A More specific - how would you respond to this request?

[S'mon]

Here's another situation to mull over, which came up in my game:

One of the players, a fighter, kept a sack full of flour and bag of pepper with him wherever he went. When he ran across an invisible, mirror imaged or otherwise obscured enemy, he'd throw the bag of flour at that foe.

As for the pepper, he'd throw the (opened) bag at an opponent's face to blind them.

In both cases, whenever he needed to, he'd restock back in town.

Would you allow this to work and to what extent?

I'd normally have the flower beat the invisibility and not be easily removable - I am absolutely fine with 'mundane trumps magical'. Eventually mages might start showing up with some kind of 'cleansing' spell that blows the flower off them, though, but that would be long-term, and the enemy would still be using valuable resources to counter the tactic.

Pepper in the face seems like something that would only work if the foe is taken by surprise - in 4e it'd be something like: encounter power, requires combat advantage, att vs Ref, if hit then blinded eont & secondary attack vs fort: blinded (save ends).

Edit: The flour would have no effect on a Mirror Imaged target. The solution for mirror images is a bunch of magic missiles - or pebbles. Thinking about it, a mere Cantrip like Tidy could negate the flour coating, but certainly not a mere standard action to remove. Flour is sticky.

 

[Umbran]

One of the players, a fighter, kept a sack full of flour and bag of pepper with him wherever he went. When he ran across an invisible, mirror imaged or otherwise obscured enemy, he'd throw the bag of flour at that foe.

You can argue about whether flour will disappear when it lands on an invisible enemy, but it should at least to reveal footprints. It won't do diddly against mirror image - you now have several images of a guy covered in flour!

As for the pepper, he'd throw the (opened) bag at an opponent's face to blind them.

Can work, but poorly, especially as the critters get better saves.

 

[pemerton]

I would be happy to let a dirt-scattering spell contribute to extinguishing a fire, although it seems that the spell kicks the dirt into the air rather than just dumps it on the ground, which means it might only have a dampening rather than an extinguising effect. (Let's roll % dice! Or perhaps a Spellcraft check?) Is Create Water a 0-level spell in PF? If so, then I'd expect this 1st level spell to have about the same effect as a Create Water spell would (higher level, but not as obviously applicable).

The flour sounds to me like it might be adjudicated as spending a standard action to grant a bonus to Perception checks to spot the enfloured target. (I don't know the 3E/PF action economy that well, but a standard action to grant everyone +5 to spot that target seems reasonable - using the grenade like missile rules to actually achieve delivery?)

On the other hand, I'm a bit suspicious of the pepper trick. A standard action to blind a foe for any length of time is on the strong side, and my rough-and-ready inner simulationist tells me that it can't be that easy to blow blinding dust into the face of an enemy. S'mon's suggestion (perhaps without the secondary Fort attack) seems reasonable.

For all this sort of stuff, I think that the rule system should offer fairly robust guidelines as to how its action economy is meant to work, and how much a single standard action is expected to contribute to the resolution of a challenge. 4e's p 42 is a first stab at these sorts of guidelines, but I don't know if PF has anything similar.

I also like to be guided by tone and genre - "creative spellcasting" is a D&D tradition, whereas too much flour and pepper can get a bit stale - but I see this as less about the GM's role and more about everyone at the table reaching some rough consensus on how much grittiness or inanity they are prepared to tolerate in the game.

 

[Mort]

Here's another situation to mull over, which came up in my game:

One of the players, a fighter, kept a sack full of flour and bag of pepper with him wherever he went. When he ran across an invisible, mirror imaged or otherwise obscured enemy, he'd throw the bag of flour at that foe.

As for the pepper, he'd throw the (opened) bag at an opponent's face to blind them.

In both cases, whenever he needed to, he'd restock back in town.

Would you allow this to work and to what extent?

On the flour trick:

Standard action to throw it - it would reveal if the invisible enemy was in the square and possibly the direction he went - but: the fighter would have to succeed on a touch attack and the miss chance would still apply against the opponent (it's not like the flour coats the invisible mage completely and thoroughly outlines his body). Against things like mirror image, blurr, blink the flour wouldn't do much at all.

Also some campaigns have illusion directly affect the mind and not have a physical component at all (stated up front of course) in which case the flour isn't doing much at all either.

On the pepper trick:

Attack vs. dex. with an improvised weapon (which means no weapon bonus to hit) if hit the target is blind until the end of your next turn. I'd likely only let it be used once in the encounter as anyone ready for it would be hard pressed to fall for the trick - especially twice.

3e would be touch attack - target has a fortitude save (DC 14 or so seems about right) other wise blinded 1-2 rounds. But if the fighter is not trained in improved unarmed combat (or at the very least has the dirty fighting feat) I'd likely rule that the opponent gets and AoO just like if the fighter was trying to punch him without proper training.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I'm firmly in the camp of the DM basically manning up. If you don't want to say yes, then say no. Don't waffle, because that sends the signal that this issue is up for debate. Surprisingly enough, I'm more than willing to spend half an hour debating something like this.

I used to have players who would try all sorts of things that were above and beyond what the rules would allow. We're not talking minor stuff, but rather major, rules bending over the sawhorse type stuff. I finally just had to institute a house rule that any rules discussions had to be taken up after the game unless death was on the line. It was just too disruptive.

Fortunately, now, I have a group that I implicitly trust to make my game better. So, my first reaction to the OP is to say yup, that sounds fine. Cool idea. I mean, Create Water would likely do the same thing and it's the same level, so, groovy. Cast the spell and move on.

But, I can honestly understand why some DM's don't want to go this way. I've had too many players at the table where giving an inch would result in them taking the proverbial mile.

 

[D'karr]

The pepper would be an improvised weapon attack unless he invested in some alchemy to make it more effective. Though I might allow auto success where he had surprise with the pepper.

All my creatures, NPCs included, come standard with nictating membranes. It resolves this pepper abuse rapidly.

They all carry flour and pepper bags too. What's good for the goose, and stuff. I'm pretty sure that PC would get the hint after being blind for every combat since he started his silliness.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

All my creatures, NPCs included, come standard with nictating membranes. It resolves this pepper abuse rapidly.

They all carry flour and pepper bags too. What's good for the goose, and stuff. I'm pretty sure that PC would get the hint after being blind for every combat since he started his silliness.

So if we can get enough flour and pepper dust in the air and someone lets off a fire based spell we can have a nice fuel air explosion.
TPK's for all.

 

[D'karr]

So if we can get enough flour and pepper dust in the air and someone lets off a fire based spell we can have a nice fuel air explosion.
TPK's for all.

Sounds reasonable....

 

[D'karr]

I finally just had to institute a house rule that any rules discussions had to be taken up after the game unless death was on the line.

Inconceivable. This is what we called the Vizzini Theorem.