Power Flower's page

Unless it is further specified, the word "level" in a spell description refers to caster level.

If some other meaning of the word "level" is intended, the spell description will say "character level" or somesuch (e.g. Transformation).

This is a statement I see frequently repeated(both on the forums and IRL). Its wrong.

Yes, it is "wrong".

It is also surprisingly accurate as a rule-of-thumb!

Make yourself a damage-per-round spreadsheet, make sure to parameterize it so that you can easily alter your assumptions (weapon enhancement, base attack, other attack boni, damage boni, imp crit feat etc etc).

I consulted one of my own DPR spreadsheets to refresh my memory for this post, and: Using the (unhasted) stats of my current party's fighter @ lvl 8, a +1 to hit bonus results in:

+0% damage vs AC 14
+2,2% dam vs AC 16
+5,7% dam vs AC 21
+6,1% dam vs AC 22
+8,9% dam vs AC 26
+10,7% dam vs AC 28

A quick look at CR 8 monsters in the Bestiary gives AC 22 for a young copper dragon, as the highest AC I would expect to meet at that level. NPC fighter might get higher, but the average combat monster encountered @ lvl 8 will have a lower AC than 22.

So if you are playing a "standard" scenario, the +1 = 5% heuristic will IME usually be an overestimate.

But this is all very sensitive to your assumptions!

Also... If your party's main melee'er gains a 100% damage boost from a +1 to-hit buff... which, as pointed out earlier, is theoretically possible... RUN! If you can; chances are you're already dead or captured.

Ad: Inherent bonuses not stacking

This is D&D legacy stuff, made explicit in the Wish spell text:

Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.

...note the first part is in direct conflict with the Abyssal bloodline's +6 @ lvl 17.

8-(

We found out about this about a year ago, and after a brief discussion (by our standards) decided to continue with the 3.5 version.

The three major arguments in favor of 3.5 variant were:

-- Force of habit/consistency across systems. (We still have a long-running 3.5 campaign going)

-- Ease of rules adjudication. Determining opportunity attacks is hairy enough already. The passing-between-threatened-squares-provokes-but-only-when-they-are-threaten ed-by-the-same-critter rule is a bit too much.

-- Consistency with other reach rules and, yes, the movement rules.

Consider: A creature with 5' reach can attack into squares on their diagonal. But since the distance, per the movement rules, between the opposite corners of the two squares in question is 15 feet (1), the distance center-center of one square is 7,5 feet (2), and the distance center - far corner is 11,25 feet.

Since we are completely agnostic WRT exactly where in a square a creature is (3), it is NOT a stretch to say that: Letting a creature with 5' reach attack on the diagonals is basically granting it +5' reach on the diagonals.

Therefore, to be consistent with the rules for 5' reach, the rules for 10' reach should let creatures attack/threaten spaces that are 15' away (center-center) on the diagonals; OR the reach rules should prohibit creatures with 5' reach attacking into their diagonally adjacent squares.

-------

The counterargments were:

-- Them's The Rules!

-- It will be unbalancing; in particular it will make Enlarge Person more powerful.

But both of these cut both ways, so... meh.

--------

(1) Because it's equivalent to center-center of three squares.

(2) Of course, the distance between diagonally opposite corners of one square equals the distance center-center of two diagonally adjacent squares. Note that geometrically, the distance corner-corner on the diagonal of a 5' square is 7,07 feet. So the two-diagonal-squares-equals-three rule exaggregates the distance. (Which is a further, albeit weak, argument for extending reach on the diagonals).

(3) Imagine a bunch of Diminutive creatures in a square. Some will be at the near end, some in the middle, some at the far end of the square. A character with 5' reach in an adjacent square can attack all of them.

Acrobatics may be used to jump up from prone without provoking an Attack of

Opportunity. The DC for this is equal to the threatening enemy’s CMD, failing
this check by 5 or more provokes an Attack of Opportunity.

I like the idea, but I think it needs a little work...

Is this done as a standard action or a move action?
If it is a standard action it is very situational (underpowered). If it is a move action I think it is overpowered and will lead to unnecessary dice-rolling -- all players should always roll, since they might get lucky and there's no downside to trying. It should be balanced by a penalty for failing by five or more that is worse than what would have happened if they just took the ordinary, provoking move action.

Also, there may be more than one threatening enemy, and they might not have the same CMD.

I would say something like

As a move action, you can attempt to bounce up from prone without provoking opportunity attacks. Make an Acrobatics check; you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from those opponents that threaten you whose CMD your check result equals or exceeds. You provoke opportunity attacks as normal from those opponents whose CMD exceeds your check result by less than 5. Opponents whose CMD is 5 or more above your check result gain a +2 circumstance bonus to attack and damage with their opportunity attack.

(and polish the language so it becomes readable 8-/)

Alternatively, the penalty for failing by 5 or more could be:

- you stand up, but action converted to standard action (if so, obviously must have standard action available to be allowed to try in first place)
- Gain staggered condition for one round (or perhaps until end of next rnd)
- you do not stand up from prone (but you still provoke and you still spent a move action trying)

Exactly what the penalty is isn't important, only that it adds some spice and makes players think twice about trying to stand up w/o provoking.

Ooor... are you trying to make the Trip maneuver less powerful by an indirect route? If so your rule works as intended, I guess.

---

I like your rules on potions/oils on other characters.

I also like the Treat Deadly Wounds rule, though I would allow characters to treat themselves with a -5 penalty (say) for unfavorable circumstances.

---

Also, what LazarX said.

You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks).

(my emphasis)

I think this is pretty clear as far as RAI goes. While not explicitly stated anywhere as far as I know, the assumption throughout is that humanoids fight using their hands. Exeptions from this are spelled out pretty clearly.

The Beast Totem description does not explicitly allow attacks with feet, so no, you can't.

(As wraithstrike noted, eidolons are not typical. IIRC James Jacobs said they were intended to let you "play the monster", that is let you emulate any reasonable Bestiary monster, to open up possiblities that you otherwise wouldn't have. So it is a mistake to try to extrapolate from eidolons to any other playable anything).

So, a friend of mine plays a barbarian.

He is a bit allergic to bookkeeping, and His Eyes Glaze Over when presented with the vast array of possible choices for feats and rage powers: The meta-game of character building doesn't appeal to him at all. Which isn't a problem at low levels, but tends to make his characters lacklustre at higher levels.

So to have fun, he needs a character that is easy to play, and he needs a bit of help building it. So I'm pitching in, but I'm trying to be tactful about it and not hijack his character... not my forté, but I'm trying...

For his first rage power, he chose Guarded Stance (yes, we're playing Core only, and I am reluctant to suggest we expand: even though my barbarian-playing friend would likely be the one to benefit the most, he would also appreciate the extra options the least).

At the time I hadn't read up on the bbn, so I kept my thoughts on the wisdom of prioritizing AC on a 19 Str (when not raging) greataxe-wielding bbn to myself: I always figured the point of the melee bbn was to "git thar fustest with the mostest"... everything else be damned. But he's free to make suboptimal choices, and it's not a bad choice. Right?

Wrong. Guarded Stance requires a move action to activate. Once activated, it (perversely) doesn't last until the end of the rage, it lasts Con modifier rounds. And to top it off, it only applies against melee attacks.

This was all too much for my friend. Even if he'd been willing and able to learn the mechanics (he hadn't two levels later), he'd still have hated the chore of keeping track of what his AC was at what time against whom.

So I petitioned the GM for a simplifying houserule on Guarded Stance, and we now have it as:

When raging, you gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC.

I think this is much better. It plays so much more smoothly. And I can't see why it should be unbalanced vs. the original. Sure it's more powerful at low levels, and maybe less powerful at high levels due to the original's scaling, but does that matter? (I note the APG Beast Totem has a similar effect, and scales with level, but that it also requires the Lesser BT and grants a nat amr bonus, which is not as good as a dodge bonus. Comments?)

Which got me thinking. The first thing I houseruled when GMing 3.0 was the Dodge feat. RAW 3.x, you had to choose one attacker each round that the dodge bonus applied against; I ruled that it applied against everything. So I cheered when I saw that PF had done the exact same.

Simplify, simplify the needless complexity!

I wondered: Why did the PF developers, who otherwise did a splendid job of simplifying 3.5, merging skills etc., introduce so much needless complexity to the barbarian?

Because, now that I have looked into building one, there's... room for improvement.

There's the silliness that is Rage Cycling. Available to all @ bbn lvl 17, when they gain Tireless Rage. Probably achieavable much sooner; not really interested in the details.

I don't see RCing so much as exploiting a rules loophole as a consequence of flawed rules implementation. The obvious (to me anyway) fix is to not have rage powers that are usable once per rage. Make them 1/rnd or 1/day instead. Not every XdY rounds, either: Needless complexity again. Simplify!

(I do see a way of effectively stopping RCing with just one tiny tweak: Make it a swift action to enter rage. I can't help but notice that most (all?) of the 1/rage RPs are swift or immediate actions to activate. But this, again, begs the question: Why the 1/rage limitation at all? At higher levels the limiting factor is going to be that swift action, anyway. If it's deemed so good it should't be usable-once-per-round-while-precluding-use-of-other-once-per-round-goodies, why not just say "once a day" and call it one?)

What? I'm ranting again? Oh.

Ehhh...

Well anyway, I think our GM will get some more barbarian-related houserule petitions soon.

FAQ'd.

The qouted statements seem to contradict each other:

If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.

So whoever or whatever you touch (apart from the ground, presumably) gets it. How do you trip someone pseudo-armed with a spell charge without touching them? (In good ol' 3.x, a trip maneuver started with a melee touch attack roll).

Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge

The word "normal" could be taken to mean that combat maneuvers are excluded. I do not think that was the intention, however; the context of that quote suggests that the word was added to make it undisputable that normal, not touch, AC is targeted when you try to deal ordinary damage along with delivering the spell.

So to the OP's questions, I think the spell should definitely discharge, and in the case of trip, on the target. Where the discharges go on disarm and sunder I will not opine on.

RAW, the only thing I can see that makes the held charge dissipate is casting another spell, though I could see someone rule that spell-y things like using Arcane Strike also does so.

No, no and no. You can deliver a touch spell with a natural or "normal" unarmed attack; then,

If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges.

While the effects of the spell and the effect(s) of the attack are added together for purpose of determining damage dealt to the target, there is no implication here that the damage of the normal attack is considered a part of the damage of the spell.

So in your example, only the damage from Vampiric Touch is granted as temp HP.

Conversely, if the target has Spell Resistance, it might thereby ignore the effects of the VT spell but not the bite attack or the fire damage. Likewise, fire resistance would block or reduce the fire damage only.

However you can score a crit with VT delivered by natural weapon, in which case the doubled VT damage is granted as temp HP.

I'm a few weeks from kicking off this campaign from level 1 and right now I've got one map and LOTS of roleplaying in my outline; my gamers want these RP scenes reduced to a soundbite and a map full of markers and tiles. HELP!

Ouch! Artistic vision meets unappreciative audience. Been there, done that. I feel your pain.

I don't have any easy solutions for you, but I have been playing RPGs since the late eighties, with several different groups of different sizes, and I have thought a lot about this kind of problem. I have drifted into a "least common denominator" approach to it.

Some perhaps-relevant observations:

Firstly, my best roleplaying experiences have been in small groups.

Face it: Roleplaying, as in taking on a different persona and acting it out, is not just challenging from a technical/acting point of view, it also requires a good helping of courage. You might make a complete fool of yourself. Even professional actors suffer from stage fright. And to risk making a fool of yourself in front of your friends? Break from the social conventions of the group? That's beyond scary, that's tempting social suicide.

The fewer of your ordinary circle of friends that's watching, the easier it is to loosen up.

Boardgames don't have this problem at all -- but then, they don't offer the rewards that roleplaying do.

So if I had the opportunity, I would try to train the players to like roleplaying by either inviting them one by one into an existing, preferrably small group of your peers. If that is not an option, I would try to keep the number of players low. I prefer two players myself. Just one player easily gets awkwardly intimate, and with three players group effects start appearing: the least socially secure player mums up, the two players not currently enjoying GM attention start chatting about out-of-game or meta-game stuff, thus breaking the immersion, etc.

Secondly, style and expectations.

One of the members in my long-standing gaming group is an avid reader of 'pulp' fantasy, and likes his Dnd/PF to contain the same tropes. (He's also a long-time DnD player). I once considered running a (3.x) stone-age campaign, focussing on survival and self-sufficiency with very few found magic items; when I asked for his opinion his reply was something like "What, no magical plate armor? Where's the fun in that?" He was not joking. I never did run that stone-age campaign.

However, the same player had great fun playing a self-sufficiency-focussed character (Gangrel) in Vampire: Dark Ages, which has virtually no magical items (by DnD/PF standards).

I think what happened was that he didn't perceive V:DA as a fantasy game, it being different enough from his usual intellectual/playing habits that he automatically approached it as something new, that is, with an open mind.

Something along those lines may be happening to your players. They might be seeing the tactical aspects of Pathfinder and automatically, habitually, immediately enter board-game mode. To prevent that, I would try a different game entirely. Throw them off the deep end! (Maybe not any of the White Wolf games though, from a mechanical game balance perspective they are terrible, and if you're not prepared to houserule with a heavy hand, a bunch of experienced board gamers WILL break them. Something like Call of Cthulhu or Kult perhaps).

The point is not to denigrate my or your players' style but to emphasize that habits are HARD to break; and that your intellectual habits actually DETERMINE your perceptions, thus making it functionally IMPOSSIBLE to approach something (you percieve as) familiar with an open mind.

Thirdly, everybody should have fun.

I often read statements on this board that "the GM should not ruin the players' fun", which isn't bad advice in itself, but sadly it often seems to be taken to mean that it's OK for players to ruin the GMs fun.

It's not.

It is EVERYBODYs responsibility not just not to ruin anybody else's fun, but to add to it. You are not there just to entertain the players. A campaign where the GM doesn't have fun is a campaign doomed to die young, or worse, end in GM burnout. (Make sure you explain to your players that a PF GM is not not not the same as a Descent Overlord, that is, it's not them-versus-you, rather it's all of you cooperating in telling an epic story. That involves you throwing epic challenges at the player characters, but nothing personal, right?).

If you ever find yourself in a group where, when everybody else seems to have fun, you don't, and when you have fun, the others get annoyed: LEAVE. That's not the group for you, quite simply. It doesn't matter whether you are the GM or a player. It doesn't matter whether you put a lot of effort into developing your campaign or character. Cut your losses.

That being said, it is usually possible to find some common ground that everyone enjoys (somewhat) and nobody hates. This often involves avoiding alignment extremes (some players find Paladins offensive, some find Evil characters offensive; if both kinds of players are in the group, both kinds of PCs should be avoided), toning down roleplaying (a charismatic player can ruin others' fun by hogging the attention, plus a lot of people just can't bring themselves to do it), etc.

This is what I mean by a "least common denominator" approach. You could also call it "the path of least resistance", or "junk food roleplaying" (i.e. bland, but filling).

Yes it is giving in, in a way. But in another way it's the art of the possible. You do what you can do, and learn to live with the fact that what you can do is far less than what your artistic vision makes you desire to do.

So the question you need to ask yourself is, I think, "Am I going to have fun doing it this way? Enough fun that it's worth the time and effort I'm going to put into it?"

(The time and effort already spent is "sunk cost" and shouldn't affect the decision).

However I know I couldn't answer that to myself in just a few weeks. Forming an entirely new vision of a campaign, completely new expectations for it, takes me much longer than that. I put a lot of work into my campaigns, a lot of emotional capital is tied up in them. If you are like me, you'll need to get some distance to it to answer well.

So if I was you I think i would postpone the campaign start. Don't try to make an emotionally difficult decision on short notice, that's a very good way to ruin your own (and ultimately everyone's) fun.

In the meantime, you can play Descent instead...

Verily I beseech thee, procure for thyself a pink umbrella.

Power Flower wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Power Flower wrote:

I conclusively proved to you that the opposite is true.

You did no such thing. You changed the numbers so that a situation where your interpretation breaks down didn't occur.

Quote:

What? I didn't change any numbers.

Alternatively: you roll less than 12 (55% chance) and don't notice him at all. <------- changing the situation so that your reading works.

That's not changing the situation so that [my] reading works, it is pointing out to you, using your own numbers, that without scent you had a 55% chance of getting no information at all.

By your numbers you had, without scent, a 45% chance of learning two bits, and, with scent, a 100% chance of learning one bit.

Now here I think is the dire mammoth in the room that you are failing your perception check against even though it doesn't have concealment:

With scent you still have a 45% chance of learning the other bit as well, since gaining scent did not make you lose your senses of sight, hearing, etc.

I did not point that out initially because I thought it glaringly obvious.

Quote:

My variant does make detection of prescence virtually automatic unless the Stealthing character is vastly better at Stealth than the character he's trying to sneak past is at Perception.

Which given most adventure/DM set ups where the NPC's know the PC's travel route and itineraries and have ample time to buff and prepare is pretty much a given.

If the GM intentionally set the PCs up for a fall they will fall. So if the characters have scent, the ambushers will know that too and have something like negate aroma on.

You misunderstand me.

I'm asking what breaks if you read it my way? Whats wrong with reading it my way?

I understood you, but I chose to focus on why I think my way is "better" rather than why your way is "wrong". Amounts to the same but is usually a better way of fostering dialogue. Also, by accepting that framing I would implicitly be claiming that my way is "right" -- which I am not claiming, not in the sense that "it is RAW" anyway. It might be RAI but there's so much ambiguity that I wouldn't put money on it.

Power Flower wrote:

I conclusively proved to you that the opposite is true.

You did no such thing. You changed the numbers so that a situation where your interpretation breaks down didn't occur.

What? I didn't change any numbers. I extended your example to show you why your cherry-picked cases were misleading you.

What happens if you read the detection of a presence as automatic?

As I had hoped I had shown:

My variant does make detection of prescence virtually automatic unless the Stealthing character is vastly better at Stealth than the character he's trying to sneak past is at Perception.

So in low-level play, it could practically always be treated as autodetection to speed things up.

At high-level play however, my variant allows stealth experts to sneak past mooks/guard dogs.

This is a bump up to the PCs.

The druid in human form gets MORE information than that same druid in doggy form by your reading of the scent rules.

I conclusively proved to you that the opposite is true.

A CHANCE at getting to know two things (prescence and location) is NOT better than a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY of getting to know one thing (prescence) and* the SAME CHANCE as the first example of also getting to know the other (location).

You seem to assume that gaining scent makes you lose sight.

* I know I didn't state this explicitly in my example, as I assumed it was obvious. I guess I should have.

Pathfinder has the same exact [scent] ability [as 3.5], but now it CAN"T be read as being automatic? Why not?

Umm have I said that? I have been pretty careful not to. If I have, I retract it.

(If I had thought so I wouldn't see any point in participating in this discussion)

Power Flower wrote:

I fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion.(that scent is worse than no scent)

Ok, my 5th level druid has a +18 to perception in human form. There's an invisible stealthing rogue who has a total stealth modifier of 30 (HE ROLLED A FOUR!) I roll the 12 i need to beat his stealth. I get the general idea of where he's standing but not his exact square.

Alternatively: you roll less than 12 (55% chance) and don't notice him at all.

(You are assuming Stealth bonus of 6, die roll of 4 , +20 from invisible but moving, yes?)

5th level druid has a +18 to perception and scent in doggy form. Theres an invisible stealthing rogue who has a total stealth modifier of 30 (HE ROLLED A FOUR!) I roll the 1 i need to beat his stealth. I do not get the general idea of where he's standing, all that i know is that he's somewhere (detect presence but not location).

OK, assume he rolled a 20. Then his check result vs. you assuming a +6 stealth = 26 = your Perception DC, since you can detect him as if he was visible. But you also get +8 to your check to smell him, so the least result you can get on your Perception check is 27!

Basically, as long as his stealth modifier is 7 or less, you can't fail to detect his prescence. If he was (as I think he should be) taking 10, you'd functionally autodetect him if his stealth mod was 17 or less.

For him to have a 50% chance of remaining undetected by you, his check result would have to be a whopping 37. How often does that happen at 5th level?

This is very useful even if you don't know his exact location! Now you can alert your party to danger (e.g. three short barks means "invisible foe" makes wiz cast see invisibility) and start buffing yourself.

1) CRB p564 indicates that: Scent does neutralize invisibility bonus. Detect as per normal perception vs stealth. (It says nothing about it neutralizing stealth.)

You must be looking at this:

A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.

---

2) CRB p443 indicates that: [Pinpointing] is automatic within 5feet.

That would be this sentence:

A creature with the scent ability automatically pinpoints unseen creatures within 5 feet of its location.

---

Good sleuthing!

Dug around a bit.

meabolex' Radney-MacFarland quote in the OP is from Stealth Playtest rnd 2. That is, it was in response to how the proposed changes would work, not how the rules work now. So there is not necessarily a contradiction between the OP's James Jacobs and Radney-MacFarland quotes.

Also, about a month ago, JJ commented on that same thread that

This is the extent of it for now. We have no plans at this point to put it into the PRD or do much else with it at this point—feel free to use the variant rules of this playtest in your games as you wish... but it's not going to be something we officially adopt into the game, since that type of change goes from errata to re-design.

And the time for re-design is not now.

Mistwalker wrote:

Example:

The rogue has no concealment or cover versus the scent guy.

PRD wrote:

A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.

So the rogue can't use stealth |:

This makes Scent ridiculously overpowered. It is a very common ability at low levels. Dogs get it! The world should be full of dogs. Every farm should have several, guardposts should have them. Every low-level wizard or sorcerer should have at least one personal guard dog, a bargain at 25gp apiece. This reading of Scent makes Stealth totally usesless.

Which led me to opine uptread that:

I think that interpretation is unreasonable. It is akin to requiring total concealment for Stealth skill to be usable vs. sighted opponents, and ruling that you are automatically detected (by sight) once your opponenst have LOS to you.

I think Mistwalker's "Where's Waldo" metaphor is the correct way to think of the concealment/cover requirement. That is, the intent is that you can't (enter) Stealth vs. opponents that are already aware of you; but you can remain undetected even if they could detect you, by any and all means.

power flower wrote:

I agree completely with your points 2) and 3). I disagree with your point 1

Well here's the thing.

1)The creature detects another creature's presence but not its specific location.

2)Noting the direction of the scent is a move action.

3) If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.

Why do steps 2 and 3 require rolls but not part 1? None of them ask for a roll, and none of them say they're automatic.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

Scent was not written to work with perception. Scent is pretty much unchanged from 3.5 when spot and listen were seperate skills and neither of them dealt with a sense of smell.

Interesting observation. I'd add that Search was also rolled into Perception, and it just occurs to me that that may be a source of contention here. In my example above, it could be thought of as: Sniffer gets a reactive Spot/Listen/Smell check (there should totally have been a Smell skill in 3.x) to notice Skulker's prescene, then if he succeds he can Search for him by sense of smell. (I might be suffering from 3.5itis)

If you can successfully hear them you know their approximate location. That is MORE information than you get by scent with your reading, which us merely their direction.

Yes. But it requires that you can hear them.

It makes scent worse than having no scent.

I fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion.

It is partly to avoid that outcome that I think Scent shoud nullify invisibility's flat Stealth bonus, but, though I haven't explicitly stated it yet, will let the invis stealth bonuses remain vs. ordinary hearing.

(But there should totally be an Acute Hearing extraordinary abiltity that could nullify invis' stealth bonus in a like manner to Scent. And grant a +8 to detect creatures by hearing. Sadly, to my knowledge there isn't.)

This is how I understand scent to work:

Ditto.

1) Does the scent ability neutralize the invisibility bonus to stealth (+20 moving or +40 stationary)?

2) Does someone with scent automatically pinpoint an invisibile creature within 5feet or does it still require a perception check. (I am on the side of automatic.)

1) I say "Yes" is the answer that makes most sense to this question. I do not, however, claim that it is RAW, and the RAI is unclear enough that I think this is a hot FAQ candidate.

2) I say it's not automatic. Basically there are two ways Sniffer, who has the Scent ability, can end up adjacent to Skulker, who is invisible and stealthing:

i) Skulker is very good at Stealth, and snuck up on the unsuspecting Sniffer despite his sensitive nose. Though unstated, Skulker has presumably masked his smell in some way, as any master of Stealth should. If Slinker has gotten this far, why should Sniffer suddenly autodetect him once he gets within 5'?

ii) Sniffer detected Skulker by his sensitive nose, and has sniff, sniff, sniffed his way closer and closer to Skulker's position. He can (reliably) beat Skulker's Stealth and don't really need an autodetect. Also his DC drops by 1 for each 10' closer he gets. (Sniffer is very brave, BTW. He's practically begging for a sneak attack to his face.)

I think the real question on your 2) is whether it requires an action or not. I think the RAI is that it shouldn't, but the RAW is questionable.

Power Flower wrote:

Like: Invisible assassin is waiting for party. Because he is invisible and standing still, he gets +40 to his Stealth check. Everybody in the party gets a perception check to notice the assassin... but most fail because the DC is 60. The wizard's familiar with Scent, however, is only up against a DC of 20 and has a fair chance of smelling that an unfamiliar humanoid is near. Since no unfamiliar humanoid is seen, alarm bells go off.

Ok, so how does that interact with scent's needing a move action to get the direction and the detection within 5 feet?

Is this a trick question? I cannot see that they interact at all. Let's go back to the beginning and see where we differ. But first a disclaimer:

In my experience, Scent (at lowish levels anyway) is much more common among monsters than the PCs. Thus I think there is serious potential here for the GM to ruin the players' fun by making it too powerful, rather than the other way around.

As i read it , this is what happens.

1) Someone gets within 30 feet of you. Your weasel knows they're there... somewhere.

2) The weasel takes a move action to Sniff sniff sniff the air. This automatically lets it know the direction to the thing its looking for.

3) The weasel (if it so desires) can move in the direction of the thing it smells. This allows it to get within 5 feet of the thing it smells, it automatically knows what square the thing it smells is in. More likely the weasel tells you "10 o clock boss" and expects you to walk over and find it, send in the fighter, or just throw an AoE spell in that direction.

So that's an entire full round to get you what blindsense gets you instantly.

I can't figure out what scent actually does by James Jacobs reading. If someone is stealthing near me and I spend a move action and make a perception check I don't get a vague sense of "they're that way" I SEE them. Likewise with an invisible creature i know not only their direction but approximate location. It makes scent worse than having no scent.

I agree completely with your points 2) and 3). I disagree with your point 1). No autodetect, but the ability to notice creatures by scent: requiring a Perception check, but reactively, so that's not an action. If this reactive Perception check fails initially, it repeats every round the skulking creature is within 30' (or it becomes irrelevant, for examble by the skulker attacking). All characters get to make this check, but against an invisible foe no low-level character can beat the DC of even a low-level Stealthing creature (~10 Stealth bonus + take 10 + 20/40 = unbeatable by Perception ~10, even with a roll of 20, even before taking distance and whatnot into account).

Also, as Gauss keeps pointing out, per Perception skill, the Scented creature also gains +8 to detect the Stealthing invisible foe.

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.

I do see how this sentence could be taken to mean that Scent=autodetect, but I think that interpretation is unreasonable. It is akin to requiring total concealment for Stealth skill to be usable vs. sighted opponents, and ruling that you are automatically detected (by sight) once your opponenst have LOS to you.

If someone is stealthing near me and I spend a move action and make a perception check I don't get a vague sense of "they're that way" I SEE them.

IF they are detectable by your sight!

You would not SEE an invisible opponent (unless you had see invisibility or somesuch).

You would not SEE someone with total concealment from you, or elsewise out of your LOS altogether...

You COULD "hear soft footsteps over there"... or "see a shadow move on the wall to your left", meaning something moved in the lighted corridor to the right...

Mistwalker wrote:

Perception check:

-I agree with James, that you need to make one

Then what does scent do? You can get more information off a successful perception check without it.

Not trying to be snarky, but: It lets you detect smelly things by sense of smell.

I would rule that it is completely unaffected by invisibility, for instance. (Not RAW, I know; but I think the problem is with the wording of invisibility, not the wording of Scent.)

Like: Invisible assassin is waiting for party. Because he is invisible and standing still, he gets +40 to his Stealth check. Everybody in the party gets a perception check to notice the assassin... but most fail because the DC is 60. The wizard's familiar with Scent, however, is only up against a DC of 20 and has a fair chance of smelling that an unfamiliar humanoid is near. Since no unfamiliar humanoid is seen, alarm bells go off.

I love the concept, and I am currently playing something similar myself. It isn't mechanically optimal, so if you have a focused arcane caster in your party you might feel a bit lacking in the raw magic power department, but since you say you're the only one, I wouldn't worry about that: It's all relative after all.

It is my understanding that the adventure paths take you to level 13-15 or thereabouts, so I think the focus must be on that level range. Don't plan for level 20.

I don't think you'll be able to be useful in melee without going something like pal2/sor3/dd x (and then perhaps some Eldritch Knight or Arcane Archer) or bard/DD (I sometimes wish I'd taken the bard/DD route -- whip & trip!), so I'd drop Arcane Strike and Power Attack. Doubly so if you're the main arcane caster of the party. But I would consider Skill Focus: Use Magic Device. You have it as a class skill, and your high Cha makes you a natural: might as well boost it over the top.

I am going pure sor/DD with my character, and the mix is viable. You get very very tough, what with good fort and will progressions, can take Great Fortitude and Toughness as bloodline feats, d12 hit die, nat armor increase... I also like the blindsense + Blindsight bloodline feat, situational but cool.

Also I'd go sor 6 before embarking on DD to pick up a third level spell ASAP, and for the +1 to BAB and all saves you get at sor 6.

Then, sadly, I have not been able to justify taking all 10 levels of DD, but will stop at 8. Losing that third caster level for no real gain is too painful. You could stop at DD4 and go into Arcane Archer (or just an AA dip and then Eldritch knight, but by the time that's an option the AP will likely be nearing its end).

With sor6 / DD8 / sor x you will lose only two caster levels, which hurts a bit, but to me at least the price seems worth it:

-- much better fort save than a straight sor, from good save progression, +2 con, and easy to justify taking Great Fort
-- much better AC than a straight sor (not that that is very imptorant, but it's cool);
-- more hit points than a straight sor (1d12 ==> 6,5 avg; 1d6 +1 favored class bonus ==> 4,5 avg, albeit with lower variability)
-- +4 str, +2 con, +2 int;
-- an extra use per day of a breath weapon that will eventually deal 20d6 damage;
-- you still get to learn all of your bloodline bonus spells (though the 5+ level ones will be learnt one level later than a straight sor would've (you'll lose the bonus spells after Fear if you go AA or EK);
-- permanent blindsense 30' @ lvl 11
-- wings @ lvl 15, if you get that far: a perk you'll lose if you go AA or EK

I don't think this is covered by the RAW, and I am not certain it should be.

Have you ever participated in a scout or military "maneuver" lasting many days? Where you're carrying heavy equipment through rough terrain? Where you're constantly pushed and not allowed proper sleep?

You get progressively more tired (in game terms, I'd say gaining first the fatigued then the exhausted condition), and eventually you get so tired you could sleep anywhere. You just keel over and go to sleep, taking your boots off is an ordeal so you don't, you might even leave your backpack on. You're that tired. If you had a shield strapped to your wrist, you'd leave it on.

And you are somewhat refreshed when you wake up, but you are not rested by any means. In game terms, I would say that the exhausted condition was removed, but that you're still fatigued, and that to remove the fatigued condition you must put down your heavy equipment and make a proper bed.

The Endurance feat will reduce but not eliminate the need to strip.

At least that's how I'd run it on low levels.

Beyond low levels, being fatigued isn't that big a deal: you can remove it with lesser restoration. With some potions, or a wand, or some kind of times/day item (maybe get your armor enchanted with a lesser restoration 1/day effect) you basically eliminate the need for sleep.

Unless you need to regain spells, of course!

But to my mind, professional martial characters on a mission try to stay ready to fight 24/7. And in PF/DnD, beyond low levels, fatigue is not really an issue because of restorative magic, and thus they will sleep very little, if at all.

Note that there is ample real-world precedent for this: commmando soldiers have been/are regularly issued with drugs such as Pervitin or other amphetamines, even pilots. (They'd probably prefer haste and lesser restoration to speed, by RL kind of sucks that way).

So to sum up, NO you can't remove (or avoid eventually getting) the fatigued condition while wearing a heavy shield, nor could you regain spells. But if you're a martial character beyond low levels you really don't care. At least you should make sure you don't need to care.

There is this rule:

*facepalm*

I must've read that paragraph a hundred times...

Thank you, Are.

Note that you could just change into a Kobold.. and get Darkvision instead of the lightvision the Gnome Gets... plus Kobolds move at 30 feet anyways

I said it was perverse 8-)

Just read the alter self spell.

What, you think I haven't? Please don't insult me.

You do not lose any of your abilities.

That's flat out wrong, the polymorph subschool clearly states I lose all ex and su abilities dependent on form, and also all class features dependent on form.

Your base travel speed remains the same.

That was my assumption, but I would really like to see some argumentation or evidence for this beyond what I have already provided.

You do not lose any natural armor.

Again, that was my assumption, but I think it is debatable, and your assertion without argumentation is not really helping me.

I searched the boards and found several, but didn't find an answer to these questions:

1) Assume I am a sorcerer of a bloodline that grants me a natural armor bonus, and I cast Alter Self.

Do I lose my natural armor bonus?

While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious,

Well this is not obvious, not to me anyway.

My natural armor bonus was a class feature that was very much part of my old form... but did not depend on it as such. I think. However that class feature wasn't one that "allowed me to add" a feature. It just flat added one.

I think the intention here is that I retain my natural armor?

---

2) I use Alter Self to turn from my natural Elven state into a Gnome (perverse, I know).

Is my speed reduced to 20'?

If a polymorph spell causes you to change size, apply the size modifiers appropriately, changing your armor class, attack bonus, Combat Maneuver Bonus, and Stealth skill modifiers. Your ability scores are not modified by this change unless noted by the spell.

Speed is conspicuously absent, both from this paragraph and the spell description.

However the Enlarge and Reduce Person spells (which, I note, are not of the Polymorph subschool) explicitly state that they do not change the target's speed. I wonder: Do they do so because they break the general rule, or is it because they are "newbie" spells, and reiterate the rule to help new players along?

I think that the intention is that Alter Person leaves my speed unchanged?

(This is a somewhat edited repost from here, since it's more appropriate here)

Some more questions about Imbue Arrow:

Imbue Arrow (Sp): At 2nd level, an arcane archer gains the ability to place an area spell upon an arrow. When the arrow is fired, the spell's area is centered where the arrow lands,

1) (minor issue) I imbue an arrow with a Fireball, shoot it at an orc in the middle of a group of orcs, and hit. The Fireball blooms... from where exactly? The arrow hit an orc standing in a square, but Fireballs are centered on grid intersections. Eligible grid intersection (that is, bordering the orc's square) closest to me? Determine randomly? Choose freely?

2)(less minor) I imbue an arrow with Fear, and shoot it at & hit the foremost in a group of foes. Fear affects a 30' cone... but where does that cone originate? A literal reading of Imbue Arrow seems to imply that we need to find the center of the cone (centers of cones don't seem to be explicitly defined anywhere?) and put that over the foe. This puts the origin of the cone some 15' in front of the victim (along the path of the arrow).

Now I suspect that this wasn't the intention, at least it seems counterintuitive to me. I suspect the cone was supposed to originate either (most likely) as if I had been standing right before the victim; or(possibly) from the victim as if it was the caster.

I could also see how some people could take the "centered" wording to mean that only spells with a well-defined center are eligible for Imbue Arrow, i.e., that it means "no cones".

How do you run it?

Oh! I hadn't noticed your thread. Sorry 'bout that, thanks for pointing it out.

I'll go repost my question over there.

Great thread!

Our barbarian uses "ROVAGUG'S WRATH!" as his battlecry.

Tangential but apposite:

I would think it originates from the arrow.

That would mean that, if you hit a monster that occupies one square or less, it is not included in the spell's area (assuming we're talking about cones). Seems odd.

I wonder if you can deliberately strike a grid intersection instead of an enemy. Then you would only roll against, what a 5 AC? You could hit those shots 10 range increments out, giving your spell a range of 2200+.

Your firing an arrow, the arrow is hitting, doing all the things it normally does (normal arrow damage, elemental enhancement damage, elemental damage from the class ability, Strength damage, Deadly Aim damage, class ability damage like from weapon training, various other thigns like gloves of dueling and bracers of archery, etc) AND it is delivering an AoE spell. The idea isn't to look at JUST the spell.

Wouldn't the cone simply be pointed in he direction of the arrow?

Of course. The question is, where does it originate?

(I think the RAI of the phrase "the spells area is centered where the arrow lands" is along the lines of "the spell's point of origin is where the arrow lands, or the grid interseqtion or square along the path of the arrow closest to where the arrow lands, as appropriate for the spell")

Since this thread is already here and alive, may I ask how you interpret this?

Imbue Arrow (Sp): At 2nd level, an arcane archer gains the ability to place an area spell upon an arrow. When the arrow is fired, the spell's area is centered where the arrow lands,

1) (minor issue) I imbue an arrow with a Fireball, shoot it at an orc in the middle of a group of orcs, and hit. The Fireball blooms... from where exactly? The arrow hit an orc standing in a square, but Fireballs are centered on grid intersections. Eligible grid intersection closest to me? Determine randomly? Choose freely?

2)(less minor) I imbue an arrow with Fear, and shoot it at & hit the foremost in a group of foes. Fear affects a 30' cone... but where does that cone originate? A literal reading of Imbue Arrow seems to imply that we need to find the center of the cone (centers of cones don't seem to be explicitly defined anywhere?) and put that over the foe. This puts the origin of the cone some 15' in front of the victim (toward me, of course).

Now I suspect that this wasn't the intention, at least it seems counterintuitive to me. I suspect the cone was supposed to originate either (most likely) as if I had been standing right before the victim; or(possibly) from the victim as if it was the caster.

I could also see how some people could take the "centered" wording to mean that only spells with a well-defined center are eligible for Imbue Arrow, i.e., that it means "no cones".

How do you run it?

Or 5 rounds +1 round per 2/levels, honestly I do not like duration of 'concentration' (+X) because [1]it is too easy to do, people will invariably have summons in place before battle starts which [2]is a very significant advantage

I can understand your concern, but I don't think either [1] or [2] are entirely true.

[1]: Maintaining your concentration is a standard action each turn. It precludes casting other spells, so if you Summon before you know combat is imminent and your party rogue starts taking 20 on Perception checks you won't get into combat before your Light runs out and it can't be renewed without losing the Summon, your Detect Magic runs out and can't be renewed, etc. Also there are many forms of disturbance that will mandate a Concentration check, so if the GM thinks this is being abused, it is easy for him/her to disrupt the tactic.

[2]: If you Summon ahead of time, you lose the insta-flank aspect of the Summon, and it will also be less useful as a battlefield control, since it will have to move out/into battle with the rest of the party. And good luck giving low-level summons (low int, no language) precise instructions without investing in Animal Handling.

If you just wanted a meatshield, Mount would have been a better choice.

Also, it is meant to be a significant boost over current wording (at low levels).

---

Where I now realize I might have been to quick to speak, was in saying that it wouldn't be a significant boost at higher levels. It could significantly boost the utility of some monsters summoned for their SLAs and special abilities, but I think that would mostly be out-of-combat and thus not be unbalancing. Concentration is a female canine in breeding condition (a pox on the 'Murkans and their silly morality necessitating such circumscription)!

it is as silly as casting cantrips for an hour without breaking a sweat, or taking 20 to search a room all the time

Fits the flavor of the game perfectly, then ;-)

Slightly off-topic, but just yesterday I was thinking about a house rule/tweak that would fix this without being overpowered:

Simply change the duration of the Summon spells to concentration + 1 round/level.

Could make a huge difference to low-level non-Summoner, and won't mean a thing at higher levels. I think I will use this in any future games I run.

charm monster don't state that it has different spell level than charm person and yet no one claims it is first level spell.

Charm Person says "Level bard 1, sorcerer/wizard 1" while Charm Monster says "Level bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 4".

No error, this is the conventional way of writing up similar-but-not-identical spells. Compare, for example, Silent Image (duration: concentration) with Minor Image (duration: concentration + 2 rounds), which says in its description "This spell functions like silent image, except that minor image includes some minor sounds but not understandable speech."

Note that all the differing aspects (but only those) are written out in the spell's stat block, Level, Target and Duration in the case of Charm Monster, Level and Duration in the case of Minor Image.

Very interesting!

IIRC, in good ol' DnD you got one XP for each GP worth of loot you found, and this totally dominated the amount of XP gained from an adventure (you got rather less XP for killing things).

This made it make sense for the characters to finish the mission they were on by any means available to them, instead of "kill'em all" being the optimal strategy nearly always. "Incentives matter", economists insist -- not that players aren't bloodthirsty critters that will pick a fight even when it isn't a good idea.

I think your approach rewards a playing style that is more about creative problem-solving and less about being as effective a combat machine as possible, which is good to my mind. (Well, the 3.x guidelines was that you got XP for "overcoming challenges", loosely defined as the things that were between you and the mission objective (i.e., the loot), and that sneaking past the guards should be worth as much XP as killing them, but this required some thought to adjudicate and, being lazy, I was never consistent about it. And neither were any other people I played with, I think).

However I note that the characters end up underpowered compared to the DnD method, as the DnD method would have let them eat their cake (get the XP) and keep it (the gold) too. I presume your campaign is explicitly "low powered" (in scareqoutes since I find the default powerlevel of 3.x/PF to be ridiculously high)? Or do you give out more loot to compensate?

Also, I would love to hear more about your campaign: What it is about, and whether your players enjoy the alternative levelling mechanism or not.

@Castarr4: The rules on touch spells, "holding the charge" and melee touch attacks are spread around a bit in the rules, but once you read all relevant parts (you and Diego Rossi have already quoted them, and also it was all hashed out in the old thread Grick linked to) and integrate them, it becomes clear that

From both sources you can either touch up to 6 friendly targets or make 1 attack the round you cast the spell and as much as [you] are allowed by your BAB the following rounds

("you" of course signifying the caster; emphasis added).

So I think the RAW on attacking w/ touch spells is OK, though of course it would have been better if it was all in one place.

The RAW on Chill Touch, however...

@Titamo: Yes, it may well be that Chill Touch should work like Elemental Touch. However, as they are currently written, they are quite different. ET has Range: Personal / Target: You, and explicitly grants you a touch attack (with some explicit limitations). Which means you are not "holding the charge" of a touch spell, and thus you can pick up items, cast other spells, etc., without discharging the held charge/dissipating the spell. CT, OTOH, has Range: Touch /Target: Creature or creatures touched. Which means casting another spell will make it dissipate (completely? Or just one charge out of 1/lvl charges?), picking up an item will make it discharge (presumably as if you had successfully touch-attacked the item, thus damaging it -- very annoying if you're trying to drink a potion or cast a spell from a wand, and note that the spell is not Dismissable, so you'll have to spend all your charges, or make the spell dissipate by casting at least one other spell).

Given these significant drawbacks, I think it would be OK to be able to deliver Chill Touches with any and all natural attacks -- note that you do get iterative attacks with Elemental Touch, but you don't get iterative attacks with natural attacks.

Could be interesting for a dragon though, or a sorcerer in dragon form. IF it works as I think it does, or wish it should; take your pick.

(and also, to get back to the original topic, it remains somewhat in the gray area what happens when you activate arcane strike or extend your claws -- I could easily see a GM judging that arcane strike is so "spelly" it dissipates held charges, and likening extending claws to picking up items... possibly even ruling you damage yourself thereby)

The FAQ Request thread was flagged "Answered in the errata." It's currently unknown if this is something that will be answered in the errata, or if the flagmaster considers the question already addressed in existing errata.

The only mention of "touch" I can find in Update 1.3 (First to Fifth) is Laughing Touch (making it mind-affecting), target plant touched (for Blight) and Ghoul Touch (making it a poison effect). So I assume that whoever un-FAQ'd that thread meant that it will be answered in the next errata, whenever the sixth edition of the CRB happens....

Yes, I noticed that, and was considering starting a new thread since I'm considering Chill Touch for my current Dragon Disciple-wannabe sorcerer...

There were a lot of questions asked in that thread however (and its OP), so who knows which one was errataed?

FTR I lean heavily toward JJ's multiple-attacks-over-several-rounds interpretation. What I am more unsure about is how CT iteracts with natural attacks: Can I claw, claw, bite and deliver a CT charge with each if I hit? The first sentence of the spell says rather explicitly that "Your hand [note the singular] glows...", but the rules for delivering held charges with (a) natural attack(s) seem to allow it, and the first sentence of a spell description is usually description, rather than mechanics... no?

Flat-footed is a specific condition that only happens in the beginning of combat before a combatant has had the opportunity to move

No, balancing can also make you flatfooted:

[Y]ou can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any).

Someone on the how-to-use-battlefield-control-spells thread opined that Uncanny Dodge meant barbarians and rogues are immune to being made flatfooted by the grease spell. (Since you must make an Acrobatics check to move through it, that would be the normal effect).

I have my misgivings there; I read the Uncanny Dodge text as making you immune to being caught flatfooted at the beginning of combat -- but not immune to being made so through circumstance.

2. Multiclassed Casters should be more viable

Weeeelll.... In 3.x, multiclassing was pretty much mandatory if you wanted a kick-ass character. Noone with anything more than a superficial knowledge of the rules considered playing, say, a straight Fighter for 20 levels (but everyone wanted four levels of fighter in their build).

However, new and/or casual players shouldn't need to agonize for days and weeks over which feats to take when and how many levels of Someclass they need to qualify for the Awesome prestigeclass. However in 3.x, if you didn't, your character wouldn't stand a chance of shining in the company of a "well-built" character. (Not that I didn't indulge in character-building myself; I find it a rather addictive metagame, and I've probably spent more time building 3.x/PF characters than playing them. Oh well).

So I loved that the Pathfinder core rules made the base classes much more interesting to play through an entire career, and made multiclassing less powerful. For any but the most hardcore players, the possibilities in Core alone are almost overwhelming. I know it took me a good bit of reading and thinking to digest how things had changed and what the new stuff meant and how it could be used; still not finished that process, and I'm still on core only... For someone new to RPGs the learning curve must be very steep.

So no, I absolutely do not want multiclassing to be "more viable". And I speculate that it was a conscious decision from the Paizo folks to make it less viable. (I don't want it to become less viable than it is now, either. I think a good balance was found).

The consequense of making multiclassing less powerful, however, seems to be a proliferation of new base classes. And the addition of "archetypes" to tweak the base classes.

Which is not a bad thing in itself; but I do think it should be kept out of the core rules, because if this is to have a beneficial effect on your campaign/playing experience, you have to be very deeply invested, intellectually and emotionally, in the game and the system. Many people, particularly people posting frequently on this forum, are.

But I'm willing to bet that many, even most, Pathfinder players aren't.

So keep Core accessible (relatively anyway) and keep the optional stuff optional.

In fact, if anything, I think it would be a good idea to help new/casual players along by not only reintroducing but expanding on the "Starting Packages" that accompanied the 3.x class descriptions, so that a (few) viable build(s), with feats and equipment, is presented. Not as detailed as the pregens, but a starting package ala 3.x, and some hints on strategy - which feats to take, what spells to learn, etc., if you want to use this or that tactic. Nothing extensive, just something to get new players up the steepest part of the learning curve.

I often give characters an easy, say DC 5, Int or Wis check after they have had some relevant exposure. Been in the same town for a level or two? Everyone that makes their int check gets a rank in Knowledge(local). Been with a wilderness barbarian tribe for some time? Wis check gives a point of Survival, Int check a point of Knowledge(nature).

While this is slightly unfair to those players who put ordinary ranks into those skills anyway, it is only slightly, since they will have gotten the benefit of these ranks them in the interim, and there is never a lot of skill points to be gained this way, anyway.

Also, I feel this makes the characters more believable, since their mechanics now better reflects their history.

(This is one of the places "Roleplaying" clashes with "Optimizing". From a roleplaying viewpoint I feel that at least a fraction of your skill points each level should be devoted to skills you've been using a lot since the last level-up, and not just the skills that are central to your concept or will make you more powerful. None of my fellow players do, however... so when I GM I reduce my cognitive dissonance by handing out essentially free skill ranks. It's not ideal but it works).

A couple of historical inspirations for you...

Byzantine chariot races:

Throughout the Byzantine period, the Hippodrome was the centre of the city's social life. Huge amounts were bet on chariot races, and initially four teams took part in these races, each one financially sponsored and supported by a different political party (Deme) within the Roman/Byzantine Senate: The Blues (Venetoi), the Greens (Prasinoi), the Reds (Rousioi) and the Whites (Leukoi). The Reds (Rousioi) and the Whites (Leukoi) gradually weakened and were absorbed by the other two major factions (the Blues and Greens).

A total of up to eight chariots (two chariots per team), powered by four horses each, competed on the racing track of the Hippodrome. These races were not simple sporting events, but also provided some of the rare occasions in which the Emperor and the common citizens could come together in a single venue. Political discussions were often made at the Hippodrome, which could be directly accessed by the Emperor through a passage that connected the Kathisma (Emperor's Loge at the eastern tribune) with the Great Palace of Constantinople.

The rivalry between the Blues and Greens often became mingled with political or religious rivalries, and sometimes riots, which amounted to civil wars that broke out in the city between them. The most severe of these was the Nika riots of 532, in which an estimated 30,000 people were killed[citation needed] and many important buildings, such as the second Hagia Sophia Church, were destroyed.

That's hooligans for you!

Mesoamerican ballgame:

As might be expected with a game played over such a long period of time by many cultures, details varied over time and place, so the Mesoamerican ballgame might be more accurately seen as a family of related games. It is known in Spanish as juego de pelota ("ballgame"), in Classic Maya as pitz, and in modern Nahuatl as ollamaliztli.

In general, the hip-ball version is most popularly thought of as "the" Mesoamerican ballgame,[17] and researchers believe that this version was the primary—or perhaps only—version played within the masonry ballcourt.[18] Ample archaeological evidence exists for games where the ball was struck by a wooden stick (e.g. a mural at Teotihuacan shows a game which resembles field hockey), racquets, bats and batons, handstones, and the forearm, perhaps at times in combination. The various types of games each had its own size of ball, specialized gear and playing field, and rules.

Games were played between two teams of players. The number of players per team could vary, between 2 to 4.[19][20] Some games were played on makeshift courts for simple recreation while others were formal spectacles on huge stone ballcourts leading to human sacrifice.

Even without human sacrifice, the game could be brutal and there were often serious injuries inflicted by the solid, heavy ball. Today's hip-ulama players are "perpetually bruised"[21] while nearly 500 years ago Spanish chronicler Diego Durán reported that some bruises were so severe that they had to be lanced open. He also reported that players were even killed when the ball "hit them in the mouth or the stomach or the intestines".

Also suitably brutal

Terrible Remorse is a 4th level spell and does what?

I remember the effect the Fleshshiver spell had on a 3.5 campaign i GM'ed when the sorcerer took it. When it was introduced (don't remember where) it was 5th level (necromancy) and would stun anything living not immune to necromancy, no save, for one round before a Fort save or take nontrivial damage and suck. No more running away from Ancient dragons...!

When the Spell Compendium came out, it rewrote Fleshshiver to be a 6th level spell, and also allow a save against the stun effect if the target had hit dice greater than caster level.

I breathed a sigh of relief when the player agreed to "upgrade" it to the 6th level, SC version (we had already agreed it would have to be nerfed somehow, but I hadn't been able to come up with a palatable solution yet).

Is it really in the spirit of things to carry around 20 healing twigs as a main source of mending?

In a word: Yes.

(longish, somewhat tangential rant/musing spoilered)

Any homebrew ones?

Also, any thoughts on which is superior?

And finally, what do people think of it in general?

CunningMongoose's memory is good, there is such a system in Unearthed Arcana. (Given its name and the fact it is a 3.5 supplement could excuse you for thinking it was geared towards 3.5 arcane casters. But it's actually a Houserules Compendium, with a ton of ideas. Try to get hold of it if you're into that stuff). The UA system is very simple, basically take your armor's armor bonus (sans enhancement), divide it by two round down, and that's your armor's (unconditional) DR. The same for NatAmr, but divide by five instead. Shields don't grant DR, and enhancement bonuses do not increase it, both improve armor class as usual.

Thus a scale mail would have a +3 armor bonus and DR 2/-.

As for what I think of it (the UA system, haven't seen the UC one so can't comment on that), it is obviously a big boost to the effectiveness of armor at low levels. Consider a fighter in scale attacked by a thug with a club. 1d6 damage, no Str bonus. A third of the "hits" won't pass through DR at all; the average damage from a "hit" is reduced from 3,5 to 1,67, more than 50%. Yes he will be "hit" more often, but roughly only 10% more often, so it's a huge gain overall.

Another, more subtle benefit is that this reduces variability/randomness of combat damage, and this benefits the character by reducing the chance of death from bad luck (more randomness favors the underdog, and the PCs are the overdogs by design).

This tilts balance in favor of armor-wearers in the early game. Not necessarily bad, but you should be aware of it.

Later however, when melee characters routinely put out more than 50 damage per hit, it's not such a good deal. If you're hit for 50 dam, the 4/- DR of a full plate only reduces damage 8%, whereas the -4 to AC might mean you're hit as much as 20% more often (depending on your AC and attacker's AB, 20% is worst-case).

Also at this level variability isn't such an issue, so that benefit all but disappears.

My verdict:

+ it may enhance coolness

- it's another thing to keep track of, there are enough as is; might slow things down
- it does affect balance

at 2 - and 1 +, - wins.

So "No, thanks" for me, but that's by no means strongly felt.

Edit: I rated the change to balance negatively, despite writing further up that it wasn't necessarily bad, since I realized after writing the subsequent paragraph that it preferentially enhances combat characters' survivability in the early game when they already are the most survivable and thus don't need/deserve it... Whereas in the late game, when they are in grave danger of losing out to casters, it detracts from their survivability. Overall not a change I'd want in my game.

I have been playing DnD since 1979.I started with AD&D and the Basic set.I moved on to 2nd edition and it was fine and i quit when 3.0 started as it was such a drastic change and I did not like it. A little over a year ago i started playing Pathfinder and liked/like it well enough but after playing for a year or so now I am finding my dislike for the system growing stronger day by day. It stems from that fact that the power creep/power level is around tenfold from the DnD I was used to. Like others have said if you like 3.5 you will probably love Pathfinder, if you are looking for the Old School play you remember stick with the old School stuff or one of the retro clones such as swords and Wizardry.

I have come to realize that is not what I want and as a GM I am pretty much forced to play the style that my players want or look for a new group.Most of my current players are friends of 20+ years and they would play the older slower weaker versions of the game if they had to but would rather play the superpowered version.

Like I said I have come to realize that the Pathfinder system and any version of DnD beyond 2.0 is not what I am looking for in a RPG. I play for the sheer fact that that is the most prevalent game system out there being played.

You have played for a decade longer than me, but I sympathise. I too play with a group of friends of twenty years, and I think I recognise your feelings toward the system. Take a break GMing. I didn't when I started to feel that way toward 3.5, until it was too late that is. I got seriously burned out on it. Only now, several years after, finding myself enjoying PF... as a player.

Variation is key. In parallell with our PF game, we have a game of Warhammer FRP (II) going. Different GMs, same group. WFRP is low power level for you. My most recent character started out as a Student. What did he bring to the group? Terrible physical stats, but the ability to read and write! A ton of experience points later, I still have lousy physical stats, but have become... a Physician! I can heal people! Sort of. With more than a bit of luck. And a good bit of time. Well, at least I have social standing.

It is great fun.