: ninja'd by Anlashok.

To build on his or her second point, Pathfinder products are still marketed, as late as this year, as being "suitable for use with...the 3.5 edition of the world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game."

[grarrrg]

and we have forum tags now.

I agree that they shouldn't be split, but the Forum Tags are not helping.
If anything I think the Tags make it worse.

People put the PF tag there to show it's a PF thread, and then don't bother doing the old "[PF]", or putting "PATHFINDER" in their opening post, because "I already used the tag".
BUT the _only_ place the Tag shows up is in the "big title" that appears _once_ at the top of the page. It does NOT appear in the "every post title".

VERY easy to miss once you have the post open in front of you.

[Sayt]

The tag system is good, but a lot of people don't actually read the tags.

Splitting PF off onto it's own board has Pros and Cons, IMO. On the Pro side, there's likely to be less irrelevant posts and would hopefully there would be fewer edition-wars and and two page derails about whatever Paizo's failure of the month was (Although that seems to be dying down, thankfuly...)

On the downside, I'm not sure if Pathfinder topics have enough traffic to justify their own board, and there would be a confusion about where specific 3.P threads would go.

[The Grue]

The tag system is good, but a lot of people don't actually read the tags.

Splitting PF off onto it's own board has Pros and Cons, IMO. On the Pro side, there's likely to be less irrelevant posts and would hopefully there would be fewer edition-wars and and two page derails about whatever Paizo's failure of the month was (Although that seems to be dying down, thankfuly...)

On the downside, I'm not sure if Pathfinder topics have enough traffic to justify their own board, and there would be a confusion about where specific 3.P threads would go.

Cross-compatibility between PF and 3.X is probably the single best reason to keep them in the same forum.

[Snowbluff]

The tag system is good, but a lot of people don't actually read the tags.

Splitting PF off onto it's own board has Pros and Cons, IMO. On the Pro side, there's likely to be less irrelevant posts and would hopefully there would be fewer edition-wars and and two page derails about whatever Paizo's failure of the month was (Although that seems to be dying down, thankfuly...) For starters, we need more of this. Without criticism we would definitely be lesser beings.


On the downside, I'm not sure if Pathfinder topics have enough traffic to justify their own board, and there would be a confusion about where specific 3.P threads would go.
It gets traffic, that's for sure. I think the clincher is the 3.P threads and the 3.5 people having to scavenge another board for a good publisher's (DSPs) good releases to backport.

As for 4e and 5e, those aren't based on the d20 system, really.

[Psyren]

I'm against it. I see no benefit to splitting them off, and I was around when the edition wars were at their height. It's actually a great deal tamer now, especially with SKR being gone. I think the best possible game comes from blending elements of the two, and keeping them juxtaposed facilitates that.

I also don't see the point of saying "4e and 5e are d20 systems and they have their own subforums!" Yeah, they do, but they are not even remotely compatible with each other or with 3.5/PF. The latter two are.

[Snowbluff]

I also don't see the point of saying "4e and 5e are d20 systems and they have their own subforums!" Yeah, they do, but they are not even remotely compatible with each other or with 3.5/PF. The latter two are.

Okay, correct if I am wrong about this point I am making. 4e and 5e are not part of the D20 System, which includes DnD 3e and d20 Modern, as well as the OGL material, and by extension PF and homebrew material of those systems. Hence the tag "D&D 3e/3.5e/d20."

If anything, the 3e tag is obsolete and should be omitted or replaced with "Pathfinder."

[Sartharina]

If anything, the 3e tag is obsolete and should be omitted or replaced with "Pathfinder."

Except people won't let 3.5 die.

[Snowbluff]

Except people won't let 3.5 die.

3.5e is all that is good and holy in d20. It's pretty much survived past the release of PF because there is so much to discuss on a discussion board. 3e is included in that, so it's redundant.

EDIT: The new title would read "D&D 3.5e/Pathfinder/d20."

[zimmerwald1915]

Okay, correct if I am wrong about this point I am making. 4e and 5e are not part of the D20 System, which includes DnD 3e and d20 Modern, as well as the OGL material, and by extension PF and homebrew material of those systems. Hence the tag "D&D 3e/3.5e/d20."
You are not wrong:


"The d20 System" does not refer to any system whose core mechanic involves rolling a d20. It is a term of art for the parts of Third [and a half] Edition "used as the root of the System Reference Document (SRD)," and is also used more or less interchangeably to mean the parts of that system the use of which is licensed by the OGL.

The "d20" part of the subforum title encompasses PF.

[Psyren]

Okay, correct if I am wrong about this point I am making. 4e and 5e are not part of the D20 System, which includes DnD 3e and d20 Modern, as well as the OGL material, and by extension PF and homebrew material of those systems. Hence the tag "D&D 3e/3.5e/d20."

Well, all 4(5?) of them use the core mechanic, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#theCoreMechanic) but I was actually referring just to rolling a d20 in my post, rather than the formal D20 System.

A handful of folks still play 3.0 I think.

But my main point still stands - 3.5 and PF are highly compatible, so leaving them in the same forum makes sense. You can translate characters from one to the other and back again with very minor alterations in most cases. By contrast, converting a 4e character to 5e, or a 5e character to 3.5, would take a great deal more finagling.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

3.5e is all that is good and holy in d20. It's pretty much survived past the release of PF because there is so much to discuss on a discussion board. 3e is included in that, so it's redundant.

EDIT: The new title would read "D&D 3.5e/Pathfinder/d20."

I was initially in favor of a sub-forum, but realized this would probably be better. While it is annoying to get 3.5 posts in my PF and vice versa, splitting them would cause more than solve problems. I do think PF should be incorporated, though.

[Psyren]

If you click the tags it will filter only for those threads. So if you click "Pathfinder" the board becomes a PF board.

I agree that PF deserves a more prominent place in the subforum title but it's hardly going to affect my enjoyment of answering questions and the like here.

[zimmerwald1915]

If you click the tags it will filter only for those threads. So if you click "Pathfinder" the board becomes a PF board.
I wouldn't be so enthusiastic about giving this advice. Not everyone who makes PF threads uses the PF tag. The same is true for just about every subject under the sun; some people just don't know how to use, or want to bother using, tags. Filtering by tags will inevitably lead to missing some threads.

[Extra Anchovies]

I wouldn't be so enthusiastic about giving this advice. Not everyone who makes PF threads uses the PF tag. The same is true for just about every subject under the sun; some people just don't know how to use, or want to bother using, tags. Filtering by tags will inevitably lead to missing some threads.

Agreed. I feel the system would work a little better if you could click a tag and it would exclude the tag of that type; then you can remove at least a good chunk of whatever systems you aren't interested in, leaving you with (for example) all of the Pathfinder threads and the untagged threads. I don't, however, know whether that sort of filtering would actually be workable on a forum like this.

[Alent]

Agreed. I feel the system would work a little better if you could click a tag and it would exclude the tag of that type; then you can remove at least a good chunk of whatever systems you aren't interested in, leaving you with (for example) all of the Pathfinder threads and the untagged threads. I don't, however, know whether that sort of filtering would actually be workable on a forum like this.

On this note, I find it strange that there's no 3.5e and no 3.P tags. It's 3rd, e6, or pathfinder.

I also don't see any benefit to splitting PF off into its own subforum, but some more tags might be nice.

[Sayt]

For starters, we need more of this. Without criticism we would definitely be lesser beings.

Critical discussion is good. People venting their ire over the top of other people talking isn't.

[Larkas]

I strongly disagree. Pathfinder is D&D3.5 with a new paint job and a few alterations under the hood. Not only is cross-system advice possible and probably useful, 3.P is a thing and, for many people, the "sweet spot" of the system. If you don't want 3.5-based advice on your Pathfinder thread, just say so in the opening post, but keeping them in the same subforum is the most sensible approach and still works as a force multiplier.


3.5e is all that is good and holy in d20. It's pretty much survived past the release of PF because there is so much to discuss on a discussion board. 3e is included in that, so it's redundant.

EDIT: The new title would read "D&D 3.5e/Pathfinder/d20."

Eh, I'd settle for D&D 3.X/Pathfinder/d20 myself. It accomplishes what you want and doesn't alienate the handful of 3.0 players around these parts. Oh, and it doesn't accidentally push them towards the wrong subforum.

[Jgosse]

I would like to see this happen.

[Barstro]

Pathfinder has different enough rules that it could use its own thread.

BUT, the lion's share of rules stem verbatim from 3.5. Most questions people have can and will be answered by people who play just 3.5.

While having its own thread would appear to be a better option, people will often wind up posting on both threads and create a big mess.

The solution is what we already have; use the "Pathfinder" tag. If you want to read just Pathfinder articles, you can click that purple label and it will show only Pathfinder posts.

[Shinken]

I think separating the two is an excellent idea.

I agree. It should have it's own board.

[Feint's End]

I strongly disagree. Pathfinder is D&D3.5 with a new paint job and a few alterations under the hood. Not only is cross-system advice possible and probably useful, 3.P is a thing and, for many people, the "sweet spot" of the system. If you don't want 3.5-based advice on your Pathfinder thread, just say so in the opening post, but keeping them in the same subforum is the most sensible approach and still works as a force multiplier.

Eh, I'd settle for D&D 3.X/Pathfinder/d20 myself. It accomplishes what you want and doesn't alienate the handful of 3.0 players around these parts. Oh, and it doesn't accidentally push them towards the wrong subforum.

Some points.

First off a lot of the more casual players do not mix both systems. While I agree that for many of the more experienced folks 3.P is the sweet spot I'm fairly sure that it isn't for the vast majority (then again it is questionable if those people even get here).

I do agree that Pathfinder should stay in this Forum but it should be part of the name too since it has grown into its own with a lot of people preferring to stick to PF only. Something like 3.x/pathfinder/other d20 would be sweet to have. Not only to give pathfinder the recognition it deserves but also to make it easier for newcomers to understand the boards.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't be so enthusiastic about giving this advice. Not everyone who makes PF threads uses the PF tag. The same is true for just about every subject under the sun; some people just don't know how to use, or want to bother using, tags. Filtering by tags will inevitably lead to missing some threads.

Right, and if people are doing that now (not tagging or mistagging their threads) this suggestion just ends up creating a ton more work for the mods as people make PF threads in the 3.5 section and vice-versa and those threads need to be moved. And that's on top of the people who are right now making both kinds of thread in Roleplaying General (f=30) and are needing those moved as well.

And what about the 3.P threads, where do those go? Or do those players not matter anymore? Every single IRL group I've played in has been 3.P. Pathfinder itself has compatibility as a stated goal in the CRB itself. I can't possibly agree with such a move.