Gisher's page

Please provide the definition of a mirror in PF2e...

It seems to me that you are arguing that there isn't any symbolic significance to a mirror being used as an implement but rather that the only necessary characteristic is functional — that any object that is able to reflect light would qualify as a mirror implement.

So similar physics is your criteria rather than the symbolic rules of magic.

Am I correct in that understanding?

Gisher wrote:

-snip-

It's not a variant of an existing rule, though, it is turning the existing rule into a variant rule, thereby completely invalidating the previous existing rule.

As I said at the beginning of this conversation, I don't have the book. If the book specifically stares what you say it does, then there isn't any reason for me to continue. Could you cite the text that specifies that?

It is entirely possible that Paizo intended for these specific Rituals to permit Mythic versions of themselves, but that is pure speculation and has no basis on anything other than wishful thinking.

You seem to love attributing motives to me, and somehow in all of these years you've never been correct about any of them. I don't know whether to be amused by that or just feel sad for you.

There's no wishful thinking in my part. I have zero interest in using rituals whether they are mythic or not, so I have no investment in whether the mythic rituals replace the old ones or not. I'm just trying to satisfy my intellectual curiosity.

The problem is that the reprint turns what used to be a core rule/ability into an optional rule/ability by tying it to the variant rules, so this argument of "variant rules don't override core rules" makes no sense.

My point is that isn't clear to me that variant rules can or should count as reprints of core rules. Variant rules are elements of variant systems, and if you reject a variant system then it doesn't make sense to me that you would have to accept elements which only exist within that system. That would mean that those elements of the variant rules are actually core rules and thus not actually variant rules.

Imagine that Rule A is valid in a particular non-Euclidean geometry but not in Euclidean geometry. Rule B, on the other hand is true under Euclidean geometry but not under any non-Euclidean geometry. And Rule A and Rule B are incompatible.

Given all of that, saying "I accept Euclidean geometry and reject non-Euclidean geometry, but Rule A can't be true under Euclidean geometry because Rule B contradicts it" won't ever make sense to me. Claiming to reject the entire system of non-Euclidean geometry while still applying rules derived from it to Euclidean geometry is clearly not consistent.

I'm fine if Paizo intends for those rituals to be replaced. I don't care about the particular outcomes in this case. But it seems to me that your reasoning for why this should work can only be true if either the meaning of "variant rules" has changed or that the mythic rules aren't variant rules.

...

As for home tables, I've simply never met a GM who behaves as you describe. Everyone I know treats a reprint as an errata/replacement, regardless of where it appears in an official publication.
...

But if the rule changes are part of a variant rule set that you aren't using, then shouldn't you ignore that those variant rule descriptions exist?

It seems to me that if you aren't using a variant system like Automatic Bonus Progression then you should just ignore any rules contained within that system.

For example, the Armor Proficiency general feat printed in PC1 clearly replaces the version from the CRB because neither version is part of a variant system. They are both part of the core system and so the more recent one replaces the older version.

But let's say that in the future Paizo prints a variant rule system in which that feat works differently — perhaps it lets your armor scale with your unarmored defense progression.

Wouldn't the existence of that particular version of Armor Proficiency only replace the PC1 version if you were using that new variant system?

Otherwise you end up in the odd position that the players can't use the variant version because those rules aren't part of the system you are using, but they also can't use the old version because you are accepting the new rule as part of your system.

It just seems odd to me that someone would accept the variant version as part of the rules and simultaneously reject it as part of the rules. It's Schrödinger's rule.

Gisher wrote:

I'm very confused as to how this would work.

I can't find any items that are stated to be both a shield and a mirror. The closest that I can find is the Turnabout Shield which states that it is "polished to a mirror finish," but nowhere does it state this means that it counts as a mirror item.

Is there some item in a new book that I'm not aware of that states that it qualifies as both a shield and a mirror?

No, there is no such item. There's someone declaring "a shield can be polished to a mirrorlike sheen and is thus also a mirror, so it works."

The only other item that mentions anything like that is the [url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2825Reflecting Shield[/url], which is also not actually a mirror.

Ok, then they are arguing for my second theory.

Quote:

But if the argument is that simply flavoring any item as shiny makes it qualify as a mirror for rules purposes then does that mean that a gauntlet, sword, chalice, bell, brass-covered tome, etc. can also qualify as mirror implements?

"My club is shaped like a baton and is thus a wand implement, and also has a piece of regalia in the pommel so is also my reglia implement." You can get very silly with this very quickly.

Exactly. It seems like this line of reasoning is a steep, slippery slope to chaos.

That's why I'm unclear why people are making the argument that merely flavoring a shield as shiny eliminates the difference between item categories like 'shield' and 'mirror.'

I'm not particularly familiar with the Thaumaturge, but it seems pretty obvious that such a principle would make the concept of separate implement categories basically meaningless.

Gisher wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Gisher wrote:

In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.

The problem is they aren't in PC. They were in CRB the last.

I don't see why that's a problem. CRB options that weren't errata'd are still PF2 rules.

By the way Paizo treats these things, this is a reprint. Thus they are errata and the old ones no longer exist.

Normally, that's the case, but does that apply if the rules in question are variant rules and you aren't using that variant system at all?

It seems to me that not using a variant system means that you are treating all aspects of that system as if they don't exist as part of the rules.

So if you aren't using mythic rules, you would ignore the printing of mythic rituals, and those non-existent rules wouldn't replace the already existing rituals.

It seems weird to say that mythic rituals don't exist in your rule book because you aren't using that variant system, but at the same time they somehow do exist in your rule book and therefore they do replace the existing rules.

Gisher wrote:

In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.

The problem is they aren't in PC. They were in CRB the last.

I don't see why that's a problem. CRB options that weren't errata'd are still PF2 rules.

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Adding mythic versions of existing rituals is fine, of course.

Adding new options is fine, of course, but many GMs are going to look at these reprints and view them as replacements/errata, not expansions to what already exists. That's taking away existingoptions, not adding new ones.

I did not see any verbiage in WoI indicating that you could use the original rituals normally, than get additional effects or benefits for being mythic.

I don't have WOI, so maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Mythic Rules were a variant ruleset.

In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.

I'm very confused as to how this would work.

I can't find any items that are stated to be both a shield and a mirror. The closest that I can find is the Turnabout Shield which states that it is "polished to a mirror finish," but nowhere does it state this means that it counts as a mirror item.

Is there some item in a new book that I'm not aware of that states that it qualifies as both a shield and a mirror?

-----

But if the argument is that simply flavoring any item as shiny makes it qualify as a mirror for rules purposes then does that mean that a gauntlet, sword, chalice, bell, brass-covered tome, etc. can also qualify as mirror implements?

If your sling staff ever gets into melee, wouldn't it be a Flail weapon ^^; ?

Also, isn't there a feat that allow sling users to whack targets with a loaded sling, or was it a P1E stuff?

I suspect that you are thinking of the PF1 Sling Flail feat.

JiCi wrote:

According to the Archives, I got SIX staves from the Club group:

- Staff
- Bo Staff
- Bow Staff
- Gaff
- Khakkara
- Whipstaff

Sling Staves... are not staves, they're oversized slingshots ^^;

The Halfling Sling Staff feels like an error for the Staff Acrobat archetype, because it's not a melee weapon :O

Staff slings are real weapons and are indeed a staff with a sling on top, they actually work like a handheld trebuchet. Real staff slings don't ends in a Y-shaped split that cradles a sling, like the Halfling Sling Staff description says. so I think you are right that Halfling Sling Staff are just oversized slingshots in PF2e, or maybe a slingshot on top of a walking stick.

For those who've never seen one, here's an interesting video on the history and mechanics of the real-world staff sling.

The illustration of the halfling sling staff in PC1 (page 280) matches the historical staff sling rather than the book's written description, so I suspect that in the rush to do the remaster someone just forgot to update the text to match the design change.

Combination weapons weren't a thing yet when the CRB came out, but I'd love it if the halfling sling staff eventually got updated to be one. That would also make its use with Staff Acrobat make sense.

Alternatively, Paizo could introduce the historical staff sling as a combination weapon — perhaps dealing less ranged damage than the halfling sling staff so as not to make the halfling sling staff obsolete.

Post-remaster do ghouls even have a paralyzing touch?

...

Also, Crafting is needed if you want repair shields.
...

And for a few niche things like "healing" a poppet familiar.

Aren't they the exact same weapon? Both are 1d6 bludgeoning martial clubs with L bulk, 1 hand, shove, thrown 30ft, and the grippli/tripkee trait? Why change it anyway?

I think that the cruuk is intended to replace the rungu in order to avoid the issues of cultural insensitivity/appropriation raised in this thread.

The Ancestry Guide wasn't likely to get a reprint, but it seems obvious to me that the remaster, with the conversion of Grippli to Tripkee, provided Paizo with an ideal opportunity to remove the problematic real-world reference.

Since the two items are mechanically identical, I suspect that Outl wants to switch to the cruuk so as not to engage in such cultural insensitivity/appropriation.

It seems to me that that's a choice that PFS might want to encourage by making the switch from a rungu to a cruuk be a free option for all players.

The rationale is technically correct—digital randomization is not random—

...

Of course, the universe might be a deterministic system, and in that case nothing, including die rolls, would be truly random.

That's my list. What's yours?

Everything on your list sounds fun, but I'll add Droon. Lizardfolk and dinosaurs takes me back to a childhood of Saturday mornings spent watching Land of the Lost. :)

I am not seeing one for Message, but it wouldn't be hard to homebrew one.

They aren't spelhearts, but there are the Messenger's Ring and the Spy Staff.

If you are taking the Spellshot Dedication at level 2 then, as HammerJack said, you should be able to take Basic Wizard Spellcasting at level 4 or higher.

Thank you! That's what I thought but I figure the official tools would be right, so it was driving me mad!

I'm not familiar with the software that you are using, but basically every piece of sufficiently complicated software will have at least a few bugs.

In this case the text you quoted was added in errata so it might be more likely to see an error pop up on this issue. You should let them know.

Also the wording of "This counts as the wizard archetype for the benefits of Basic Wizard Spellcasting" is weird. I'm pretty sure that it should say "This counts as the wizard archetype for the prerequisites of Basic Wizard Spellcasting." Perhaps the programmer who put in the errata was confused by that wording.

I'm also switching over from D&D 5e, so some things still make my head spin.

Yeah, switching is hard. I still have trouble separating the PF1 part of my brain from the PF2 part. :)

It's in the book itself. The Character Options tells you everything is Standard availability (unless otherwise noted on that page, and those options aren't noted), the book tells you it's Uncommon, but tells you what you need to access it.

Thanks! I don't have the book yet.

GOBLIN HERITAGE

Goblins in Tian Xia have access to the following heritage.
Dokkaebi Goblin (Uncommon)

Where does that information come from? Like the OP, I can't find it on the additional resources page.

Gisher wrote:

There was something awful growing in that armor.

It also highlights a double meaning about Gorum's answer to Calistria's question from Prey For Death.

** spoiler omitted **

Like a living Ginnungagap.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

VerBeeker wrote:

*stares in growing shock and horror at learning a parasite was living inside of Gorum and has a name I recognize*

What's it called?

Potential Spoiler

Huh. So my speculation back in April didn't entirely miss the mark, after all.

What if the hole in Gorum's armor wasn't caused by an attack from without but rather was caused by something hatching from inside him? ;)

There was something awful growing in that armor.

Here is a description of Basrakal for those who, like myself, didn't remember much about it.

Mammoth Daddy wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Mammoth Daddy wrote:

I don’t know if it’s the whole pantheon. That’s also what I’m trying to figure out.

As I understand it, PFS will be posting guidelines for players whose deities are no longer available. I'd expect them to list the dead/missing deities as part of that.

I think that's probably your earliest opportunity for getting clarification on which deities were involved here. (I assume that Divine Mysteries will also have that information, but it's not out until November.)

Where can I find that?

My guess is that they'll announce it in a blog post once they've posted their guidelines on War of Immortals. But that's just a guess.

I found the conversation that I was thinking of.

...

Tomppa wrote:

There's also a bunch of non-core 20 deities that are going to die. Will those be handled with the same rules (immediate rebuild when one of them is announced, like with God, Varix the Despoiler, and Sturovenen the Dragoneagle?) and do we need to wait for OP's confirmation for each death/deity, or can we just assume that any that dies results in a rebuild?

While such characters will get rebuilds just like Gorumites, not all of those deities will die when Gorum dies, and not all have been announced. As such, to give you all time after that announcement, those characters can be played until the end of 2024.

So at some point they'll be announcing which gods are no longer available, and then PFS players will have until the end of 2024 to rebuild characters that mechanically depend on those deities.

I suspect we'll have a list of lost gods (at least the ones whose worship was allowed in PFS) shortly after the release of War of Immortals (October 30).

Gisher wrote:

Mammoth Daddy wrote:

I don’t know if it’s the whole pantheon. That’s also what I’m trying to figure out.

As I understand it, PFS will be posting guidelines for players whose deities are no longer available. I'd expect them to list the dead/missing deities as part of that.

I think that's probably your earliest opportunity for getting clarification on which deities were involved here. (I assume that Divine Mysteries will also have that information, but it's not out until November.)

Where can I find that?

My guess is that they'll announce it in a blog post once they've posted their guidelines on War of Immortals. But that's just a guess.

I don’t know if it’s the whole pantheon. That’s also what I’m trying to figure out.

As I understand it, PFS will be posting guidelines for players whose deities are no longer available. I'd expect them to list the dead/missing deities as part of that.

I think that's probably your earliest opportunity for getting clarification on which deities were involved here. (I assume that Divine Mysteries will also have that information, but it's not out until November.)

As others have said, focus spells aren't excluded from working with Spellstrike. Similarly they can work with the Eldritch Archer's Eldritch Shot ability. I have a complete list here:

• Spells for Eldritch Shot and Spellstrike

It's all of the spells (including focus spells) with the attack trait that can be cast in 1 or 2 actions.

It's a Google doc so it's best viewed in apps which are designed for those.

Ehhhh... All due respect to the artist (they have far more skill than I'll ever possess), but this interpretation of the Oliphaunt strikes me as being far too CUDDLY.

But then, I still remember the ominous, awe-inspiring rendition of the same creature from Pathfinder #5. Now THERE was a pachyderm that would prompt mortals to empty their bowels! :D

I'm rather fond of this Oliphaunt artwork.

Another take on a 'spell blade' potentially. Nothing against Magus, but I'd love a spell blade class that has distinct magical or elemental abilities that aren't literally just spells. Maybe take some of the 'stance dancing' inspiration from 2E Solarian and Exemplar and bouncing between elemental stances that infuse different properties into your weapon strikes etc. With Impulse like abilities that fit the magic of the class but aren't 'spells.' And incentive to bounce between different stances and infusions into your weapons. STR or DEX based rather than Kinetecist CON.

I don't think this is what Paizo 'should' make next or that it's likely to happen, but if I could selfishly wish for my own dream class it'd be something like that.

That sounds a lot like the PF1 Warlock Vigilante with their Mystic Bolts. It would be fun to have something similar in PF2.

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

I saw some people talking about new Fighter feats. Did any other classes get additional feats, outside of class archetypes?

Yes, the Avenger Class Archetype section has a little section stapled onto the end that provides two spear feats for the Rogue Ranger AND Fighter.

Spear Rogue you say, now that could be interesting.

The Level 4 feat is essentially Polearm Mastery. If you're holding a 2-handed spear, hammer, or polearm, you get into a stance that lets you treat the haft of your weapon as if it's a separate weapon, which is a 1d4 simple club weapon, has the agile and finesse traits, and benefits from fundamental runes of the main weapon. Since this counts as you holding a separate weapon, you are treated as if you are dual wielding for the purposes of feats such as Twin Takedown or Double Slice.

The Level 10 feat is basically Impossible Flurry but for 2-handers. While in the Level 4 feat stance, you can spend three actions to do 2 strikes at no MAP, one with your weapon and one with your haft, and then another 2 strikes at max MAP, one with your weapon and one with your haft.

Based on your description, I whipped up some tables showing which weapons would qualify for these feats. It's a Google doc so it's best viewed in an app designed for those.

It occurs to me that the Fighter's Fork would also qualify when in its two-handed form.

It's a little off topic, but after reading through this thread and the other current magus thread I decided to update my list of

• Spells for Eldritch Shot and Spellstrike

It's all of the spells with the attack trait that can be cast in 1 or 2 actions.

Just thought I'd share it. It's a Google doc.

It's a little off topic, but after reading through this thread and the one about expansive spellstrike I decided to update my list of

• Spells for Eldritch Shot and Spellstrike

It's all of the spells with the attack trait that can be cast in 1 or 2 actions.

Just thought I'd share it. It's a Google doc.

Bombes, on the other hand...

It's been ages since I had one of those. They are delicious.

The issue of the less popular ancestries not having enough interesting feats or even just decent feats has made it that I've often been floating around in my head the idea of just, what would happen if for a campaign you decided to completely slash the ancestry requirements, for ancestry feats.

Well, Paizo has already introduced a few such universal ancestry feats, but so far, they've all been designated as Rare.

Creating a few decent Common ones at the various levels would be a fairly simple way to help address the feat shortages that some ancestries currently face.

Underdog's power pills!

Quick, I need a ring with a Preserve spell on it!

♫ Speed of lightning, roar of thunder.

Fighting all who rob or plunder.

Underdog. Underdog! ♪

My point is that when printed as a core ancestry, the number of feats available to the Kholo increased drastically, indicating the disparity between some core and non-core ancestries.

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!

And I definitely hope that we'll get more ancestry feats for some of those feat-starved non-core ancestries.

Gisher wrote:

Finoan wrote:

It also added a 1/round limit on Stance actions. That wasn't there in pre-Remaster.

That rule has actually been there from the beginning of PF2.

Thanks. I hadn't noticed that before.

I hadn't noticed it either until you said that it had been added in the remaster. Then I worked my way back through the previous texts and errata and realized that it had always been there. I'm guessing it didn't register in my brain since I already "knew" from PF1 that you couldn't just take multiple stances at once.

Gisher wrote:

BotBrain wrote:

Compare PC2 Kholo to the original print of Gnolls.

I don't see why that's a problem for the Kholo since all of those pre-remaster ancestry feats (except the ones that have the same names as PC2 feats) are still valid options.

I think you misread Botbrain's post. It's the opposite problem, actually.Remaster Kholo has all of the Legacy feats (any missing were rolled into the Legacy feats in one way or another). The Legacy Kholo only has 15 feats. While the Remaster Kholo has 23 feats.

As I read their post, BotBrain is asking for more ancestry feats for the non-core ancestries. So why is it a problem that the Kholo got more ancestry feats?

And how is the fact that Kholo now have plenty of ancestry feats similar to the situation with Shoonies who don't have very many ancestry feats? Those seem pretty much like opposite situations to me.

Compare PC2 Kholo to the original print of Gnolls.

I don't see why that's a problem for the Kholo since all of those pre-remaster ancestry feats (except the ones that have the same names as PC2 feats) are still valid options.

Tridus wrote:

I'm not aware of a way to dismiss a stance. RAW, the only way to end a stance is to either enter another stance (ending the first one), or to violate the requirements of the stance.

That was changed in the Remaster.

Stance trait wrote:

A stance is a general combat strategy that you enter by using an action with the stance trait, and you remain in for some time. A stance lasts until you get knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated, until the encounter ends, or until you use a stance action again, whichever comes first. After you take an action with the stance trait, you can’t take another one for 1 round. You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode. You can Dismiss a stance.

...

And the Dismiss being referenced is the Dismiss action which was expanded in the Remaster to be able to apply to more than just spells (was previously named Dismiss a Spell).

Nice catch! I hadn't noticed that they had added the text about Dismissing a stance.

-----

It also added a 1/round limit on Stance actions. That wasn't there in pre-Remaster.

That rule has actually been there from the beginning of PF2.

stance (trait) A stance is a general combat strategy that you enter by using an action with the stance trait, and that you remain in for some time. A stance lasts until you get knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated, until the encounter ends, or until you enter a new stance, whichever comes first. After you use an action with the stance trait, you can’t use another one for 1 round. You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode.

How could I, as an example, get a kitsune star orb that could become an imp, when imp requires 7 abilities but familiar master maxes out at i think 6?

Here's how you get there with Familiar Master.

-----
Ancestry Feats

Star Orb 1 — You have a Star Orb familiar with 2 abilities.

-----
Familiar Master Feats

Familiar Master Dedication 2 — Grants Enhanced Familiar so your Orb now has 4 abilities.

Improved Familar 6 — Lowers the requirements for Imp to 5 abilities.

Incredible Familiar 10 — Now your Orb has 6 abilities and can become an Imp with one ability to spare.

It works the same way that it did before the remaster.

Spell DC = 10 + spellcasting attribute modifier + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties

In this case we have...

Spellcasting Attribute Modifier = Int = +1

and

Proficiency Bonus = Level + 2 = 1 + 2 = +3.

So Spell DC = 10 + 1 + 3 = 14.

How were you getting 17 as a possibility?

Definitely favoriting this. I appreciate it.

I'm glad you found it useful. :)

Determining the current options is difficult because the availability rules listed for some of the older books (like The Lost Omens Ancestry Guide and The Grand Bazaar) haven't been updated to reflect the latest availability rules.

Since there isn't a single location to see the entire list you have to read through the entries of all of the later resources to see if there were any later changes made.

Plus, the Poppet option was only announced in a blog, so you won't find it anywhere on the Character Options page.

Given all that, I realize that I should probably show how I constructed my list.

-----
Player Core 1 Options

The Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Goblin, Halfling, Human, Leshy, and Orc ancestries as well as the Aiuvarin and Dromaar mixed heritages are all Common and have Standard availability.

The Changeling and Nephilim versatile heritages are both Uncommon, but in the Pathfinder Player Core entry we have the following text from the PFS Additional Resources: Character Options page.

Rarity Adjustments

All Pathfinder agents have access to the following Uncommon options: 
Ancestries and Heritages: changeling and nephilim versatile heritages (pages 76-79)

-----

The Catfolk, Hobgoblin, Kholo, Kobold, Lizardfolk, Ratfolk, Tengu, and Tripkee ancestries as well as the Dhampir, Dragonblood, and Duskwalker versatile heritages are all Uncommon, but in the [NEW 8/2024] Pathfinder Player Core 2 entry we have the following text from the PFS Additional Resources: Character Options page.

Rarity Adjustments

All Pathfinder agents have access to the following Uncommon options: 
Ancestries: catfolk, hobgoblin, kholo, kobold, lizardfolk, ratfolk, tengu, tripkee (pages 8-39)
Heritages: dhampir, dragonblood and duskwalker (pages 42-49)

-----

The Poppet ancestry is Rare, but we have the following text from a June 2024 Blog.

Release the Poppets!

Finally, as announced in our Organized Play Updates panel at PaizoCon, all Pathfinder Society players now have access to the poppet ancestry! This comes just in time for our upcoming poppet-themed Free RPG Day adventure, releasing later this month. Previously-purchased poppet boons also have gained the traditional free resurrection ritual.

-----

Being asked to curate a list of spooky products was the highlight of my week last week, as a known Halloween lover!

This list was a good idea. Each year as we approach Halloween we always get posts asking about spooky options.

Here is the errata page, but PC2 hasn't gotten an entry yet.

For remaster details on any deities beyond the big 20 you'll probably need to wait until Divine Mysteries comes out in November.

A bit confusing the two conflict with each other but it makes sense why the boon is gone.

Yeah, there seem to be a few places where the restrictions for the pre-remaster books don't match those for their remastered versions.

I believe that the current list of no-boon-required ancestry options is...

Ancestries (17)
• Catfolk
• Dwarf
• Elf
• Gnome
• Goblin
• Halfling
• Hobgoblin
• Human
• Kholo
• Kobold
• Leshy
• Lizardfolk
• Orc
• Poppet
• Ratfolk
• Tengu
• Tripkee

Versatile Heritages (5)
• Changeling
• Dhampir
• Nephilim
• Dragonblood
• Duskwalker

Mixed Heritages (2)
• Aiuvarin
• Dromaar

Nuar is an albino, isn't he? I've always took it as "spirit skin," because that makes him look like a ghost.

Oh, that would make sense.

For those, like myself, who had never heard of this person.

I think I'd go with Spirits Kin, as in "kin to the spirits."

Spirit Skin just seems weird. Even if spirits had skin, I can't see why anyone would be compared to that skin.

Archives of Nethys seems to have the same values as both my GM Core and your Pathbuilder result.

Type low-grade cold iron weapon; Level 2; Price 40 gp + 4 gp per Bulk; Craft Requirements at least 20 sp of cold iron + 2 sp per Bulk

Perhaps you got the costs mixed up with the crafting requirements when reading the AoN entry?

Albatoonoe wrote:

Honestly, the Medium was such a cool class in PF1. I'm glad it has expanded to include, well, Animism. The play test included mostly nature themed spirits with a few (maybe one?) occult themed one. I hope we have a lot more occult options.

About halfway through the playtest they posted a blog that added another non-nature themed apparition.

Reveler In Lost Glee - basically they are the embodiment of the creepy clown. I love their Avatar name "Ringmaster of the Dark Celebration"

This is probably one of my favorite apparitions

Link to that blog post.