Runehacking's page

Outside of free actions, you can't normally take 2 actions at the same time (in this case a charge action and a cast a spell action). So casting this spell is granting you the ability to do something you cannot normally do.

There won't be an official ruling made. They no longer respond to PF1 issues.

I guess the spell delivers on the promise of cheating the laws of time.

Shame they sort of abandoned PF1.

That is, you cannot by the rules make a charge attack (full round action) and cast a standard action spell. So in casting this spell you are breaking the normal rules. At this point getting a charge attack as part of the (standard) action to cast the spell, or the casting of the spell allows you to make a charge attack becomes a distinction without difference => you only get the charge attack by casting the spell => thus casting this spell grants you a charge attack (even if the language on that is poorly written).

Wouldn’t the spell then have written "upon casting this spell, you get a free Charge attack"?

This is also why I'm starting to think casting this on a mount means having to make a concentration check due to vigorous movement...

Either way, I would love to see some official ruling on this. I hope Paizo still does that for 1e.

Well... it's not backwards. It's just written in a confusing order;
When you cast a spell, the effect entry does not apply until you have successfully performed the standard action, made a concentration check if necessary, and saves have been failed or bypassed.
Only after all that are you supposed to apply what's in the effect entry of the spell, which now suddenly mentions the timing of spending the standard action (which was the first step).

Normally, these weird entries in the effect are no problem to resolve, but since Flash Forward already is unclear in this situation, this will only add to the confusion.

Although "you" in the effect of the spell would refer to the target, being the mount if you cast it using Shared spellcasting, it isn't the mount that is casting it. Therefore, the part of "as part of casting the spell, you make a Charge attack" can only refer to the caster, rather than a potential other target. Weird and broken as that is written, I think Zza Ni has a point there. However, I agree with Belafon that that only makes any further mention of "you" in the effect ambigouis. Where is the line on who is refered by "you" then?

The more we discuss this, the more I agree that this spell needs to be rewritten.

After my own last comment I realised there is another snake in the grass here; no matter what the outcome will be, casting this spell while mounted will likely require a concentration check due to vigorous movement... the mount will be charging as you cast it, after all. This is another problem that could render the spell potentially useless.

Although the funny thing is, that all the problems so far can be solved if the mount was the actual caster of the spell.
Thus, this might be a good spell for a co-op player build of a high strength mountable player character, paired with a smaller sized riding character that can mount the first.
(Which was also a build I've been dying to make for a while now... I just need to get me the right partner player)

look, it's not that hard to fix (it might even be by the rules).

ever since they made the rule that mounted charge is special charge action taken by both rider and mount you have two kinds of charge (at least) one when you charge and one when the action is used by both the rider and mount.
it is still a charge. she spell change nothing about that:

"As part of the action to cast the spell, you make a charge attack against an enemy. You make this charge attack normally, accounting for terrain, obstacles, attacks of opportunity, attack rolls, and damage rolls"

so assuming the mount has share spells, the spell say that one cast it while using the charge action. share spell let you cast it on your mount while you BOTH use the charge action. my only concern is if you go back with your mount or only he get ported and that depend on how teleporting a mount works. (are you considered something he carry etc?) i for one let bounded creatures such as mounts and familiar that have share spells hitch a ride together with their owner just because separating them feel like a di-ck move.

I suppose a rider is considered carried by the mount... but using it on the mount (when you have share spell, which I unfortunatly don't have) will only let the mount charge; you will already have spend your standard action to cast the spell. You may even have to make a concentration check since now you are casting while your mount is charging?

This use may be more likely rules wise to teleport both you and your mount back, but it means not actually doing a charge yourself... shame about that lance in your hand that would have gotten double damage (or triple with spirited charge) if you were joining the charge.
And it is also vague at best if you get teleported along with the mount; it would yet again be up to interpetation by the GM.

I don't think the author had mounted combat in mind when this spell was written...

Likely so.

I kind of expected the same conclusion; rider and mount charge in unison, meaning the mount will likely charge with you regardless whenever or not it is affected by the spell.
And the spell has only 1 target, "You"... which, depending on whenever or not you have spell sharing means only one is actually affected by the spell, either you or your mount.

I can see generous GMs ruling the mount gets affected as well, but RAW it seems that this is a fancy way to dismount your mount with a charge. -Leaving the mount in question all by itself on the front line.

Still usefull, just very situational dependant.

It's still tricky wording, though... a very ungenerous GM might rule you dismount and charge for this spell, without the mount in question.

Since this is a Pathfinder Society Character, I'm not sure if I should take this spell; I'm subjected to a different GM very often and not confident in my ability to rule lawyer desirable outcomes... potentially making this a useless spell to learn.
Although it does seem everyone here draws the same conclusion, so the outcome might be clear afterall?

I'm using an Inquisitor with the chivalry inquisition, granting me a mount.

I just obtained 4th level spellcasting, and noticed the spell "Flash Forward";

Flash Forward
Range: Personal
Target: You
You cheat the laws of time and enter into combat before reverting back to your original position. As part of the action to cast the spell, you make a charge attack against an enemy. You make this charge attack normally, accounting for terrain, obstacles, attacks of opportunity, attack rolls, and damage rolls. At the end of your charge action, you instantly teleport back to your original location as a free action. Any damage or conditions dealt by you or to you during this action are real and remain when you return to your original location.

Unsurprisingly, charging is a big part of my build (I'm on a mount afterall, why not use a lance?), so the spell could be usefull... except... it's not clear to me if this spell allows the mount to charge with you.

Does anybody knows if casting flash forward while mounted allows you to charge mounted?

Derklord wrote:

Paizo had to cut down on kobolds that sneak into your house and change the text in books on your shelf for budget reasons.

So that's why the binding on my early edition CRB is falling apart.....

This hits particularly close to home...

So it seems the FAQ really did change it to a full-round action for the rider. Be it under normal circumstances, off course.
Feats, surprise rounds or the staggered condition can still apply to the charge to make it a standard action.

Odd thing is, the FAQ mentions the print in the core rulebook will be altered, but I haven't seen the new print yet.

As far as I know,

Did Paizo forget to change the print?
Or did they just never released a new core rulebook now that they're focussing on 2nd Edition?

Someone just pointed out to me a FAQ has errata'd a thing I thought was a given;

I thought charging with a mount is a standard action (attack at the end of the mount's charge) for the rider.

The FAQ

This suggests it is now a full-round (charge attack) for the rider.
Meaning the rider is now down a move action (or rather, a move equifilent action, since the time of a move action already always got spend by the mount during the charge)

Meanwhile, I see tons of threads in ancient history all widely still accepting it is still a standard action. Even some that came after this FAQ.

Am I missing something here? Is it still a standard or is it a full round now?

Thanks for the clarification, I wasn't sure.

I'll put this out here just for the sake of example, as I'm pretty sure there are more feats that have this requirement... but I was looking at the guided hand feat.

Obviously, this is nice for clerics. They get all the requirements pretty quick and easily, and they can start wacking their opponents using their wise minds instead of their innate ability to wack things with their strength.
Neat.

But what about non-clerics? There are quite a few classes that get channel energy, but the class ability of proficiency with your diety's favored weapon is a bit more rare.
But is said class ability really the requirement here? Or do you just need to be able to weild the weapon?

For instance, a shaman with the life spirit gets channel energy. They're profficient with daggers... Could Pharasma as diety be an option to get guided hand to work?

On top of that, a FAQ from paizo already claims the class ability can grant unarmed strike. Does anyone who follows Irori and has improved unarmed strike (and the other requirements for this feat) also qualify for guided hand?

Correct me if I'm wrong but they shouldn't be evaluated against normal offensive cantrips since they're usually not the same amount of actions. You could for example use Stoke the Heart and cast a spell.

Oh, my bad... I thought they costed 2 actions.

Imma stop you right there. Feats are the main source of features in the game, so thinking that this is a negative thing in PF2e is meaningless

I didn't say it was a negative thing PF2 works this way. As I said, the problem is that most of these hexes aren't worth a feat.

Some Hexes are quite nice and some of them are in line with other cantrips and some of them are terrible

Well, since the hexes are tied to patrons, that means noone will pick anything aside from Winter patron and Baba Yaga (if that one even is legal).

I think they over-nerfed the hexes from 1st edition. They used to be pretty powerfull.
Every witch used to have "Extra Hex" feat all the way, because they were just too good to pass up.

Now they nerfed it so that they're barely worth a feat to begin with... but now they made the chance that feats are the only way to get hexes!

It doesn't look good for the witch class in terms of power balance in the game... which is a shame, because I loved witches and shamans in 1st edition.

Luke_Parry wrote:

Runehacking wrote:

My prediction is that this will be a populair patron for the time being. And I feel the PFS headquarters in Absalom is going to be a place where you just can't trust the furniture...

Am I missing something?

Baba Yaga is listed as a 'Rare' Witch Patron, which presumably means she is not an option for PCs in PFS, without additional documentation...?

*looks thoughtful*

Although I suppose, technically, the section on the Great Crone granting inanimate familiars is separate from the section listing the specific Baba Yaga Patron, so I suppose that an argument could be made that the former, lacking any specific rarity rider, is by default 'Common'...

As far as I can tell... the patron itself is Common.

So, this is about the Baba Yaga Patron's Hex cantrip.

Up till now, I assumed since no duration was stated, the hex was just instantanious; you can make an object walk (fun, I guess... or prevent some key item from falling in the wrong hands by making it walk towards you), and optionally, make it attack an enemy.
After that, it becomes a normal object again, right?

But I noticed something on the PFS options blog that suggests otherwise;

Per design team clarification, an item animated by the spirit object (page 32) hex uses the spellcaster’s spell DC as its AC. Its Hardness and Hit Points remain unchanged from their normal values as listed on page 577 of the Core Rulebook.

Why are hardness, hit points and AC discussed for an object that does little more than move and hit? Or is that object actually going to stay around for longer?

I feel like this is one of those things where its like -

Isn't having awesome, rune enhanced fingernails worth it in and of itself? Its cool!

...also the feat already gave you a nifty unarmed strike and 'HexStrike', so the 'rune enhancement' part doesn't really need to be super strong to carry the feat.

I agree. It's clear the nails are meant as the 2e version of the Hex strike feat. Except you now start with the Hex, and get a free unarmed attack, rather than the other way around. (1e Hex strike: get a free hex upon an unarmed strike)

I was curious about the Cavalier Dedication. Say my fighter wants to become a cavalier and commits to the Animal Order of the Druids, would he be able to take a lion as his companion? Or does it have to be ONLY an animal with the "Mount" special ability which only is the horse, pony, camel or dog?

You left out the riding drake...

A is slightly simular to B.
B gets a better effect than C.
B and C do not stack.
There is no point to take C when you have B.

your conclusion; oh, that means A cannot possibly work with C.

Just because an effect doesn't stack, doesn't mean the "lower" option can't be applied. Non-stacking feats do not mean in the slightest that a simular feat of a prequisite of said feat does not work together either.

Besides, as I pointed out before, Ascetic Style is a style feat, thus a stance. It's not an effect that is always present, it needs to be activated. Unlike Monastic Legacy that is always present.

Also, if anything... the fact that you can get Monastic Legacy through Ascetic Style only implies they would interact.
Event though they clearly don't stack, but that's besides the point. Not stacking =/= not functional; both effects are functional, you just take the highest of the two.

Or maybe my witch just assumed the chair came inscribed with it's own name?
Either "Ikea" or "Madein sweden".

My prediction is that this will be a populair patron for the time being. And I feel the PFS headquarters in Absalom is going to be a place where you just can't trust the furniture...

Oh, looks like they updated it... looks like most of it's legal!

*sarcasm* Totally unrelated question... Anyone know a good name for a familiar that's a chair?

Do we know when Legends material might be PFS legal?

I would also like to know this... so... bump

My bad, you're absolutely right, according to this FAQ:
FAQ source

Cavalier: Do animal companion levels from the druid class stack with cavalier mount levels?

If the animal is on the cavalier mount list and on the list of animal companions for your other class, your cavalier and druid levels stack to determine the animal's abilities. If the animal is not on the cavalier mount list, the druid levels do not stack and you must have different animals (one an animal companion, one a cavalier mount).
For example, if you are Medium druid and you choose a horse companion, levels in cavalier stack to determine the horse's abilities. If you are a Medium druid and you choose a bird companion, levels in cavalier do not stack to determine the bird's abilities, and you must choose a second creature to be your mount (or abandon the bird and select an animal companion you can use as a mount).
This same answer applies to multiclassed cavalier/rangers.
(Note that the design team discourages players from having more than one companion creature at a time, as those creatures tend to be much weaker than a single creature affected by these stacking rules, and add to the bookkeeping for playing that character.)

Chell Raighn, you covered it all... except the Packlord Druid in conjunction with the Cavalier with Horsemaster.
Although I think I know what your ruling is going to be, considering so far it seems we drew the same conclusions...

FAQ wrote:

Channel Energy: If I have this ability from more than one class, do they stack?

No—unless an ability specifically says it stacks with similar abilities (such as an assassin's sneak attack), or adds in some way based on the character's total class levels (such as improved uncanny dodge), the abilities don't stack and you have to use them separately. Therefore, cleric channeling doesn't stack with paladin channeling, necromancer channeling, oracle of life channeling, and so on.

Focused Weapon does not specifically call out stacking with similar abilities, therefore it doesn't stack. The player would have two different sacred weapon damage pools they could pull from, and both may not even apply to the same weapons.

Yes, we established at the very start of this thread it's likely the abilities do not stack. You'd have 2;

I am more and more eager to hear an actual compelling argument for or against it.

being hit by a car, is it evil because I pushed them?

You pushed someone and they got hit by a car? That's pretty evil indeed.

I guess it is easy to respond when you completely ignore everything else being said by someone else and only take a small portion of what they said to respond to.

Such as the Huntmaster feat

That was the one I was thinking of earlier. Thanks, it was a racial feat... not a racial trait...

Not without a general rule being made. They actually changed the wording of FoB via erratum to make it stack, exactly because it didn't before.

Oh, the wording was different before from the wording in the FAQ? I hadn't checked, I just went with the wording in the FAQ.

Runehacking wrote:

I do have to correct you.

On what part exactly? I paraphrased it, but I see no functional difference. Or did you not see the esses that I bolded?

Ah, I see where the misunderstanding comes from; you "paraphrased" the wording, then gave the exact wording, but added just those esses. This caused me to think you thought your "paraphrased" sentence was what the actual wording was, and the sentence with the addes esses (which was closer to the wording as far as I could read) was a paraphrased version of what I had written down.

Sorry about that, didn't realize the paraphrasing.

But the paraphrasing is the problem in this case. It's not paraphrased; it's a completely different meaning. "instead of" and "as" don't mean the same, afterall. One replaces, the other pretents to be.
On animal companions, effective levels of a class are treated as druid levels. (yes, I'm going for easy reference to another thread we're both talking in) And actual druid levels stack there too.

Ok, I was hoping to stay out of this increasingly heated argument...
but here goes... my two cents.

Argument 1:

This means that now you are Druid 4 + Cavalier 4(8) = Level 12 Horse animal companion.

I'll have to pick Derklord's side on this one. When you calculate your effective druid level, you either use the normal method of using Druid + Cavalier... which is 8. Or you use the Horsemaster's feat... which says druid level = character level... which is also 8. You take the higher of the 2. (but they're both 8)

Argument 2:

So, going back to the feat, what happens if you take the PackLord Druid archetype which allows you to break up your levels into multiple animal companions?

If horse master makes it so that each animal companion gets to use your full character level does this mean that now you can have 8 level 8 horses?

I'm going to have to meet you halfway here. The horselord applies to only the Cavalier's mount. Although this is an animal companion that can also get druid levels from the actual druid class, it is a specific animal companion under the Cavalier. Furthermore, the Cavalier is no Packlord. He cannot devide his mount, so you have one level 8 mount.

However... The druid is a packlord, and can choose not to add his druid levels to the Cavalier's mount. The Horselord feat will not apply to other companions than the mount, meaning the first horse will still be level 8, dispite not getting druid levels from the druid because of the horselord... But the druid can add other animal companions beside the mount.
So on Druid (Packlord) 4 / Cavalier 4;
1 level 8 Horse (mount)
4 level 1 other animal companions of any kind

Argument 3:

Let me alter the situation just slightly. Assume a Druid 4, Cavalier 4 and they have the following feats. Horse Lord and Boon Companion. For their Druid levels they have chosen a hawk and for their Cavalier levels they have chosen a horse.

Our 8th level character should have an 8th level horse and an 8th level hawk. They have a total of 16 "effective druid levels" even though they are only an 8th level character.

See my answer on Argument 2... yes this would work (on a Packlord druid).

Sidenote: aside from the packlord druid, though... a normal druid does not have the choice to use druid levels for other animal companions than one he already has. So a normal druid will have to add those levels to the Cavalier's mount.

... that FAQ actually confirms such wording on abilities do stack. (being the monk's level + BAB from other sources get treated as BAB)

But the wording on the monk's flurry are just telling you to treat the monk's BAB as full when calculating the BAB for your attacks with a flurry. It doesn't appear to have ever suggested you don't get BAB from other sources anyway; they seemed to have FAQ'd that to avoid misunderstandings... to me at least, the wording was already pretty clear.

Anyway, that's off-topic. Just to be clear; I do not fully 100% believe it stacks, as I already mentioned before, and still say this is up to a GM to decide... but Derklord, I do have to correct you.
You said:

No it doesn't. It means you use your Fighter level instead of the Warpriest level the class feature would normally use. It does not say you treat your Fighter levels as Warpriest levels!

Whilst in fact, the actual quote on focussed weapon is;

The fighter selects one weapon for which he has Weapon Focus and that belongs to the associated fighter weapon group. The fighter can deal damage with this weapon based on the damage of the warpriest’s sacred weaponACG class feature, treating his fighter level as his warpriest level. The fighter must have Weapon Focus with the selected weapon in order to choose this option.

You may be thinking of Oracle. They have a FCB that can make their companion revelation higher than their level.

You're right. An oracle with a revelation that gives an animal companion (Like Lunar: Primal companion or Nature: Bonded mount) and is either an Elf, Aasimar, Ifrit or Sylph can add 1/6th of a level as favorite class bonus to that revelation... getting a higher druid level for an animal companion once every 6 levels.

...
Does that mean a level 18 Ifrit Oracle can have a level 21 animal companion?
Do animal companions surpass 20?

The -4 only kicks in if you are not proficient with the weapon, so a medium size character with all martial weapon proficiency using a large longsword (using both hands) only takes the -2 'size' penalty: An oversized longsword is still a longsword.

With Massive Weapons, the same character (at 3rd level) could wield a large Greatsword at a -5 penalty. If he picks up a large Meteor Hammer instead, he could wield it with a -9 penalty (assuming he doesn't have that specific exotic proficiency).

Basically, it's a 'lose accuracy to gain damage' trade off, but if you are fighting a lot of large weapon-using creatures, it's main benefit is your ability to use their own weapons against them.

My bad, I should have specified I was talking about a two-handed weapon of a larger category;

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.

Intresting...
Although I agree with avr in the first place; it would generally mean the higher of the two...
You could argue that The fighter does get the stack from warpriest, just not the other way around.

Imagine you're a 8 warpriest / 8 fighter.
The warpirests class feature, clearly just counts the warpriest's level (8)
But the advanced weapon training Focused Weapon on the other hand... treats his fighter level as his warpriest level. This means that any level in fighter gets treated like a warpriest level... but what does that make the actual warpriest levels?
Still warpriest levels... thus... 8 + 8 = 16?

I'll admit it's not solid though... and you'd have to discuss this with your GM for sure.

If you build into the Ascetic Style feat chain for Ascetic Strike, you wouldn't ever need Monastic Legacy... also Monastic Legacy wouldn't have any effect on your "Unarmed Strike Damage" from Ascetic Strike, as it is specifically "as a monk 4 levels lower than your character level" adding half of your non-monk levels to your monk levels for determining your unarmed strike damage won't change the result from Ascetic Style. If your a level 15 Fighter with Ascetic Style, you do damage with your chosen weapon as if you were a level 11 Monk using unarmed strike, if the same character somehow qualified for and took Monastic Legacy, their damage would still be as a level 11 monk's unarmed strike.

Ascetic style & follow up doesn't effect natural weapons, it effects a selected monk weapon for which you have weapon focus. Natural weapons aren't monk weapons.

So that is beside the point. For the purpose of this scenario, ascetic strike is merely very high feat tax.

The point still is, Monastic Legacy has the ability to grant the entire class feature to a character that doesn't have it.

I believe there are many different rules to be found on alcohol use...

I say just have fun.
I'd rule Demons can get drunk, they just get a bonus to resist because of the immunity to poison.

FCT only applies feats. That's absolutely clearly said in the feat's description. A class feature is not a feat. Therefore, FCT doesn't apply class features.

So, OK, the natural weapon's damage is calculated as if the Monk level was higher than normal. Since the damage of the natural attack is not calculated based on Monk level, as that would require the application of a class feature that as established isn't applied, this does nothing.

I see where you're comming from, but I'd like to point you to a sneaky 3rd feat...

As Bladelock pointed out in less words, and as you'll realize while reading Ascetic Strike... It's very well possible to obtain Monestic Legacy without being an actual monk.

This means that someone who doesn't have the unarmed strike monk class feature gets the added damage to unarmed strike completely from the feat Monestic Legacy. No class feature present to begin with.

That means the damage is applied through the feat, not the class feature.
The feat merely applies it's effect as per said class feature.

Well, I'd still say it's up for debate.

The unarmed strike damage of the monk might be a class feature, but Monastic Legacy is a feat that applies the effect of using that class feature as if it's a higher level.

While you could argue that the class feature is there on the side of things, getting altered only as a technicallity whilst having no effect on the natural weapon being used in this case...

But you could also argue that since Monastic Legacy is a feat that will apply as effect on unarmed strike that it's damage is treated as if a monk of a higher level, then it is most certainly an effect that's being applied by a feat and therefor should alter the natural attack.

The wording still leaves too much up for debate if you ask me.

It's simple. Normally, the penalty is a -2 AND a -4 for nonproficiency. That's a -6 total.
The titan mauler gets proficiency, taking that -4 out of the picture. But the -2 gets an extra -4, bringing back the -6. Then every now and then, the titan mauler decreases that penalty.

So basicly, all classes take that -6 total. The titan mauler just throws it all on one pile and starts reducing it.

and, off course, titan maulers can just weild a large two handed weapon... which is usually not the case for medium sized characters.

Every animal compainion class ability usually comes with the "your X level counts as your druid level (possibly -3 or -4) for this animal companion".
Boon companion and Horsemaster can mess with the levels an animal companion has. But the druid level never goes over your level.

Although I'm pretty sure there was a trait or alternative racial trait that could actually add a level above yours... but I can't seem to find it now, maybe it doesn't exist...

It's indeed weird wording...

I wouldn't have posted this if it wasn't completely unclear. I posted this to see other people's opinions.

I'd also really like to see where the line is on Feral Combat Training right now... because there's tons of feats that have improved unarmed strike as a prequisite, and it's often quite unclear how they would play out with Feral Combat training.

I know Feral Combat training got errata'd to remove the wording that it also included getting unarmed strike augments on your natural attack... but let's look at these two feats...

ML is a feat that has Improved unarmed strike as a prerequisite. So, Feral Combat Training will apply it's effects to a natural weapon...
Does that mean the natural weapon gets the monk's unarmed strike table?

Also... if you just stay monk... it's at full level...

A slayer archetype that gives an animal companion.

More classes that can get drake companions... and make drake companions viable

More weapons that do mounted charge damage. There's a reason you only see lances being used when you have a mount... it's the only weapon that gets this.

An official archetype or feat that allows a monk to use INT instead of WIS.

A god of jousting that has animal domain and has lance as favourite weapon.
So you can turn your cleric into a cavalier.

A feat or class ability that allows you to maintain all current grapples at once.

How about instead they see their only way out without having to face the entire army of the king, is using the King's escape tunnel?
The old deserted place hasn't been attended to for ages, and is crawling with all sorts of invasive critters.

It's a fun dungeon to start.

But halfway out, it seems the poorly maintained tunnel has collapsed, and an opening leads surprisingly enough to the streets.

That's where you start the chase. In this case, the player's first challenge would be to try and blend in. I'm sure you can continue from there?

It might lead them to the gates, where a spiteful captain has set up a roadblock. They will have to fight past this "boss", depending on how well they did the chase, reinforcements might come soon from behind?

Just suggestions.

I would say it isn't evil. The intent for freeing slaves is only good.
The wizard is however half right because by buying the slaves you are supporting the slave trade, which is in itself not a good thing to do.

Alignments are funny and full of grey areas. In this case, taking part in slave trade in order to free slaves, is closer to a neutral approach in my book. Ending the slave trade is the good thing to do... and, off course, simply buying the slaves to have slaves would be the evil thing to do.

The other neutral approach would be to do nothing.

hurray for endless alignment discussions

Happler wrote:

Alignment is not a fuzzy line, but a fairly hard line.

Which is why we can all agree on morality and alignment and there are never any threads asking about it ever? I usually prefer flexibility myself, helps make everyone happy.

What an utter chaotic think to say. Now you will never be ale to learn how to punch people and be immune to desease for some reason.

Clan Artisan is what you're looking for, I think.
Gives a +2 bonus on a craft skill

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/regional-traits/clan-artisan-xa-hoi/

Sanctified slayer with animal domian.

Chivilary inquisition actually gives the animal companion a full druid level, but it'll be a mount.

you're lash can be dropped or disarmed and you can pick it back up as any normal weapon.

... so then the ectoplasmist can drop a lash, summon a new one, drop it again, etc... to leave a trail of lashes Hansel & Grettle style?