What is and isn't canon.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I had my dreams dispelled today when I realized how contradicting some books are.
The most blatant example of this is Pathfinder Unchained, where you can find alternative skills/skill progress, alternative crafting, alternative downtime. The word alternative sound like this book is just something that can be, something that is not compulsory...

Until a new book is released, called Occult adventures and there is not a single reference to these changes brought about by Pathfinder Unchained. Nada, none. Does that mean that Pathfinder Unchained is non-canon? Why is that if you want to play a Summoner in Pathfinder Society you have to play the unchained version? Why are unchained classes legal and therefore canon?

Another gripe I have is something most of your PCs doesn't do very often - running a magical weapon/item shop (Holy Potatoes, I know...). There are rules for it on several places some of which do contradict. Which version is therefore canon? Unlimited Campaign? Pathfinder Unchained?

I therefore came to a conclusion it is time we had our First Council of Nicaea and decided which books are considered canon and which are essentially glorified apocryphal home-brew.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Unchained is specifically "non-canon". I mean for godsake, different content from the same book conflicts with each other.

Unchained is meant to just be a tool box you can use to modify and houserule your game, and give you inspiration for further houserules.

The reason PFS uses the Unchained Summoner is because it's lower power than the default summoner, so they house ruled it in. PFS is full of house rules and isn't "canon" to begin with.

Though to be honest, there isn't even true thing as "canon" in Pathfinder. There is no much table variation, house rules, conversions from 3.5e, variant rules from books like unearthed arcana/ultimate combat/ulimate magic/unchained.... The whole game is a toolbox. Take what you want and leave what you don't, each table basically has it's own canon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Unchained is the red-headed bastard child. It is meant as an alternate rule set; some, none, or all of which may be implemented by those using the Pathfinder system.

So - yeah- you're going to run into issues with new material being produced under the "old" (official, core) rules and only possibly remembering the bastard child in the corner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also: I have HUGE issues with what occurred under the Council of Nicaea, and do not want to revisit that old karma. I'm STILL clearing a lot of lifetimes of fallout from that!


Milo v3 wrote:

Pathfinder Unchained is specifically "non-canon". I mean for godsake, different content from the same book conflicts with each other.

Unchained is meant to just be a tool box you can use to modify and houserule your game, and give you inspiration for further houserules.

The reason PFS uses the Unchained Summoner is because it's lower power than the default summoner, so they house ruled it in. PFS is full of house rules and isn't "canon" to begin with.

I would agree with you were it not for the fact, it is being used during Pathfinder Society. This raises more questions that it answers, for example which monk is the real monk? Why is unchained Monk legal if he seemingly cannot use all of the Monk Archetypes from the other books?

Sovereign Court

Though of note on Unchained - virtually everyone seems to have adopted the Unchained Rogue as the current default Rogue. Many (such as PFS) have also done the same for summoner.

Sovereign Court

Wind Of Hope wrote:
I would agree with you were it not for the fact, it is being used during Pathfinder Society. This raises more questions that it answers, for example which monk is the real monk? Why is unchained Monk legal if he seemingly cannot use all of the Monk Archetypes from the other books?

Think of it as a related, but entirely different class which happens to have the same name.


Wind Of Hope wrote:
I would agree with you were it not for the fact, it is being used during Pathfinder Society.

As I already said, PFS isn't canon. It's full of house rules from the standard game. Thus it is no more canon than pathfinder:unchained.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Wind Of Hope wrote:
I would agree with you were it not for the fact, it is being used during Pathfinder Society. This raises more questions that it answers, for example which monk is the real monk? Why is unchained Monk legal if he seemingly cannot use all of the Monk Archetypes from the other books?
Think of it as a related, but entirely different class which happens to have the same name.

Then they should have released these classes separately and give them a different name. It is still a mess, never the less.


Milo v3 wrote:
Wind Of Hope wrote:
I would agree with you were it not for the fact, it is being used during Pathfinder Society.
As I already said, PFS isn't canon. It's full of house rules from the standard game. Thus it is no more canon than pathfinder:unchained.

I am sorry I misread that.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wind Of Hope wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:

Pathfinder Unchained is specifically "non-canon". I mean for godsake, different content from the same book conflicts with each other.

Unchained is meant to just be a tool box you can use to modify and houserule your game, and give you inspiration for further houserules.

The reason PFS uses the Unchained Summoner is because it's lower power than the default summoner, so they house ruled it in. PFS is full of house rules and isn't "canon" to begin with.

I would agree with you were it not for the fact, it is being used during Pathfinder Society. This raises more questions that it answers, for example which monk is the real monk? Why is unchained Monk legal if he seemingly cannot use all of the Monk Archetypes from the other books?

Really, none of Unchained is being used in PFS except for the alternate classes, and skill unlocks for rogues only. Everything else is being ignored. As for the monk, the Unchained book states that Unchained Monks are not compatible with old archetypes. That is the RAW from the book, not a PFS houserule. I would like for there to be more unchained archetypes, but the UMonk with no archetypes is better than 97% of core monks with archetypes.

Also, siege weapons are Cannon.


Milo v3 wrote:
Wind Of Hope wrote:
I would agree with you were it not for the fact, it is being used during Pathfinder Society.
As I already said, PFS isn't canon. It's full of house rules from the standard game. Thus it is no more canon than pathfinder:unchained.
Imbicatus wrote:

Really, none of Unchained is being used in PFS except for the alternate classes, and skill unlocks for rogues only. Everything else is being ignored. As for the monk, the Unchained book states that Unchained Monks are not compatible with old archetypes. That is the RAW from the book, not a PFS houserule. I would like for there to be more unchained archetypes, but the UMonk with no archetypes is better than 97% of core monks with archetypes.

Also, siege weapons are Cannon.

Is APG summoner still canonical?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm confused. Pathfinder, being an RPG, has a nebulous definition of "cannon" as it is. I mean, everything in one's game is technically a house rule, even use of the ideas from the core book. If everything was cannon we'd have how many heroes who defeated the Runelords?

I guess what I'm saying is cannon is what ever you want it to be, and I promise you what is cannon for you, won't be for my group.

I'm not sure why the OP has such a hate for Unchained, but like any (and I do mean any) rule in the game, it is optional. Decide for yourself, or with you playing group, what you want to use. That will be cannon.


BTW, Occult does have some more skill unlocks, which were introduced in Unchained.

I think part of the problem is that there are now so many classes, that when a new big book comes out, it can't give new options for all of the previous classes too. For instance, OA only gives new archetypes for a smattering of the previous classes. Out of the ACG, only investigators got any love.


Melkiador wrote:

BTW, Occult does have some more skill unlocks, which were introduced in Unchained.

I think part of the problem is that there are now so many classes, that when a new big book comes out, it can't give new options for all of the previous classes too. For instance, OA only gives new archetypes for a smattering of the previous classes. Out of the ACG, only investigators got any love.

I do not speak about "options", I speak about direct conflicts. Options are good, conflicts are bad.

One interesting point to note though, nowhere in the OA is there a mention of P:Unleashed. I would have it as a guess it has something do to with what Milo v3 was saying.


Imbicatus wrote:
Wind Of Hope wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:

Pathfinder Unchained is specifically "non-canon". I mean for godsake, different content from the same book conflicts with each other.

Unchained is meant to just be a tool box you can use to modify and houserule your game, and give you inspiration for further houserules.

The reason PFS uses the Unchained Summoner is because it's lower power than the default summoner, so they house ruled it in. PFS is full of house rules and isn't "canon" to begin with.

I would agree with you were it not for the fact, it is being used during Pathfinder Society. This raises more questions that it answers, for example which monk is the real monk? Why is unchained Monk legal if he seemingly cannot use all of the Monk Archetypes from the other books?

Really, none of Unchained is being used in PFS except for the alternate classes, and skill unlocks for rogues only. Everything else is being ignored. As for the monk, the Unchained book states that Unchained Monks are not compatible with old archetypes. That is the RAW from the book, not a PFS houserule. I would like for there to be more unchained archetypes, but the UMonk with no archetypes is better than 97% of core monks with archetypes.

Also, siege weapons are Cannon.

Well, most archetypes are terrible and mostly for flavor (maybe to be dropped in as purpose built NPCs/enemies).

But there are still that handful of favorite monk archetypes: maneuver master for double dirty tricks and such, tetori for grappling ghosts, sohei for melee (can well end up above uncahined, particularly with pummeling style), etc.

The ones built for a purpose and built to master that purpose. Those are one of the main complaints about unchained- a lot of other unchained classes are specifically built to still work with archetypes, adding clauses to altered abilities so they still count. But monk just gets everything thrown out and that throws out everything else published for them before with it.

Sidenote- I was one of the few that complained for other reasons. Sohei works well to help with monk problems- access to AC without turtling stats at early levels, access to more monk weapons and expanded list of weapons they can flurry with, a variety of things you can build towards (they even give zen archer a bit of a run with their less restrictive flurry rules), and greatly expanded opportunity for melee bonuses. I felt that and the brawler were enough to 'fix' the monk, particularly with pummeling style's awesomeness. Of course...if it was just a straight upgrade to the normal monk...I wouldn't complain (well I'd complain less- the will save thing is silly, since brawler already covers the 'non meditative flurrier')


Occult wrote:
Skill Unlocks: Occult skill unlocks build on the idea of skill unlocks for the rogue from Pathfinder RPG Pathfinder Unchained...

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is cannon.

This isn't.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aside from the misspelling of canon, I don't see what mechanics have to do with setting or storyline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Wind Of Hope wrote:
I would agree with you were it not for the fact, it is being used during Pathfinder Society.
As I already said, PFS isn't canon. It's full of house rules from the standard game. Thus it is no more canon than pathfinder:unchained.

Not helpful or relevant. Every organization defines for itself what is canon and what isn't. (Is 1 Maccabees canonical? Depends on who you ask. How about one of the books from the Book of Mormon?)

Everything that Paizo has published is canon to Paizo. Everything that PFS Leadership accepts is canon for PFS.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

This is cannon.

This isn't.

From Avram Grumer, after Ogden Nash:

The one-n canon,
That’s official.

The two-n cannon
Fires a missile.

And I’ve not seen, Nor do I plan on
Seeing any Three-n cannnon.


John Woodford wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

This is cannon.

This isn't.

From Avram Grumer, after Ogden Nash:

The one-n canon,
That’s official.

The two-n cannon
Fires a missile.

And I’ve not seen, Nor do I plan on
Seeing any Three-n cannnon.

That's pretty good, actually.


John Woodford wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

This is cannon.

This isn't.

From Avram Grumer, after Ogden Nash:

The one-n canon,
That’s official.

The two-n cannon
Fires a missile.

And I’ve not seen, Nor do I plan on
Seeing any Three-n cannnon.

And the canon cannon shoots bibles and does fire/holy damage.

The three n cannnon shoots soda cans, and does delicious damage.


lemeres wrote:
And the canon cannon shoots bibles and does fire/holy damage.

Sounds like something that would get used in Hellsing.


Serum wrote:
Aside from the misspelling of canon, I don't see what mechanics have to do with setting or storyline.

Everything. Even the smallest change in mechanics can influence the universe drastically.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wind Of Hope wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

This is cannon.

This isn't.

I am sorry, English isn't my First Language.

Nie ma problemu, ja też nie native speaker ;-)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Wind Of Hope wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:

Pathfinder Unchained is specifically "non-canon". I mean for godsake, different content from the same book conflicts with each other.

Unchained is meant to just be a tool box you can use to modify and houserule your game, and give you inspiration for further houserules.

The reason PFS uses the Unchained Summoner is because it's lower power than the default summoner, so they house ruled it in. PFS is full of house rules and isn't "canon" to begin with.

I would agree with you were it not for the fact, it is being used during Pathfinder Society. This raises more questions that it answers, for example which monk is the real monk? Why is unchained Monk legal if he seemingly cannot use all of the Monk Archetypes from the other books?

they're different classes for the same stereotype and thus have close names, no more no less. the others are simply close enough where archetype can work.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Wind Of Hope wrote:
Serum wrote:
Aside from the misspelling of canon, I don't see what mechanics have to do with setting or storyline.
Everything. Even the smallest change in mechanics can influence the universe drastically.

not really... character's aren't aware of what class they are, they just know they have certain abilities.


@Wind of Hope: Is it really about optional rules? Or is it in fact about the generally high complexity? I mean, Pathfinder has several thousand pages of rules, distributed over many books. If you assume you have to know and understand them all, it's no surprise you fight for simplicity. But you don't have to. You can have fun with understanding only 1% of the rules. Probably the same amount of fun you would have with 100%...


Meh, it's an RPG. The only canon that really matters is your headcannon.

Grand Lodge

In what context are we using the word Canon here?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@BBT: The context is actually that of the word "precedence".

The OP is asking which books take precedence over others in terms of their "legitimacy" and "actual rules" within the Pathfinder ruleset.

And the only answer possible is "ask your GM".

For example, PF: Unchained doesn't mention the Downtime rules, but there are an awful lot of skill uses in Downtime, so which book's rules "win"?

Or, many traits turn a skill into a class skill, so how does that work with Consolidated Skills in PF:U, or Grouped Skills?

My basic answer would be "assume that Unchained and UCam don't exist. All other rules are equivalent in precedence, with specific overriding general, and any of the optional rules presented in PF: U or UCam which are in use for a particular game interact as defined by the GM for that game".

Or something like that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All rules are considered valid, unless they directly contradict other rules.

A more specific rule trumps a more general rule

If two sources give different rules for the same thing, such as a feat or spell, the most recently published version is considered valid. This includes the source's most recent republishing.

Some rules are alternate rules, such as most of the Unchained book. These rules are only valid if your group chooses to use them. Implementing these rules may invalidate other rules as described in the alternate rules.

Unofficially, rules in the FAQ of the website take precedence over written rules.

Rule 0: The DM is free to ignore rules or create rules of his own for his game. This is usually more troublesome than it sounds, and should only be done by more practiced DMs


I know that this is dodging the question to some degree, but why does it matter what is canon?

If you're hoping that by only using "official" rules that your game will be balanced and free of any problems, that's not going to happen.

If you want more structure, play PFS. Or simply adopt their rules.

In my personal opinion, there are tiers of "officialness", but these are very loosely laid:


  • Core Rulebook
  • Paizo PRD
  • Everything else

If something contradicts the CRB, go with the CRB, unless the contradiction is specifically listed as overriding the CRB and you happen to agree with the override.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What is and isn't canon. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion